On the Modeling of Hydraulic Components in Rotorcraft Systems

Olivier A. Bauchau

Haiying Liu
School of Aerospace Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA

A physics based methodology for modeling of hydraulic devices within multibody-based comprehensive models of rotorcraft
systems is developed. The proposed models are developed in two stages. At first, models are developed for three basic
hydraulic elements: the hydraulic chamber, the hydraulic orifice and the pressure relief valve. These models consist of
nonlinear differential equations involving empirical parameters. Next, these basic elements are combined to yield device
models for linear hydraulic actuators, simple hydraulic dampers, and hydraulic dampers with pressure relief valves. The
proposed hydraulic device models are implemented in a multibody code and calibrated by comparing their predictions with
test bench measurements for the UH-60 helicopter leadlag damper. While predicted peak damping forces are found to
be in good agreement with measurements, the model does not predict the entire time history of damper force to the same
level of accuracy. The validated model of the UH-60 leadlag damper model is coupled with a comprehensive model of the
vehicle. Measured aerodynamic loads are applied to the blade and predicted damper forces are compared with experimental
measurements. A marked improvement in the prediction is observed when using the proposed model rather than a linear
approximation of the damper behavior.

Nomenclature
a, b
A
Aorf
Aprv1
A0 , A1
B
c
Cd
d
e
Fh
Fp
k
Km
m
p
p E0 , p E1
ps
Q orf
Q prvl
ti , t f
u
u k0 , u `0
uk , u`
u0
V

V0
,
1p
1t = t f ti

coefficients defining the pressure relief valve sectional

area, see Eq. (7)
hydraulic chamber sectional area
hydraulic orifice sectional area
pressure relief valve sectional area
pressure relief valve front and back areas, respectively
oil bulk modulus
pressure relief valve dashpot constant
orifice discharge coefficient
hydraulic chamber length change
unit vector along hydraulic actuator axis
force generated by hydraulic actuator
pressure relief valve preload force
pressure relief valve spring constant
effective stiffness matrix of hydraulic device
pressure relief valve poppet mass
hydraulic chamber pressure
hydraulic actuators orifice entrance pressures
hydraulic circuit background pressure
hydraulic orifice volumetric flow rate
volumetric flow rate through a pressure relief valve
initial and final times of a time step, respectively
relative displacement of actuator end points
initial positions of the hydraulic actuator end points
displacements of the hydraulic actuator end points
initial relative position of actuator end points
hydraulic chamber volume

hydraulic chamber initial volume

coefficients defining the oil bulk modulus; see Eq. (3)
pressure differential across a hydraulic orifice
time step size
hydraulic chamber configuration dependent parameter
hydraulic fluid mass density

Subscript
()i
() f
()orf
()prvl
()

quantity at time ti
quantity at time t f
quantity associated with a hydraulic orifice
quantity associated with a pressure relief valve
derivative with respect to time
Introduction

The behavior of hydraulic actuators and dampers can be modeled

in several manners. In the first approach, very simple idealizations of
hydraulic components are used. For instance, a hydraulic damper would
be idealized as a dashpot: the force in the damper is proportional to the
relative velocity of the piston. More often than not, the actual damper will
exhibit a nonlinear forcevelocity relationship and a linear approximation
is clearly too crude. The accuracy of the predictions might be improved
if the damper is modeled as a nonlinear dashpot; this approach is widely
used in industry. In that case, the nonlinear characteristics of the device
are identified by a number of bench experiments, typically involving
harmonic excitations of the device at various frequencies and amplitudes.
The main drawback of this approach is that the physical characteristics
identified under harmonic excitation might not yield good results when
the device is subjected to arbitrary excitation in time.

Manuscript received March 2005; accepted January 2006.

175

176

O. A. BAUCHAU

In the second approach, the hydrodynamic behavior of the device is

linearized to obtain one or more ordinary differential equations relating
control inputs to the forces generated by the device; typical equations are
given in text books such as those of Viersma (Ref. 1) or Canon (Ref. 2).
While this approach is physics based and captures some basic aspects of
hydraulic devices, the linearization process is clearly too restrictive. In
fact, rotorcraft leadlag dampers are often purposely designed to behave
in a nonlinear manner. Indeed, a linear device would generate high damping forces under high stroking rates; these high forces must be reacted at
the hub and at the root of the blade, creating high stresses and decreasing
fatigue life. A possible remedy to this situation is to use pressure relief
valves that act as force limiters, implying a nonlinearity essential to the
design and behavior of the device.
In the last approach, a physics based, fully nonlinear representation
of hydraulic devices is implemented. This enables the determination of
the complex interaction phenomena between the structural and actuator
dynamics: pressure levels in the hydraulic chambers are now coupled
with the dynamic response of the system. This paper describes such an
approach in detail, and its predictions are validated against bench test
measurements and flight test data for Sikorskys UH-60 aircraft.
The modeling of hydraulic devices has been the subject of detailed
studies. In Ref. 3, Welsh proposed a detailed model for predicting the
dynamic response of helicopter airoil landing gear that included several
degrees of freedom representing the tire, floating piston, orifice piston,
and simple fluid and adiabatic gas models. In a later effort (Ref. 4) the
same author addressed the problem of modeling the lubrication system
of a helicopter using a similar approach. In both cases, detailed models of
the hydraulic systems were developed, but these were not coupled with
the dynamic response of the vehicle.
A variety of hydraulic devices are used in the rotorcraft industry:
hydraulic actuators are crucial components of many main rotor control
systems, hydraulic leadlag dampers are used in many rotor designs, and
landing gear often involve hydraulic or pneumatic elements. In the case
of leadlag dampers, the hydraulic device tightly interacts with the rotor
response; in fact, blade root edgewise moments depend to a large extent
on damper response characteristics. To deal with this variety of devices,
a modular approach is taken. At first, models are developed for three
basic hydraulic elements: the hydraulic chamber, the hydraulic orifice,
and the pressure relief valve. Models for entire hydraulic devices are
then constructed by assembling the models of a number these hydraulic
elements. In this work, models for hydraulic actuators, simple hydraulic
dampers, and hydraulic dampers with pressure relief valves are discussed.
Once a model of the hydraulic device is in hand, it is to be coupled
with a comprehensive rotorcraft simulation code. In this effort, hydraulic
device models are coupled to a finite element based multibody formulation of a helicopter rotor system within a comprehensive analysis (Ref. 5).
Within the framework of flexible mechanism analysis codes, the modeling of hydraulic devices has attracted limited attention; in Ref. 6, models
were proposed for a hydraulic jack and for the actuator of an aircraft
retractable landing gear.
Conceptually, the coupling of a hydraulic device model with a comprehensive rotorcraft modeling code is straightforward. First, the hydraulic
device model predicts the instantaneous force the device applies on the
supporting structure. In turn, this force is applied to the dynamic model
of the vehicle to predict displacements and velocities. Finally, these kinematic quantities change the stroke of the hydraulic device, and hence, its
force output. In a finite element formulation, this is readily achieved by
connecting the end points of the hydraulic device to two nodes of the
finite element discretization.
The present paper has two main goals. First, a comprehensive modeling approach will be presented for hydraulic devices, such as hydraulic
actuators and dampers. Second, these models will be coupled to a com-

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY

prehensive rotorcraft model using a finite element based multibody formulation. The paper is organized in the following manner. The first section presents models for the basic hydraulic elements, and the second
section shows how these basic models can be combined to deal with
various hydraulic devices. Next, issues associated with the coupling of
hydraulic devices models with finite element based multibody formulations of rotorcraft dynamic simulation are discussed, with special focus
on the integration of the hydraulic equations. The modeling approach is
then validated using a number of numerical examples. Finally, conclusions of this work are offered.
Basic Hydraulic Elements
Hydraulic devices can be seen as an assembly of simple hydraulic
elements; in this work, three basic hydraulic elements will be presented:
hydraulic chambers, orifices, and pressure relief valves. These basic elements are described in the following sections. Of course, a variety of
other elements could be developed, such as hydraulic accumulators or
check valves.
Hydraulic chamber
The hydraulic chamber, shown in Fig. 1, is probably the most common
hydraulic component. The chamber, of volume V and cross-sectional area
A, is filled with a hydraulic fluid of bulk modulus B under pressure p.
Often, due to the presence of a piston, the length of the chamber can vary.
The change in length of the chamber, due to piston motion, is denoted
d. Finally, hydraulic fluid can flow into the chamber; Q denotes the net
volumetric flow rate into the chamber.
The evolution of the pressure in the chamber is governed by the following first order differential equation
p =

(Q A d)
V

(1)

The factor is a configuration dependent parameter: if a positive value of

d increases the volume of the chamber, = +1; = 1 in the opposite
case. The instantaneous volume of the chamber is
V = V0 + Ad

(2)

The bulk modulus of the hydraulic fluid is a function of the fluid pressure;
an accurate approximation of this dependency is written as
B=

1 + p + p 2
+ 2p

(3)

where and are physical constants for the hydraulic fluid; see Ref. 1.
Hydraulic orifice
The hydraulic orifice, shown in Fig. 2, allows the flow of hydraulic
fluid through an orifice of sectional area Aorf . The orifice is connected

Fig. 1. Configuration of a hydraulic chamber.

APRIL 2006

ON THE MODELING OF HYDRAULIC COMPONENTS IN ROTORCRAFT SYSTEMS

177

Hydraulic Devices
The hydraulic elements described in the previous section can be combined to form practical hydraulic devices such as linear hydraulic actuators, simple dampers, or dampers with pressure relief valves, which
are described below. More complex devices could be modeled using the
same technique.

Fig. 2. Configuration of a hydraulic orifice.

Hydraulic linear actuator

Fig. 3. Configuration of a pressure relief valve.

to two hydraulic chambers with pressures p0 and p1 , respectively. A

pressure differential, 1p = p0 p1 , will drive a flow rate Q orf across the
orifice; the positive direction of this flow rate is indicated on the figure.
The magnitude of this volumetric flow rate is related to the pressure
differential by the following equation
s
2|1p| 1p
Q orf = Aorf Cd
(4)
|1p|
For turbulent flow conditions, the theoretical value of the discharge coefficient is Cd = 0.611; see Ref. 1.

The linear hydraulic actuator combines two hydraulic chambers,

chamber 0 and chamber 1, and two orifices, orifice 0 and orifice 1, to
form the configuration depicted in Fig. 4. The hydraulic chamber 0 and
chamber 1 are under pressures p0 and p1 , respectively; note that the
factors are +1 and 1 for the two chambers, respectively. The hydraulic
orifice 0 and orifice 1 generate flow rates Q 0 and Q 1 into chambers 0
and 1, respectively. The two orifices have entrance pressures p E0 and
p E1 , respectively. To increase the length of the actuator, control valves
(not part of the present model) will set the entrance pressure of orifice 0
to a high value, ph , such that p E0 = ph , while the entrance pressure of
orifice 1 remains at a low value, ps , such that p E1 = ps . To decrease the
length of the actuator, the control valves reverse the pressure level at the
entrance to the two orifices.
The force generated by the actuator is
F h = p0 A 0 p 1 A 1

(8)

The governing equations for the linear hydraulic actuator include equations for the pressures p0 and p1 in the two chambers, Eq. (1), and
equations for the flow rates Q 0 and Q 1 through the orifices, Eq. (4).
Most hydraulic actuators are also equipped with check valves that
connect the hydraulic chambers to the circuit background pressure when
the chamber pressure falls below the background pressure, in an effort to
avoid cavitation in the chamber.

Pressure relief valve

Simple hydraulic damper
The pressure relief valve, shown in Fig. 3, is connected to two hydraulic chambers with pressures p0 and p1 , respectively. It features a
poppet connected to a spring and dashpot; the spring is preloaded with a
pre-load force. The equation of motion of the pressure relief valve is
m x + c x + kx = ( p0 A0 p1 A1 ) Fp

(5)

When the net force acting on the poppet is smaller than the pre-load force,
i.e., when p0 A0 p1 A1 < Fp , the valve remains closed, x = x = 0. On the
other hand, when the net force is large enough to overcome the pre-load
force, the poppet opens and its motion is governed by Eq. (5). Once the
valve is open, fluid will flow through the valve at the following volumetric
rate
s
2|1p| 1p
Q prvl = Aprv1 Cd
(6)
|1p|

The simple hydraulic damper combines two hydraulic chambers,

chamber 0 and chamber 1, and one orifice connecting the two chambers to form the configuration depicted in Fig. 5. The hydraulic chamber
0 and chamber 1 are under pressures p0 and p1 , respectively; note that
the factors are +1 and 1 for the two chambers, respectively. The
hydraulic orifice generates a flow rate Q from chamber 0 into chamber
1. If the length of the damper increases (i.e., piston and rod move to the
right in Fig. 5), pressure p1 increases whereas pressure p0 decreases. This
generates a pressure differential across the orifice and hence, a flow rate
Q into chamber 0 that tends to equilibrate the pressures in the chambers.

where 1p = p0 p1 is the pressure differential across the valve. The area

Aprv1 through which the fluid flows is a function of the valve opening
(
ax + bx 2 x > 0
Aprv1 =
(7)
0
x 0
The pressure relief valve acts as a pressure regulator: when the pressure differential across the valve becomes high enough, p0 A0 > p1 A1 +
Fp , the valve open and the ensuing flow tends to equilibrate the pressures,
at which point, the valve closes.

Fig. 4. Configuration of the hydraulic actuator.

178

O. A. BAUCHAU

Fig. 5. Configuration of the simple hydraulic damper.

The force generated by the damper always opposes the motion and is,
therefore, a damping force.
The force generated by the damper is here again given by Eq. (8). The
governing equations for the simple hydraulic damper include equations
for the pressure p0 and p1 in the two chambers, Eq. (1), and one equation
for the flow rate Q through the orifice, Eq. (4).
Hydraulic damper with pressure relief valves
Rotorcraft hydraulic leadlag dampers present a configuration similar
to that of the simple damper described in the previous section. However,
this simple design suffers an important drawback: under a high stroking
rate, the pressure differential in the chambers can be rather high, and
hence, high damping forces are generated. These high forces must be
reacted at the hub and at the root of the blade, creating high stresses
and decreasing fatigue life. To limit the forces in the hydraulic damper,
two pressure relief valves are added to the configuration, as shown in
Fig. 6. The new design combines two hydraulic chambers, chamber 0 and
chamber 1, one orifice connecting the two chambers and two pressure
relief valves, valve 0 and valve 1. The hydraulic chamber 0 and chamber
1 are under pressures p0 and p1 , respectively; note that the factors
are +1 and 1 for the two chambers, respectively. The hydraulic orifice
generates a flow rate Q from chamber 0 into chamber 1. Finally, when
open, the pressure relief valves regulate the pressures in chambers 0 and 1.
If the length of the damper increases, pressure p1 increases whereas
pressure p0 decreases. This generates a pressure differential across the
orifice and hence, a flow rate Q into chamber 0 that tends to equilibrate
the pressures in the chambers. If the stroking rate is high, the pressure
differential in the chambers will become high enough to open pressure
relief valve 1, resulting in an additional flow rate Q 1 from chamber 1
into chamber 0. Given the sign of the pressure differential, valve 0 will
remain closed. The opening of the valve and the ensuing flow controls the
magnitude of the pressure differential, and hence of the damper force that
is still given by Eq. (8). The force generated by the damper always opposes the motion and is, therefore, a damping force. In practical designs,

Fig. 6. Configuration of the hydraulic damper with pressure relief

valves.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY

hydraulic dampers are also equipped with check valves, as discussed for
actuators. The hydraulic chambers are connected to a plenum with oil at
the circuit background pressure to prevent pressure drops in the chambers
and subsequent cavitation.
The governing equations for the hydraulic damper with pressure relief
valves include equations for the pressures p0 and p1 in the two chambers,
Eq. (1), one equation for the flow rate Q through the orifice, Eq. (4), two
equations of motion for the valve poppets, Eq. (5), and two equations for
the flow rates through the valves, Eq. (6). The flow area of the valves is
computed with the help of Eq. (7).
Finite Element Implementation
The various hydraulic devices described in the previous section interact with the dynamics of the mechanical system they are connected to.
For instance, a helicopter leadlag damper interacts with rotor blade dynamics; this effect is particularly pronounced on the fundamental blade
leadlag mode. This section describes the coupling of the hydraulic device model with a structural dynamics model, within the framework of
multibody system dynamics; see Ref. 5. The following sections describe
the coupling procedure in terms of the applied structural forces, their
time discretization, and the time integration scheme for the equations
governing the behavior of hydraulic devices.
Applied structural forces
In general, hydraulic devices generate hydraulic forces given by
Eq. (8) that are functions of the stroke d, through Eq. (2) and stoke
through Eq. (1). This stroking can be evaluated from the conrate d,
figuration of the device depicted in Fig. 7. In the initial configuration,
the end points of the device are at location u k0 and u `0 , respectively, with
respect to an inertial frame I = (i1 , i2 , i3 ). At those points, the device is
connected to a dynamical system of arbitrary topology. In the deformed
configuration, the displacements of the end points of the device are u k and
u ` , respectively. The relative position of the end points will be denoted
u 0 = u `0 u k0 and u = u ` u k in the initial and present configurations,
respectively. Note that the rotational degrees of freedom of the structure
at the connection points are not involved in this formulation, implying
the presence of spherical joints at these points.
The virtual work done by the hydraulic force is W = F h d, where
d = (kuk ku 0 k) is a virtual change in device length. This expression
then becomes
W = F h

u T u
= F h e T (u ` u k )
kuk

where e = u/kuk. The forces applied to the external system are

e
F = Fh
e

Fig. 7. Configuration of the hydraulic device.

(9)

(10)

APRIL 2006

ON THE MODELING OF HYDRAULIC COMPONENTS IN ROTORCRAFT SYSTEMS

which are two forces of equal magnitude and opposite sign applied at the
connection points.
Time discretization of the structural forces
In a typical finite element implementation, the simulation of the system dynamics is discretized in time. The force generated by the hydraulic device will be assumed to remain a constant, Fmh , over the time
step and the work done by this force over the time step now becomes
1W = Fmh (d f di ). This expression is manipulated to become
1W =

Fmh 2
Fh
d f di2 = m u Tf u f u iT u i
2dm
2dm

(11)

where dm = (d f + di )/2 is the average stroke of the device over

the time step. The mid-point relative position vector is defined as
u m = (u f + u i )/2, and the work expression now becomes
1W = Fmh

u mT
(u f u i ) = Fmh emT (u f u i )
dm

(12)

where em = u m /dm . The discretized hydraulic forces will be selected as

"
#
em
h
F m = Fm
(13)
em
By construction, this discretization guarantees that the work done by the
hydraulic force over one time step, Eq. (11), is evaluated exactly.
Since the expression for the hydraulic forces and the governing equation of dynamical systems are non-linear, the solution process involves iteration and linearization. Linearization of the discretized forces, Eq. (13),
leads to
"
#
1u k
1F m = K m
(14)
1u `
where

T
U em e Tf
1 Fmh U em e f

Km =
2 dm U e e T
U em e Tf
m f
"
#
T
em e Tf
dFmh em e f
+
ddm em e Tf
em e Tf

(15)

and U is the 3 by 3 identity matrix. This expression requires the evaluation of the derivative of the hydraulic force with respect to the stroke,
dFmh /ddm , which could be computed from the governing equations for
the hydraulic device. However, this process is, in general, quite involved.
The following approximation was found to be suitable
dFmh
B A20
B A21
=
+
ddm
V0
V1

(16)

179

high stiffness of the hydraulic fluid (for typical systems, the bulk modulus of the fluid is about 1.5 GPa). Typically, this problem is overcome
by using a very small time step for the integration of the hydraulic equations; for instance, Welsh (Ref. 3) used a time step of 1t = 106 sec to
integrate the equations of a helicopter airoil strut. While this approach is
acceptable when dealing with the sole hydraulic equations, it is not practical to integrate both hydraulic and structural dynamics equations with
such a small time step because the computational effort would become
overwhelming. Consequently, it is imperative to decouple the integration
of the two systems: the structural dynamics equations are integrated with
a time step dictated by the frequency content of the structural response,
whereas the hydraulic equations are integrated with a much smaller time
step.
In this work, the following strategy was used: the structural dynamics equations are integrated with a time step 1t; energy decaying
schemes that guarantee nonlinear unconditional stability of the time integration process are used for this purpose (Refs. 711). This produces
a prediction of the stroking of the hydraulic device, di = ku i k d0 and
d f = ku f k d0 , the stroking rate has a constant value dm = (d f di )/1t.
This information was used to integrate the governing equations of the hydraulic device using a fourth order RungeKutta integrator (see Ref. 12).
The time step used in this integrator was h = 1t/N , i.e., N RungeKutta
steps are performed for each structural time step. Once the hydraulic
equations are solved, the pressures in the chambers are predicted and
hence the hydraulic device force. The nonlinear solution of the problem
is then obtained by iterating between the structural dynamics equations
and the hydraulic equations.
Numerical Examples
Hydraulic linear actuator
The first example deals with a hydraulic linear actuator that is used
to pitch a beam, as depicted in Fig. 8. The system consists of a flexible
beam of length L = 0.8 m with a 10 kg tip mass connected to a revolute
joint at point R. At point C, located at a distance d = 0.24 m from the root
of the beam, a flexible horn connects to the beam. Finally, a hydraulic
linear actuator is connected between the ground and the tip of the horn
at points S and D, respectively.
The physical properties of the beam and horn are as follows: axial stiffness, 5.7 107 N, bending stiffness, 4.275 103 Nm2 , shearing
stiffness, 1.80 107 N, mass per unit span, 2.4 kg/m. The configuration
of the hydraulic linear actuator is that depicted in Fig. 4. The physical
properties of the actuator are listed in Table 1.
The system was initially at rest. To simulate the actuators control
valves, the throttling areas of both orifices were linearly ramped up from
zero to their nominal value in 0.5 s. In the next 0.5 s, the throttling areas
were linearly ramped back down to zero. The time step for the structural
analysis was set to 1t = 1.0 104 s; for each structural step, 48 substeps were used for the integration of the hydraulic equations. These

This corresponds to an approximation to the static stiffness of the device.

Time integration of hydraulic equations
The model described in the previous section requires the knowledge
of the hydraulic force acting in the device, as given by Eq. (8). In turn, this
requires the solution of the equations governing the behavior of the hydraulic device, as discussed in earlier sections. Although the model of the
hydraulic device is rather simple (a few first order, nonlinear differential
equations), it is a numerically stiff set of equations because of the very

Fig. 8. Configuration of the hydraulic linear actuator pitching a

beam.

180

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY

O. A. BAUCHAU

Table 1. Physical properties of the

hydraulic actuator
Quantity

A0 = A1
V0 = V1
pE0 = pE1
Aorf0 = Aorf1
Cd0 = Cd1
ps
B

Value
7.85 10 5 m2
9.42 10 6 m3
1.25 MPa
6.0 10 6 m2
0.611
1.0 MPa
1.53 MPa

Fig. 11. Time histories of the pressures in the two chambers.

Fig. 9. Time history of the force generated by the hydraulic actuator.

time step sizes were selected by a convergence study. It is interesting to
note that a large number of sub-steps, 48, was required to achieve the
convergence of the integration of the hydraulic equations. The system
was simulated for a total period of 1.5 s.
Figure 9 shows the time history of the force generated by the hydraulic
actuator. Note the nearly constant force generated by the actuator while
the throttling areas are non-zero. Once the throttling areas vanish, the actuator becomes much stiffer. Indeed, the apparent stiffness of the devices
is now dictated by the bulk modulus of the oil and it applies much higher
forces to the supporting structure. The time histories of the displacement
and velocity of the piston in the hydraulic actuator are shown in Fig. 10.

Fig. 12. Time histories of the volumetric flow rates into the chambers.
Once the throttling areas vanish, the length of the actuator remains nearly
constant; the observed oscillations are due to vibrations of the beam-tip
mass system following actuation. The interaction between the hydraulic
device and the structure is further demonstrated in Fig. 11, which shows
the time histories of the pressures in the two chambers. Note the sudden drop in chamber 0 pressure at time t = 1 s due to the opening of
the check valve; the effects of this pressure spike are noticeable on the
device velocity and output forcesee Figs. 10 and 9, respectively. After
the closing of the throttling areas, large variations in chamber pressures
are observed resulting from structural vibrations. Finally, Fig. 12 depicts
the time histories of the volumetric flow rates into chamber 0 and chamber 1. The flow rates that are observed after the closing of the throttling
areas are flow rates through the actuator check valves. The very rapid
variations in chamber pressure and orifice flow rates are further evidence
of the very high stiffness of the system, and help explain the need for the
numerous sub time steps required to integrate the hydraulic equations.
Validation of the model of the UH-60 leadlag damper

Fig. 10. Time histories of the displacement (top figure) and velocity
(bottom figure) of the piston of the hydraulic actuator.

In the next example, a model of the leadlag damper used in Sikorskys

UH-60 helicopter will be validated by comparing the predictions of the
proposed model with measurements taken on a test bench experiment.
The physical properties of the hydraulic device are described in Ref. 3.

APRIL 2006

ON THE MODELING OF HYDRAULIC COMPONENTS IN ROTORCRAFT SYSTEMS

181

cient, have been set to their theoretical values. Other coefficients, such
as those appearing in Eq. (7), were selected based on indirect, uncertain measurements. Parametric studies performed with the present model
have demonstrated the great sensitivity of the predictions to the choice
of these coefficients.
Modeling the UH-60 blade and leadlag damper

Fig. 13. Peak force versus peak velocity.

Fig. 14. Time history of the leadlag damper force at a peak velocity
of 2 in/s.
The damper was tested under harmonic stroking conditions at a constant
circular frequency = 27.02 rad/s. Tests were run at various amplitudes
of the harmonic motion; Fig. 13 shows the experimentally measured peak
force in the damper as a function of peak velocity. This figure also shows
the predictions of the present model; good agreement is found between
measurements and predictions. The time history of the damper force at a
peak velocity of 2 in/s is shown in Fig. 14 for both model and experiment.
While peak loads are in good agreement, force time histories exhibit qualitative differences. First, the experimentally measured force dwells for a
short period when it reaches a value near zero; this phenomenon is not
predicted by the model and its physical origin is not known; possible explanations are discussed in the next paragraph. Second, the experimental
measurements exhibit a different behavior at peak positive and negative
forces. This dissymmetry is not present in the model and its physical
origin is also unclear.
The following conclusions can be drawn from this calibration effort.
The proposed model seems to predict damper peak loads with reasonable
accuracy, while the details of the force time history are not predicted to
the same level of accuracy. The probable cause of these discrepancies is
the highly idealized nature of the present model. Several components of
the device, such as the hydraulic accumulators and check valves, have
intrinsic characteristics that have not been modeled in the present effort.
Several coefficients of the model, such as the orifice discharge coeffi-

In the final example, the dynamic response of Sikorskys UH-60 rotor

system will be evaluated using a finite element based multibody formulation and a detailed model of the blade hydraulic leadlag damper.
The UH-60 is a four-bladed helicopter whose physical properties are described in Ref. 13 and references therein. In this work, a single blade
model will be used. Figure 15 shows the configuration of the rotor system featuring the blade root retention structure, pitch link, pitch horn,
swashplate, and leadlag damper.
The blade was modeled using thirteen cubic beam elements. The root
retention structure, from hub to blade, was separated into three segments,
having three, two, and two cubic beam elements, respectively, and labeled
segments 1, 2, and 3 in Fig. 15. The first segment was attached to the
rigid hub. The first two segments were connected to each other by an
elastomeric bearing modeled by three co-located revolute joints with the
following sequence: lag, flap, then pitch rotations. The physical characteristics of the bearing were simulated by springs and dampers in the
joints. The next two segments were rigidly connected to each other and
to the pitch horn. Finally, the last segment was rigidly connected to the
blade and damper horn.
The pitch angle of the blade was set by the following control linkages:
the swashplate, pitch link, and pitch horn. The pitch link, modeled by three
cubic beam elements, was attached to the rigid swashplate by means of a
universal joint and to the rigid pitch horn by a spherical joint. The damper
arm and damper horn were modeled with rigid bodies. The leadlag
damper was modeled as a hydraulic damper with pressure relief valves,
as described in earlier sections; its end points were connected to the
damper arm and horn. The physical properties of the device can be found
in Ref. 14.
The loads applied to the rotor consisted of the measured aerodynamic
loads obtained from in flight test measurements (Ref. 15). The results
presented below correspond to flight counter 8534, a forward flight case

Fig. 15. Configuration of Sikorskys UH-60 rotor system: close-up

view of the blade root retention structure, pitch link and pith horn,
swashplate, and hydraulic damper.

182

O. A. BAUCHAU

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY

Fig. 16. Time history of the leadlag damper force.

Fig. 18. Time history of the predicted pressures in the chambers.

Fig. 17. Time history of the leadlag damper stroking (top figure)
and stroking velocity (bottom figure).

with a forward speed of 158 kts. A total of 75 rotor revolutions were simulated to allow all transients to die out and so to obtain a periodic solution.
The results presented in the figures below depict the last revolution of the
simulation, as a function of the azimuthal angle 9. A constant time step
size of 256 steps per revolution was used for the structural equations and
25 sub-steps were used for the integration of the hydraulic equations.
Figure 16 displays the time history of the predicted damper force. Note
the effectiveness of the pressure relief valves that limit the maximum
damping force to about 3200 lbs. The stroke and stroke velocity of
the damper are presented in Fig. 17. These quantities are the variables
forming the basis for the empirical models of the dampers: the output
force is assumed to be a nonlinear function of the instantaneous velocity.
In the present model, additional information is available that describes
the internal behavior of the device. The pressures in the two chambers of
the dampers are shown in Fig. 18. Next, the volumetric flow rate through
the orifice is shown in Fig. 19, and this flow rate tends to equilibrate the
pressures in the two hydraulic chambers. As expected, the shape of this
time history closely follows that of the damper force.
The role of the pressure relief valves is illustrated in Figs. 20 and
21, which depict the displacement and velocities of the valves, and the
flow rate through these valves, respectively. Valve 0 opens over the azimuthal range 9 [45, 100] then [125, 215] deg, whereas valve 1 opens
for 9 [240, 290] deg. These ranges are clearly correlated with the high

Fig. 19. Time history of the predicted volumetric flow rate through
the orifice.

Fig. 20. Time history of the predicted displacement (top figure) and
velocity (bottom figure) of pressure relief valves.

APRIL 2006

ON THE MODELING OF HYDRAULIC COMPONENTS IN ROTORCRAFT SYSTEMS

Fig. 21. Time history of the predicted volumetric flow rates through
the pressure relief valves.

183

of the rotor system involves a complex model with many interacting

components; the damper model is but one of these many components.
The probable cause of the observed discrepancy is the cursory nature of the present formulation that models the various components of
hydraulic devices with simple equations involving empirical parameters.
Some model parameters were set to their theoretical values; others were
not known with sufficient accuracy in the experimental setup, in particular, the hydraulic circuit pressure or the relief valve sectional area.
The physical behavior of several components of the device, such as the
hydraulic accumulators and check valves, were highly idealized. Other
physical phenomena, such as friction in the damper, are not presently
modeled and are difficult to quantify with the available experimental
data.
This discussion clearly points to the need for more detailed experimental studies of hydraulic devices. Systematic bench test experiments
with detailed measurements of chamber pressures, relief valve positions,
check valves positions and their associated flow rates or velocities would
provide the needed experimental basis for the validation of advanced
models.
Conclusions

Fig. 22. Comparison of the time histories of the leadlag damper

force.
damper force ranges: positive forces for valve 0, negative forces for valve
1 (see Fig. 16). This correlation is also reflected in the hydraulic chamber pressure histories (see Fig. 18). When a pressure relief valve opens,
the volumetric flow rate through the orifice remains nearly constant (see
Fig. 19) consistent with the nearly constant pressures in the chambers
(see Fig. 18). Note that the maximum magnitude of the flow rate through
the orifice is of the order of 1.2 103 ft3 /s, whereas the flow rate through
the pressure relief valves (see Fig. 21) is nearly an order of magnitude
larger due to larger sectional areas. When open, the pressure relief valve
nearly short circuits the two hydraulic chambers, effectively limiting the
maximum force output of the device.
Finally, Fig. 22 shows a comparison between the flight test measurement of damper force and various numerical predictions. In the first
simulation, the damper was modeled as a linear dashpot with constant
c = 4659.6 lb/(ft/s). In the second simulation, a nonlinear dashpot model
was used to represent the damper. The nonlinear dashpot characteristics
were obtained from a curve fit of the experimentally measured peak force
versus peak velocity relationship given in Ref. 14. The last simulation
uses the proposed model of the hydraulic device. The present model gives
a better correlation with the experimental measurements when compared
to the simpler models, although discrepancies still exit. Of course, the
observed discrepancies are not necessarily a consequence of a lack of
accuracy of the damper model. Indeed, the predicted dynamic response

1) A methodology allowing physics based modeling of hydraulic devices within multibody-based comprehensive models of rotorcraft systems was developed.
2) The new mathematical models of hydraulic devices were implemented in a multibody code and calibrated by comparing their predictions
with bench test measurements. While predicted peak damping forces
were found to be in good agreement with measurements, the model did
not predict the entire time history of damper force to the same level of
accuracy.
3) The validated model of the UH-60 leadlag damper model was coupled with a comprehensive model of the rotor system. Measured aerodynamic loads were applied to the blade and predicted damper forces were
compared with experimental measurements. A marked improvement in
the prediction was observed when using the proposed model rather than
a linear approximation of the damper behavior.
4) The proposed model also evaluates relevant hydraulic quantities
such as chamber pressures, orifice flow rates, and pressure relief valve
displacements. Hence, the present model could be used to design leadlag
dampers presenting desirable force and damping characteristics.
Acknowledgments
This work was sponsored by the National Rotorcraft Technology Center and the Rotorcraft Industry Technology Association under contract
WBS No. 2003-B-01-01.1-A1. Yung Yu was the contract monitor.
References
1
Viersma, T., Analysis, Synthesis and Design of Hydraulic ServoSystems and Pipelines, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1980, Chaps. 1 and 2.
2
Canon, R., Dynamics of Physical Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1967, Chap. 4.
3
Welsh, W., Simulation and Correlation of a Helicopter Air-Oil Strut
Dynamic Response, American Helicopter Society 43rd Annual Forum
Proceedings, St. Louis, MO, May 1820, 1987.
4
Welsh, W., Dynamic Modeling of a Helicopter Lubrication System, American Helicopter Society 44th Annual Forum Proceedings,
Washington, DC, June 1618, 1988.

184

O. A. BAUCHAU

5
Bauchau, O., Bottasso, C., and Nikishkov, Y., Modeling Rotorcraft
Dynamics with Finite Element Multibody Procedures, Mathematical
and Computer Modeling, Vol. 33, (1011), 2001, pp. 11131137.
6
Cardona, A., and Geradin, M., Modeling of a Hydraulic Actuator
in Flexible Machine Dynamics Simulation, Mechanisms and Machine
Theory, Vol. 25, (2), 1990, pp. 193207.
7
Bauchau, O., and Theron, N., Energy Decaying Scheme for NonLinear Beam Models, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, Vol. 134, (12), 1996, pp. 3756.
8
Bauchau, O., and Theron, N., Energy Decaying Schemes for Nonlinear Elastic Multi-body Systems, Computers and Structures, Vol. 59,
(2), 1996, pp. 317331.
9
Bauchau, O., Computational Schemes for Flexible, Nonlinear
Multi-Body Systems, Multibody System Dynamics, Vol. 2, (2), 1998,
pp. 169225.
10
Bauchau, O., and Bottasso, C., On the Design of Energy Preserving
and Decaying Schemes for Flexible, Nonlinear Multi-Body Systems,
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 169,

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY

(12), 1999, pp. 6179.

11
Bauchau, O., Bottasso, C., and Trainelli, L., Robust Integration Schemes for Flexible Multibody Systems, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 192, (34), 2003,
pp. 395420.
12
Press, W., Flannery, B., Teutolsky, S., and Vetterling, W., Numerical
Recipes. The Art of Scientific Computing, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, U.K., 1990, Chap. 8.
13
Bousman, W., An Investigation of Helicopter Rotor Blade Flap
Vibratory Loads, American Helicopter Society 48th Annual Forum Proceedings, Washington, DC, June 35, 1992.
14
Howlett, J. J., UH-60A Black Hawk Engineering Simulation Program: Vol. IMathematical Model, NASA CR-166309, December
1981.
15
Kufeld, R. M., Balough, D. L., Cross, J. L., Studebaker, K. F., Jennison, C. D., and Bousman, W. G., Flight Testing of the UH-60A Aircraft, American Helicopter Society 50th Annual Forum Proceedings,
Washington, DC, May 1113, 1994.