Effect of Uncertainty on Hub Vibration Response of Composite Helicopter Rotor Blades

Yung Hoon Yu1 Prashant M. Pawar2 Sung Nam Jung1

1
Department of Aerospace Information Engineering
Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Korea

2
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
S.V. E. R. I’s College of Engineering, Pandharpur, Maharashtra, India

Abstract— Main focus of this study is to understand the
effects of uncertainty in the composite material properties on
the helicopter hub vibratory loads. The stochastic behaviors of
composite materials properties obtained from previous experi-
mental studies are used to evaluate the stochastic behaviors of the
cross-sectional stiffness properties of composite rotor blades. The
stochastic behavior of cross-sectional stiffness of composite blades
introduces dissimilarity in the rotor system. A comprehensive
aeroelastic code suitable for dissimilar rotor analysis, which
is based on the governing equations of motion for composite
helicopter rotor blades, obtained using the Hamilton’s principle
is used for vibratory load analysis. The stochastic behaviors of
hub vibratory loads are obtained using Monte-Carlo simulation
along with the aeroelastic analysis code. The baseline blade is
modeled as a one dimensional thin-walled box-section beam with
stiffness properties similar to a stiff-inplane rotor blade.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Composite materials are the most preferred materials in
the aircraft industry because of their superior fatigue char-
acteristics, damage tolerance and stiffness to weight ratio
as compared to that of metals (Ref. 1, 2, 3, 4). These
materials are the most preferred materials for rotor blades
in the modern helicopters. Composite materials for rotor
system bring classical advantages along with reduction in
bulkiness of rotor hub inturn advantage of reducing the profile
drag. However, materials uncertainty is the major problem of
composite materials that of isotropic materials. Uncertainty in
the basic material properties of composites could affect the
behavior of the composite rotor system through the behavior
of individual rotor blade.
Uncertainty analysis of aeroelastic response is a complex
process which involves various nonlinearties and interactions
between structural and aerodynamic disciplines. A review
paper by Pettit (Ref. 5) gives a comprehensive survey on
the influence of the uncertainties in the aeroelastic analysis.
Uncertainties in the aeroelastic analysis could arise from the
structural, aerodynamic and control dynamic factors. Various
studies have been conducted to understand the influence of
the structural uncertainties such as Young’s modulus, bound-
ary conditions, geometrical configurations, and loads on the
aeroelastic response of the structure. Recent applications of
uncertainty quantification to various aeroelastic problems such
Presented at the 65th American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, May 27-
May 29, 2009, Grapevine, Texas, USA. Copyright
2009 c by the American predicting the rotor vibrations for assuming the dissimilarity
Helicopter Society International, Inc. All rights reserved.
as flutter flight-testing, prediction of limit-cycle oscillations,
and design optimization with aeroelastic constraints gives a
new physical insights and promising path towards design im-
provement of the structure. However, almost all the uncertainty
analysis studies were focused on the aeroelastic response of
the fixed wing aircraft (Ref. 6, 7, 8).
Rotorcraft uncertainty analysis is even more complicated
than that of the fixed wing aircraft analysis due to unsymmet-
rical nature of the lift pattern and the rotating components.
Murguan et al. (Ref. 9) initiated the rotorcraft uncertainty
analysis by investigating the effects of material uncertainties
of the composites on the cross-sectional stiffness properties,
natural frequencies, and aeroelastic responses of the composite
helicopter rotor blades. Stochastic behaviors composite mate-
rial properties available in the literature (Ref. 10, 11, 12, 13) in
the form experimental data along with Monte-Carlo simulation
methods are used to estimate the stochastic behaviors of the
cross-sectional stiffness properties and aeroelastic response of
a box beam model of composite rotor blade. The numerical
results show about 6 % coefficient of variation for cross-
sectional stiffness properties and about 3% coefficient of
variation for non-rotating rotor blade natural frequencies. This
study demonstrates that uncertainty in the composite material
properties get propagated into aeroelastic response, which
causes large deviations, particularly in the higher-harmonic
components that are critical for the accurate prediction of
helicopter blade loads and vibration. However, this study was
focused for blade level analysis. The blade level effects may
get transmitted through rotor hub to the helicopter fuselage,
which could change the rotor system behavior affecting the
helicopter vibratory load patterns.
Main rotor system is the principle source of the heli-
copter vibrations, which restricts them from achieving higher
speed, maneuverability, agility, and crew effectiveness. These
vibrations are of the two types: vibrations inherent to the
asymmetric nature of a rotor in forward flight and are present
even in case of balanced rotor (tracked rotor) system; vi-
brations due to the blade-to-blade dissimilarity, which results
from manufacturing uncertainties, highly vibratory operating
conditions and environmental effects (Ref. 14). The current
study is intended to predict the hub vibratory loads arising
from the disimilarity caused due to composite material uncer-
tainties. Few researchers (Ref. 15, 16, 17, 18) have focused on
in the rotor system due to various fault for structural health
monitoring or vibration analysis. The “track and balance” and
“rotor smoothening” are the most popular techniques used
for used for correcting or alleviating the dissimilarities of the
rotor system (Ref. 14). These methods use adjusting weights,
the pitch link and trim tabs are adjusted to minimize the
vibrations using a predetermined relation between vibrations
and corrective adjustments. Few researchers have devoted
efforts to develop an in-flight tracking correction based on
the electro-mechanical actuator, shape memory alloy tracking
tabs (Ref. 19) and a trailing-edge flap (Ref. 20). Roget and
Chopra (Ref. 21) developed trailing edge flap based approach
for simultaneous reduction of the regular vibrations along with
vibrations due to rotor dissimilarities. Recently, Pawar and
Jung (Ref. 22) demonstrated use of active twist control for
vibration reduction in dissimilar composite rotor blades.
Main aim of the current study is to understand the influence
of the composite material uncertainties on the rotor hub
vibratory loads. Uncertainties in the mechanical properties of
the composite materials E1 , E2 G12 and µ12 are used to eval-
uate the stochastic behaviors of the cross-sectional stiffness
values of the composite rotor blades. Using the Monte-Carlo
simulation along with the aeroelastic code, the hub vibratory
loads are obtained under the uncertainties in the cross-sectional
properties of composite blades. The baseline rotor blade is
modeled as a one dimensional thin-walled box-section beam
with stiffness properties similar to a stiff-inplane rotor blade.
First sensitivity analysis is carried out to understand influence
of uncertainty in each cross-sectional stiffness properties.
Finally, stochastic behaviors of first few modes hub vibratory
loads are studied to understand the influence of composite
material uncertainty on the hub vibratory loads.
II. A EROELASTIC ANALYSIS OF DISSIMILAR ROTOR
SYSTEM
Uncertainties in the cross-sectional stiffness properties of
the composite rotor blade introduce dissimilarity in the com-
posite rotor system. A comprehensive aeroelastic analysis
system has been used to obtain the vibrations of a helicopter
with dissimilar rotor system. For the aeroelastic analysis, the
helicopter is represented by a non-linear model of rotating
elastic blades dynamically coupled to a six-degree-of-freedom
rigid fuselage. Each blade undergoes flap (out-of-plane) bend-
ing, lag (in-plane) bending, elastic twist and axial displace-
ment. The governing equations are derived using a generalized
Hamilton’s principle applicable to non-conservative systems:
Z ψ2
δΠ = (δU − δT − δW )dψ = 0 (1)
ψ1
where δU, δW and δT are the virtual variations of strain
energy, kinetic energy and virtual work done, respectively,
and δΠ represents the total potential of the system. The δU
and δT include energy contributions from components that
are attached to the blades, e.g., pitch link and lag damper.
The aerodynamic forces acting on the blades contribute to
the virtual work variational, δW . The aerodynamic forces and
moments are calculated using the unsteady aerodynamic model
developed by Leishman and Beddoes (Ref. 23) along with a
free wake model developed by Bagai and Leishman (Ref. 24)
The effects of composite material are included in the aeroe-
lastic analysis through the strain energy expression. The strain
energy expression of the system can be written in symbolic
form as
δU = δUI + δUC (2)
where δUI is the contribution from isotropic materials, δUC is
the contribution from the composite elastic coupling (Ref. 1).
The finite element method is used to solve the govern-
ing equations of the motion and allows non-uniform blade
properties along the length. A 15-degree of freedom beam
finite element is used to describe the flap-lag-torsion coupled
behavior of rotating blades. Unlike the identical blade analysis,
in the dissimilar rotor system, the blade response of each blade
is obtained individually. Steady and vibratory components of
blade loads are calculated using the force summation method.
In this method, blade inertia and aerodynamic forces are
integrated directly over the length of the blade. The fixed frame
hub loads are obtained by summing the contributions from the
individual blades.
III. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
Uncertainties in the composite material properties are used
to evaluate the stochastic behaviors of the cross-sectional
stiffness properties of the rotor blades. Stochastic behaviors
of cross-sectional stiffness properties of the blades are used
to evaluate stochastic behaviors of hub vibratory loads using
Monte-Carlo simulation along with aeroelastic analysis code.
The baseline rotor blade is modeled as a uniform single-
cell thin walled composite box beam that matches with the
realistic magnitudes of cross-section stiffness, inertia and
rotating frequencies of the stiff-inplane rotor blade (Ref. 25).
Respective dimensions of the box section are: outer width
203.2 mm, outer depth 38.1 mm and wall thickness 3.556 mm.
The mechanical properties are of AS4/3501-6 graphite/epoxy
lamina. The layups of each wall of the box section are given
as [04 /(+15/ − 15)3/(+30/ − 30)2]s . Effects of uncertainties
on hub vibratory loads are studied at in a forward flight
with an advance ratio of 0.3 with a moderate thrust condition
CT /σ = 0.07 and for a Lock number of 6.34.
A. Stochastic behavior of cross-sectional stiffness properties
Experimental studies in the literature (Ref. 10, 11, 12, 13)
on the stochastic behaviors of composite materials show coeffi-
cient of variation (CoV) values of about 5-10 %. Experimental
scattering of E1 , E2 , ν12 of a graphite/epoxy material given in
reference (Ref. 26) have mean values of the material properties
equivalent to that of the baseline blade. Hence, the stochastic
behaviors of E1 , E2 and ν12 given in (Ref. 26) are considered
for the current analysis. Variations in G12 are obtained from
the CoV of the E2 distribution as considered in (Ref. 27). Table
1 show the stochastic behavior of the material properties used
for the design of composite blade.
 Table 1: Stochastic material properties of graphite/epoxy
Material properties Mean (N/m2 ) CoV, % Distribution
E1 , MPa 141.96e3 3.39 Normal
E2 , MPa 9.79e3 4.27 Normal
G12 , MPa 6.00e3 4.27 Normal
ν12 0.42 3.65 Normal

Table 2: Statistics of cross-sectional stiffness properties

C/S Stiffness Mean, N.m2 CoV, % Distribution
EIy 47,811.09 3.053 Normal
EIz 761,304.16 3.052 Normal
GJ 22,800.96 2.678 Normal

Using the Monte Carlo Simulation, stochastic behaviors of

composite material properties are transmitted to the cross-
sectional stiffness properties of the composite blade. Mixed
beam theory (Ref. 28) is used to obtain the cross-sectional
stiffness properties of the composite blade with geometric
properties of the baseline blade and the stochastic composite
material properties given in Table 1. For this stochastic analy-
sis 6000 samples will lead to the convergence of the standard
deviation (Ref. 9). Figure 1 shows the histograms of the cross-
sectional stiffness properties of the composite blades. It can be
noted that the normal distribution of composite material prop-
erties gets transmitted to cross-sectional stiffness properties as
normal distribution. Table 2 shows the mean values and CoV
values for all the cross sectional stiffness properties. The mean
values, CoV and type distribution of cross-sectional stiffness
properties are used for aeroelastic analysis to understand the
effect of composite material uncertainties on the vibratory hub
load behavior.

B. Sensitivity Analysis of Stochastic behavior of Vibratory

Loads
Uncertainties of the cross-sectional stiffness properties of
composite rotor blade are propagated to the nonlinear aeroe-
lastic response of the helicopter rotor blade. First, sensitivities
of the hub vibratory loads to the uncertainties in each cross-
sectional property of composite rotor blade are studied by
assuming the stochastic value of one cross-section stiffness and
the deterministic values of other two cross-sectional stiffness
properties. Baseline vibratory loads of the rotor obtained using
the mean values of cross-sectional stiffness are shown in
Figure 2 and tip responses for this analysis are shown in
Figure 3. It should be noted that these values are equivalent Fig. 1. Section stiffness distribution
to deterministic values in absence of the uncertainties in
composite material property. The baseline values of vibratory
loads for deterministic cross-section stiffness values are used
to evaluate the influence of uncertainties on the hub vibratory
loads and tip responses of the blades.
1) Flap cross-sectional stiffness: Sensitivities of hub vibra-
tory loads for uncertainty in the flap cross-sectional stiffness
properties are studied by assuming the stochastic behavior of
the flap cross-sectional stiffness and deterministic values of
other two cross-sectional stiffness properties. A set of rotor
system with composite blades having stochastic values of
flapwise cross-section stiffness properties and deterministic Fig. 2. Baseline Vibratory Hub Loads
values for other two cross-sectional stiffness properties is
 0.085 system which brings extra harmonics of loads. These loads are
summarized as maximum values at 95 % probability of these
0.075 loads. Table 3 shows 95% probability of maximum value of
vibratory loads due to uncertainty in the flap stiffness values.

Flap (w/r)
0.065
These values are normalized with respective 4/rev loads. 2/rev
Fx and Fy shear forces are the most affected shear forces whose
0.055
maximum values at 95/In case of moments, Mz moments are
the most affected by the uncertainties as compared to other
moments. However, it should be noted the baseline value
0.045
0 90 180
Azimuth angle (degree)
270 360
of 4/rev Mz is quite low as compared 4/rev Mx and My .
Subsequently, 1/rev Mx and My moments are the most affected
0.013
whose values at 95/
0.004
Figure 7 shows the tip responses of all the blades considered
for stochastic analysis due uncertainty in flap cross-sectional
−0.005 stiffness values. These figures show that the flap response
Lag (v/r)

is more sensitive to the uncertainty in flap cross-sectional

−0.014
stiffness value. The peak-to-peak flap, lag and torsion response
−0.023
variation from their baseline values are about 6%, 2.25 % and
1 %.
−0.032
0 90 180 270 360
2) Lag Cross-Section Stiffness: Sensitivity to uncertainty in
Azimuth angle (degree) lag cross-sectional stiffness (EIz ) is carried out by aeroelastic
0.03 analysis of rotor with stochastic values of EIz and deterministic
0.02
values of other two stiffness properties. Figure 8 shows the
histograms whereas Figures 9 and 10 show probability distri-
0.01
bution plots of hub vibratory loads due to uncertainty in the
Torsion (φ)

0
−0.01
−0.02
−0.03
−0.04
0 90 180
Azimuth angle (degree)
Fig. 3. Baseline blade tip responses
considered to obtain the sensitivity. The mean values of lag and
torsion cross-section stiffness properties are considered as their
deterministic values. As the stochastic values of flap cross-
sectional stiffness are considered, cross-section properties of
all the blades in rotor system for each analysis will not
be same which brings the dissimilarity to the rotor system.
Therefore, dissimilar rotor analysis of 6000 rotor system sets
is performed to obtain the stochastic behavior of the vibratory
loads transferred through rotor hubs.
As 4/rev harmonics are not much affected by the stiff-
ness uncertainties, variations in 1/rev, 2/rev, 3/rev and 5/rev
harmonics of loads are considered for analysis. Figure 4
shows histograms whereas Figures 5 and 6 show probability
plots of the hub loads normalized with 4/rev loads. From the
histograms and probability plots, it can be observed that even
though the cross-section properties show the normal distribu-
tion, the vibratory loads show skewness in the histograms and
nonlinear behavior in the probability distribution.
As the baseline rotor is considered a tracked and symmetric,
the values of 1/rev, 2/rev, 3/rev and 5/rev harmonics of hub
loads are zero. However, uncertainties in the cross-sectional
properties of the rotor system bring dissimilarity in the rotor
EIz . From these figures it can be observed that the vibratory
loads are more sensitive to uncertainty in EIz as compared
to uncertainty in EIy . Variations in the vibratory loads for
stochastic values of EIz are summarized as maximum values
at 95 % percent probability in Table 4. 2/rev Fx and Fy are the
270 360 most affected shear forces whose maximum values at 95/
Figure 11 shows the blade tip responses of rotor systems
used for stochastic analysis of hub vibratory loads for uncer-
tainty in EIz . Blade tip responses of various blades used in
the stochastic analysis have more influence of the uncertainty
in EIz . Lag response have more influence of uncertainty in
EIz whose peak-to-peak values varies by about 16.5% from
its baseline values whereas flap and torsion shows about 5.4
% and 2.32 %.
3) Torsion Cross-section Stiffness: Sensitivities of hub vi-
bratory loads to uncertainty in torsion cross-sectional stiffness
(GJ) are studied using aeroelastic analysis of the rotor blades
with the stochastic behavior of GJ and deterministic values
of other two stiffness properties EIy and EIz . Figure 12
shows histograms whereas Figures 13 and 14 show proba-
bility distribution plots of hub vibratory loads. These results
are summarized in Table 5 as the maximum values of hub
vibratory loads at 95 % probability. It can be observed that
1/rev Fz and 2/rev Fx and Fy are the most affected shear forces
whose maximum values at 95% probability are about 0.93,
0.92 and 0.89 times respective 4/rev shear forces, respectively.
Subsequently affected shear forces are 3/rev Fx and Fy whose
maximum values at 95% probability are about 0.20 times of
respective 4/rev shear forces. All other harmonics of shear
forces show their maximum values at 95% probability less
0.11 times that of 4/rev loads. Similar to other sensitivity
analysis, all harmonics Mz are the most affected moments.
Subsequently, 2/rev Mx and My are the most affected
Fig. 4. Histograms of hub vibratory load for stochastic values of flap cross-sectional stiffness
 Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Fx 1/rev Harmonic −5
x 10 Fx 2/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Fx 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Fx 5/rev Harmonic −5
x 10

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Fy 1/rev Harmonic −5
x 10 Fy 2/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Fy 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Fz 1/rev Harmonic −5
x 10

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Fz 2/rev Harmonic −4
x 10 Fz 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Fz 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−7 Fz 5/rev Harmonic −7
x 10

Fig. 5. Probability distribution plots of shear forces for stochastic values of flap cross-sectional stiffness

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 1 2 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Mx 1/rev Harmonic −4
x 10 My 1/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Mz 1/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Mx 2/rev Harmonic −5
x 10

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 5 10 15 20 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
My 2/rev Harmonic −6
x 10 Mz 2/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Mx 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 My 3/rev Harmonic −5
x 10

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10

Mz 3/rev Harmonic −6
x 10 Mx 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−7 My 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−7 Mz 5/rev Harmonic −7
x 10

Fig. 6. Probability distribution plots of moments for stochastic values of flap cross-sectional stiffness
 0.085 C. Stochastic Behaviors of Hub Vibratory Loads
Stochastic behaviors of hub vibratory loads are obtained
0.075
using the stochastic behavior of all the cross-sectional stiff-
ness properties together. Aeroelastic analyses of 6000 rotors
Flap (w/r)
0.065 with composite blades having stochastic behaviors of EIy ,
EIz and GJ stiffness properties are performed to obtain the
0.055 stochastic behaviors of hub vibratory loads. Figure 16 shows
histograms whereas Figures 17 and 18 show the probability
0.045
distribution plots of hub vibratory loads. From these figure
0 90 180 270 360
Azimuth angle (degree) it can be observed that the maximum variations in the loads
0.013
due to uncertainty in each cross-sectional stiffness property
are getting reflected in the stochastic behaviors of the hub
0.004 vibratory loads for when uncertainty in all the cross-sectional
stiffness properties considered together.
−0.005
Stochastic behaviors of the hub vibratory loads are summa-
Lag (v/r)

−0.014
rized in Table 6 as maximum values of hub vibratory loads at
95% probability. From the summary of shear forces it can be
−0.023 observed that 1/rev Fx , 2/rev Fx and Fy are the most affected
shear forces whose maximum values at 95 % probability
−0.032
0 90 180 270 360 are about 1.05, 2.07 and 1.96 times that of respective 4/rev
Azimuth angle (degree)
loads, respectively. Subsequently, affected shear forces 2/rev
0.03
Fz , 3/rev Fx and Fy whose maximum values at 95 % probability
0.02 are about 0.25, 0.42 and 0.36 times respective 4/rev forces,
0.01
respectively. Other considerably affected shear forces 1/rev Fx
and Fy and 3/rev Fz whose maximum values at 95% probability
Torsion (φ)

0
are about 0.17, 0.15 and 0.12 times respective 4/rev shear
−0.01
forces.
−0.02 In case of hub vibratory moments, similar to sensitivity anal-
−0.03 ysis, maximum variations are observed in all the harmonics in
−0.04
Mz . Even though, the baseline values of 4/rev harmonics Mz
0 90 180 270 360
Azimuth angle (degree) is quite low which are about 22 times smaller than 4/rev Mx
and My , 1/rev Mz shows quite high variation which is about
Fig. 7. Tip responses of rotors for stochastic values of flap cross-sectional 1.4 times that of 4/rev Mx and My . Subsequently, influenced
stiffness moments are 1/rev Mx and My whose maximum values at
95% probability are about 0.52 and 0.41 times that of 4/rev
moments, respectively. Values of 2/rev Mx and My show
Table 3: Maximum values of hub vibratory loads at 95% percent considerable influence with their maximum values at 95%
probability for stochastic behavior of flap stiffness values probability are about 0.27 and 0.24 times of 4/rev values. All
Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz other harmonics shows their values less than 0.1 times that of
1 0.092 0.085 0.074 0.489 0.398 4.343 4/rev moments.
2 0.285 0.287 0.078 0.063 0.020 1.024 Figure 19 shows variations in tip responses used for the
3 0.030 0.023 0.105 0.043 0.046 0.099
5 0.015 0.013 0.43e-4 1.91e-3 1.81e-3 0.030 stochastic analysis of vibratory loads due stochastic behavior
of flap, lag and torsion cross-sectional stiffness properties.
Uncertainty in all the cross-sectional stiffness shows signif-
moments whose maximum values at 95% probability are icant influence on the lag response and subsequently on flap
about 0.24 and 0.23 times that of 4/rev moments, respectively. and torsion responses. The peak-to-peak response variations
1/rev Mx and My moments are 0.099 and 0.088 times of that of flap, lag and torsion responses are about 15.2%, 20.27%
respective 4/rev harmonics. Variations of all other moment and 10.2% with respect to their baseline values, respectively.
harmonics are less than 0.024 times of that respective 4/rev
harmonics. IV. C ONCLUSION
Figure 15 show tip responses of the rotors used for vibra- In this study the stochastic behaviors of hub vibratory loads
tory load sensitivity assessment for uncertainty in GJ. Flap due to uncertainty in composite materials are studied. The
deflection shows maximum variation as compared to other stochastic behaviors of composite material properties obtained
responses due to uncertainty in GJ. Peak-to-peak variation in from the experimental data in the literature are used to
flap response from its baseline value is about 13.71% whereas calculate the stochastic behavior of the cross-section stiffness
peak-to-peak variations for torsion and lag response are about properties. Following Conclusions are drawn from this study.
11.5% and about 3.7% from their baseline values, respectively.
Fig. 8. Histograms of hub loads for stochastic values of lag cross-sectional stiffness
 Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 5 10 15 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Fx 1/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Fx 2/rev Harmonic x 10
−3 Fx 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Fx 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−6

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Fy 1/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Fy 2/rev Harmonic x 10
−3 Fy 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Fy 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−6

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Fz 1/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Fz 2/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Fz 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Fz 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−6

Fig. 9. Probability distribution plots of shear forces for stochastic values of lag cross-sectional stiffness

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Mx 1/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Mx 2/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Mx 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Mx 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−7

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

My 1/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 My 2/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 My 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 My 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−7

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 2 4 6 8 10

Mz 1/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Mz 2/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Mz 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Mz 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−7

Fig. 10. Probability distribution plots of moments for stochastic values of lag cross-sectional stiffness
 0.085 as compared to other moments and 1/rev Mx and My
moments are the subsequently affected moments.
0.075 4. Uncertainty in lag cross-sectional stiffness show, very
high influence on Second harmonics of Fx and Fy as
0.065
was observed as compared to that of other stiffness
properties and 1/rev Fz and 2/rev Fx and Fy are the
0.055
subsequently affected moments. All the harmonics Mz
have very high influence of uncertainty in the EIz as
compared to uncertainty in the EIy .
0.045
0 90 180 270 360
5. Uncertainty in torsion wise cross-sectional stiffness prop-
erties show high influence on 1/rev Fz and 2/rev Fx and Fy
0.013
and subsequently, on 3/rev Fx and Fy shear forces. In case
0.004
of moments, similar to other sensitivity analysis, most
affected moment are all harmonics Mz and subsequently,
−0.005 second harmonics Mx and My whose values are about
0.24 and 0.23 times that of 4/rev moments, respectively.
−0.014
6 when the all the cross-sectional stiffness properties are
−0.023
considered with stochastic behavior, 1/rev Fx , 2/rev Fx and
Fy show quite high influence whose distribution is about
−0.032
0 90 180 270 360
1-2 times that of respective 4/rev loads whereas 2/rev Fz ,
3/rev Fx and Fy show variations upto 0.25-0.40 times that
0.03 of respective 4/rev loads. Similar to sensitivity analysis,
0.02
Mz moments is highly influenced by the uncertainty in
all the cross-sectional stiffness properties.
0.01
7 Comparison of the sensitivity analysis and the stochastic
0
analysis of hub vibratory loads with uncertainty in all
−0.01 the blade cross-sectional stiffness properties show that
−0.02
lag stiffness uncertainty is responsible for 2/rev, 3/rev
Fx and Fy and torsion stiffness uncertainty is responsible
−0.03
for 1/rev Fx , Fy and Fz . Uncertainties in flap stiffness
−0.04
0 90 180 270 360 properties affects less as compared to other stiffness
uncertainties. Large variations in Mz are combined effect
Fig. 11. Tip responses of rotors for stochastic values of lag cross-sectional of uncertainty in lag and torsion stiffness properties. This
stiffness properties comparison helps in minimizing the hub load variations
by minimizing the uncertainties in various cross-sectional
stiffness properties.
Table 4: Maximum values at 95% percent probability for stochastic
behavior of lag stiffness values
R EFERENCES
Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz
1 0.100 0.016 0.468 0.144 0.039 27.322 1. Smith, E. C. and Chopra, I., “Aeroelastic Response
2 1.917 1.792 0.232 0.137 0.093 13.815 and Blade Loads of a Composite Rotor in Forward
3 0.367 0.347 0.032 0.085 0.080 1.328
5 0.002 0.003 0.86e-3 1.71e-3 1.54e-3 0.027 Flight”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 31 (7), 1993, pp. 1265-
1273.
2. Volovoi, V., Hodges, D. H., Cesnik, C., and
1. It was noticed that the composite material properties have Popescu, B., ”Assessment of Beam Modeling for Ro-
stochastic behavior in the form of normal distribution lead tor Blade Application,” Mathematical and Computer
to same form of stochastic behavior with different COV Modelling, Vol. 33, Nos. 10-11, 2001, pp. 1099-
for cross-sectional stiffness properties. 1112.
2. Similar to previous dissimilar rotor analysis studies, major 3. Friedmann, P. P., ”Rotary-Wing Aeroelasticity: Cur-
influence of uncertainty which brings dissimilarity was rent Status and Future Trends,” AIAA Journal, Vol.
noticed on the non − Nb /rev harmonics. Eventhough the 42, No. 10, 2004, pp. 1953-1972.
cross-sectional stiffness properties show normal distribu- 4. Ganguli, R., ”A Survey of Recent Developments in
tion, the histograms and probability distribution of hub Rotorcraft Design Optimization,” Journal of Aircraft,
vibratory loads shows nonlinearity in the distribution. Vol. 41, No. 3, 2004, pp. 493-510.
3. For the uncertainty in the flap cross-section stiffness the 5. Petit, C. L., “Uncertainty Quantification in Aeroe-
second harmonics of Fx and Fy shear forces are the most lasticity: Recent Results and Research Challenges”,
affected shear forces and subsequently, all the 1/rev, 2/rev Journal of Aircraft, Vol.43, No. 5, 2004, pp. 1217-
and 3/rev Fz shear forces are affected. In case of moments, 1229.
Mz moments are the most affected by the uncertainties
Fig. 12. Histograms of hub loads for stochastic values of torsion cross-sectional stiffness
 Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 5 10 15 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fx 1/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Fx 2/rev Harmonic −4
x 10 Fx 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Fx 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−6

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 5 10 15 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Fy 1/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Fy 2/rev Harmonic −4
x 10 Fy 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Fy 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−6

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5

Fz 1/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Fz 2/rev Harmonic −4
x 10 Fz 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Fz 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−6

Fig. 13. Probability distribution plots of shear forces for stochastic values of torsion cross-sectional stiffness

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

0.50 0.50 0.50 Probability 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Mx 1/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Mx 2/rev Harmonic −5
x 10 Mx 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−6 Mx 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−7

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
My 1/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 My 2/rev Harmonic −5
x 10 My 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−6 My 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−7

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Mz 1/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Mz 2/rev Harmonic −4
x 10 Mz 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−6 Mz 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−7

Fig. 14. Probability distribution plots of moments for stochastic values of torsion cross-sectional stiffness
 Table 5: Maximum values at 95% percent probability for stochastic
behavior of torsion stiffness values 9. Murgan, S., Ganguli, R. and Harursampath D.,
Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz “Aeroelastic Response of Composite Helicopter Ro-
1 0.100 0.119 0.931 0.100 0.089 13.552 tor with Random Material Properties”, Journal of
2 0.918 0.891 0.111 0.242 0.228 6.594
3 0.204 0.189 0.033 0.024 0.022 0.196 Aircraft, Vol. 45, No. 1, January-February, 2008, pp.
5 4.13e-3 3.77e-3 2.79e-3 2.03e-3 1.88e-3 0.029 306-322.
10. Salim, S., Yadav, D., and Iyengar, N. G. R., ”Anal-
ysis of Composite Plates with Random Material
0.085
Characteristics,” Mechanics Research Communica-
tions, Vol. 20, No. 5, 1993, pp. 405-414.
0.075
11. Yadav, D., and Verma, N., ”Buckling of Composite
Circular Cylindrical Shells with Random Material
Flap (w/r)

0.065 Properties,” Composite Structures, Vol. 37, Nos. 3-4,

1997, pp. 385-391.
0.055 12. Onkar, A. K., and Yadav, D., ”Non-linear Re-
sponse Statistics of Composite Laminates with Ran-
0.045
dom Material Properties under Random Loading,”
0 90 180 270 360
Azimuth angle (degree) Composite Structures, Vol. 60, No. 4, 2003, pp. 375-
0.013
383.
13. Onkar, A. K., and Yadav, D., ”Forced Nonlinear
0.004 Vibration ofLaminated Composite Plates with Ran-
dom Material Properties,” Composite Structures, Vol.
−0.005
70, No. 3, 2005, pp. 334-342.
Lag (v/r)

−0.014
14. Rosen A and Ben-Ari R 1997 Mathematical mod-
elling of a helicopter rotor track and balance: theory
−0.023 Journal of Sound and Vibration 200 589-603.
15. Wang, J. M. and Chopra, I., “Dynamics of Heli-
−0.032
0 90 180 270 360 copters with Dissimilar Blades in Forward Flight”,
Azimuth angle (degree)
17th European Rotorcraft Forum (Berlin, Germany),
0.03
1991
0.02 16. Ganguli, R., Chopra, I. and Haas, D. J., “Simula-
0.01
tion of Helicopter Rotor-System Damage, Blade Mis-
tracking, Friction, and Freeplay”, Journal of Aircraft,
Torsion (φ)

0
−0.01
−0.02
−0.03
−0.04
0 90 180
Azimuth angle (degree)
Fig. 15. Tip responses of rotors for stochastic values of torsion cross-sectional
stiffness
6. Kim, T. K., and Hwang, I. H., ”Reliability Anal-
ysis of Composite Wing Subjected to Gust Loads,”
Composite Structures, Vol. 66, Nos. 1-4, 2004, pp.
527-531.
7. Pradlwarter, H. J., Pellissetti, M. F., Schenk, C.
A., Schuller, G. I., Kreis, A., Fransen, S., Calvi,
A., and Klein, M., ”Realistic and Efficient Reliabil-
ity Estimation for Aerospace Structures,” Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,
Vol. 194, Nos. 12-16, 2005, pp. 1597-1617.
8. Koutsourelakis, P. S., Kuntiyawichai, K., and
Schuller, G. I., ”Effect of Material Uncertainties
on Fatigue Life Calculations of Aircraft Fuselages:
A Cohesive Element Model,” Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, Vol. 73, No. 9, 2006, pp. 1202-1219.
Vol. 35, 1998, pp. 591-597.
17. Yang, M., Chopra, I. and Haas, D. J., “Vibra-
tion Prediction for Rotor System with Faults using
Coupled Rotor-Fuselage Model”, Journal of Aircraft,
2004 Vol. 41, pp. 348-358.
270 360
18. Hemant K. Singh, Prashant M. Pawar, Ranjan
Ganguli, Sung Nam Jung On the effect of mass and
stiffness unbalance on helicopter tail rotor system
behavior, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Tech-
nology 2008, 80, 2, 129 - 138
19. McKillip, R., “Digital SMA-based Tracking Tabs
for One-per-rev Vibration Reduction”, AHS Interna-
tional 59th Annual Forum Proceedings (Phoenix, AZ,
USA) pp.1692-1719, May 2003.
20. Hall, S.R.; Spangler, Jr.; Ronald L., Piezoelectric
Helicopter Blade Flap Actuator, Massachusetts In-
stitute of Technology (Cambridge, MA), U.S. patent
5,224,826 , July 1989
21. Roget, B. and Chopra, I., “Individual Blade
Control Methodology for a Rotor with Dissimilar
Blades”, Journal of the American Helicopter Society,
Vol. 48, (3), Jul 2003, pp. 176-185.
22. Prashant M Pawar and Sung Nam Jung1 Active
twist control methodology for vibration reduction
of a helicopter with dissimilar rotor system, Smart
Mater. Struct. 18 (2009) 035013 (11pp)
Fig. 16. Histograms of hub loads for stochastic values of all the cross-sectional stiffness properties
 Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Fx 1/rev Harmonic −4
x 10 Fx 2/rev Harmonic x 10
−3 Fx 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Fx 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−5

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 1 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Fy 1/rev Harmonic −4
x 10 Fy 2/rev Harmonic x 10
−3 Fy 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Fy 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−5

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fz 1/rev Harmonic −3
x 10 Fz 2/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Fz 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Fz 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−6

Fig. 17. Probability distribution plots of shear forces for stochastic values of all the cross-sectional stiffness

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

0.50 0.50 0.50 Probability 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Mx 1/rev Harmonic −4
x 10 Mx 2/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Mx 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Mx 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−6

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

My 1/rev Harmonic −4
x 10 My 2/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 My 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 My 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−6

Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot Normal Probability Plot

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Mz 1/rev Harmonic −4
x 10 Mz 2/rev Harmonic x 10
−4 Mz 3/rev Harmonic x 10
−5 Mz 5/rev Harmonic x 10
−7

Fig. 18. Probability distribution plots of moments for stochastic values of all the cross-sectional stiffness properties
 Table 6: Maximum values at 95% percent probability for stochastic
behavior of all the stiffness values tural Behaviour of Composite Materials Structural
Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz Components”, Composite Structures, Vol. 32, Nos.
1 0.172 0.151 1.055 0.523 0.410 31.005 1-4, 1995, pp. 247-253.
2 2.070 1.963 0.248 0.271 0.240 15.858
3 0.417 0.359 0.118 0.097 0.097 1.343 27. Singh, B. N., Yadav, D., and Iyengar, N. G. R.,
5 0.016 0.014 3.10e-3 3.40e-3 3.15e-3 0.050 “Free Vibration of Composite Cylindrical Panels
with Random Material Properties”, Composite Struc-
tures, Vol. 58, No. 4, 2002, pp. 435-442.
0.085
Blade Tip Response (Flap) 28. Jung, S. N., Nagaraj, V. T. and Chopra, I. “Refined
0.08
Structural Dynamics Model for Composite Rotor
0.075
Blades”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 39 (2), 2001, pp. 339-
348.
0.07
w/r

0.065

0.06

0.055

0.05

0.045
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Azimuth angle (degree)

Blade Tip Response (Lag)

0.015

0.01

0.005

−0.005
v/r

−0.01

−0.015

−0.02

−0.025

−0.03

−0.035
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Azimuth angle (degree)

Blade Tip Response (Torsion)

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
phi (rad)

−0.01

−0.02

−0.03

−0.04
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Azimuth angle (degree)

Fig. 19. Tip responses of rotors for stochastic values all the stiffness
properties

23. Leishman, J. G. and Beddoes, T. S. “A semi-

empirical model for dynamic stall”, Journal of Amer-
ican Helicopter Society, Vol. 34, 1989, pp. 3-17.
24. Bagai, A. and Leishman, J. G., “Rotor free-
wake modeling using a pseudo-implicit technique
including comparisons with experiment”, Journal of
American Helicopter Society, Vol. 40, 1995, pp. 29-
41.
25. Smith, E. C., “Vibration and Flutter of Stiff-
inplane Elastically Tailored Composite Rotor
Blades”, Mathematical and Computer Modelling,
Vol. 19 (3-4), 1994, pp. 27-45.
26. Vinckenroy, G. V. and Wilde, W. P. De., “The
Use of Monte Carlo Techniques in Statistical Finite
Element Methods for the Determination of the Struc-