IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Helicopter Training Simulator
Unmanned helicopter flight control actuator Measurement and Control System Based
on Computer Simulation Technology
specification through mission profile analysis He Li, Gang Zou, Lin Li et al.

- Mathematical Modeling and Simulation of

Helicopter Fire Extinguishing with Water
To cite this article: Roussel Jérémy’’ et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 1226 012100 Chen Suli and Zhao Ling

- Designing and FEM simulation of the

helicopter rotor and hub
K Skiba
View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 141.0.204.98 on 24/05/2022 at 13:56

11TH-EASN IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1226 (2022) 012100 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1226/1/012100

Unmanned helicopter flight control actuator

specification through mission profile analysis
ROUSSEL Jérémy1,2,3, BUDINGER Marc2, RUET Laurent3
2
ICA (Université de Toulouse, ISAE-SUPAERO, INSA, CNRS, MINES ALBI,
UPS), Espace Clément Ader, 3 Rue Caroline Aigle, 31400 Toulouse, France
3
AIRBUS HELICOPTERS Aéroport Marseille Provence, 13725 Marignane, France
1
[email protected] 2 [email protected] 3 [email protected]

Abstract. Helicopter dronization is expanding, as for example with the VSR700 project, and
leads to the design and the integration of electromechanical actuators (EMA) into the primary
flight control system (PFCS). The PFCS is in charge of controlling the helicopter flight over its
4 axis (roll, pitch, yaw, vertical). It controls the blade pitch through dedicated mechanical
kinematics and actuators. The hydraulic technology has been conventionally used in actuators
for more than 60 years. On the other hand, the introduction of the EMA technology requires
the reconsideration of design practices right at development start. Indeed, the establishment
and synthesis of the specification need to deal with – new design drivers (high performance
points, wear, fatigue) and - new inherent technological imperfections (friction, inertia and
reduction ratio). To address these topics, this paper draws a list of the main EMA design
drivers to focus on along with a brief description of the main EMA components. Then, it
proposes indicators evaluated over a complete mission profile in time coming from
measurement on a given applicative helicopter flight. These indicators are chosen and
elaborated to provide an image of the design drivers responsible for rapid and gradual
degradations of the actuator components. Also, they give an idea of the importance taken by
the actuator imperfections into the global performance. Furthermore, we explain how mission
profiles are processed depending of data sources. Finally, through a comparison with a
standard aircraft mission profile, we emphasize the specificity of the helicopter application use
case.

1. Introduction

1.1. Helicopters dronization context

Today, we observe a fast increase in the number of projects of OPV (Optional Pilot vehicle), UAV
(Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) and Urban Mobility such as the Ehang 184, the Boeing’s self-piloted
passenger drone, the aerial fighter Northrop Grumman X-47B, the Airbus VSR700 (Figure 1), the
Vahana or the CityAirbus. Vehicles are required to develop new functionalities to be more
autonomous and to be safer by decreasing pilot’s working load. Thus, today’s market trend is globally
facing a technological watershed towards more electrical solutions. The concept of drone comes
progressively by the implementation of new electrical solutions on already existing vehicles.

Figure 1. VSR700

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
11TH-EASN IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1226 (2022) 012100 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1226/1/012100

1.2. From hydraulic to electromechanical primary flight control systems

The Primary Flight Control System (PFCS, Figure 2) is in charge of controlling the helicopter flight
over its 4 axis (roll, pitch, yaw, vertical). Conventional architecture includes Flight Control Links
(FCL) and, for high loads and automatic pilot, actuators (Figure 3, Figure 4). The FCL links the pilot
to the actuators. Attached to the main and tail rotor kinematics, the actuator supplies the power to give
and maintain the blade’s angle of attack. The conventional actuators are hydraulic. The FCL is mainly
made out of mechanical links including rods, levers and bearings. The automatic pilot function is
ensured through EMAs located in series and in parallel of the mechanical links of the FCL.

Figure 2. left, cockpit of EC130 B4 (2019) ;

right, PFCS of Alouette II
Figure 3. H125 main rotor & PFCS actuators

Figure 4. PFCS schetch of principle

They actually control the helicopter in hands off mode such as following a GPS destination or
performing strategic approach to ground in special operative mission. Only one helicopter of Airbus
fleet (NH90) does not have any FCL, the hydraulic actuators (Direct Drive Valve DDV) are
commanded directly by 4 electrical torque-motors connected to the FCC (Flight Control Computer).
The hydraulic technology has been conventionally used in actuators for more than 60 years [1] [2]. A
new trend uses EMAs as substitutes to hydraulic actuators in PFCS of actual helicopters or as part of
Fly-By-Wire PFCS of new autonomous helicopters. This requires the reconsideration of design
practices right at development start. It is the case with the VSR700, an already proved light helicopter
turned into a drone by integration of electrical components, among them: 4 electromechanical
actuators (EMA) in the primary flight control system (PFCS).

1.3. Objectives
New design drivers (high performance points, wear, and fatigue) and new inherent technological
imperfections (friction, and inertia combined with reduction ratio) have to be considered. This paper
draws a methodology bringing a specification of EMA as a pre-process to preliminary sizing. The
helicopter application gives a dynamic loading spectrum and a vibratory/thermal environment which
are complex to simulate. Therefore, the methodology proceeds by the analysis of mission profiles
during real flight tests. To address this topic, we will first focus on EMA technology, its key design

2
11TH-EASN IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1226 (2022) 012100 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1226/1/012100

drivers and propose indicators representing them. Then, we will deal with data processing for
estimating these indicators and develop a specification. Finally, we will compare aircraft vs rotorcraft
PFCS application in their respective EMA specification.

2. Electromechanical actuator (EMA)

Linear EMAs include mechanical parts (rod ends, bearings and rotary/linear conversion mechanisms),
an electrical motor and some electronic components for power & control (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. EMA example, MOOG model 17E373 Figure 6. EMA architectures

(section view from moog.com)

EMA technology already exists in the field of civil and military aviation for auxiliary functions
(non-critical in the sense of aviation safety) and/or back up functions (in case of failure of the critical
primary function) and in various industrial sectors for positioning workpieces or laboratory tools.
Right now, except for low-power and less safety-critical applications (flaps, slats, spoilers, trim
horizontal stabilizer), EMAs are not yet mature enough for primary flight controls because of their
lack of accumulated return of experience regarding : reliability & risk of failures due to jamming (in
mechanical transmission components), health monitoring (HM) & assessment, and thermal
management. However, research activities and development efforts carry on development of Power-
by-Wire (PbW) actuators at research level e.g. POA (Power Optimised Aircraft), MOET (More Open
Electrical Technologies), DRESS European projects, and VEGA space launcher TVC actuator.
Indeed, EMAs offers interesting perspectives in terms of performance, maintenance, integration,
reconfiguration, ease of operation, and management of power ([2], [1]). It is particularly suitable for
actuation of landing gears and flight controls since they are one of the main energy consumers on an
aircraft.
EMAs can be classified into three architecture categories as display in Figure 6.

3. Key design driver (KDD)

The objective is to build the specification of an EMA. In preliminary sizing, the interest is focused on
KDD since they are the main physical phenomena guiding the EMA design. For the PFCS application,
we propose using indicators to evaluate over mission profiles (measures in time during flight tests).
These indicators are an image of the KDD and their values lead the specification.

3.1. KDD of mechanical components

In ball bearings, KDD counts stress, rolling fatigue and ball speed (for internal heating due to
centrifugal forces and friction).
In screw/nut transmission, we consider as KDD: stress, pitting fatigue (motionless varying stress),
equivalent rolling fatigue, ball speed (for outer recirculation limitation, ball screw technology).
In rod ends, stress is the KDD.

3.2. KDD: Electrical components

3
11TH-EASN IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1226 (2022) 012100 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1226/1/012100

This study is reduced to a brushless DC motor ignoring the power electronic. As KDD, we have peak
torque (corresponding to iron sheet magnetic saturation & magnet demagnetization), continuous
torque (corresponding to continuous winding temperature limit), and rotating speed (linked to max
magnet attachment resistance and iron losses).

Figure 7. Motor operating area [11]

3.3. Indicator proposition, specifications

For each KDD, we suggest indicators in Table 1. Some indicators are estimated on mission profiles
(load F(t), position x(t)), others come from the application itself (top level specification).
The final specification is the need of the application translated through the eyes of the actuator
designer. It gathers all essential inputs for relevant actuator pre-sizing. Table 2 sums it up.

Table 1. KDD & indicators values

indicator over deduced

KDD mathematical relation unit
mission profile specification
component
max load Fmax = max⁡[𝐹(𝑡)] max static load 𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥⁡ N
stress
max load Fmax = max⁡[𝐹(𝑡)] max static load 𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥⁡ N
load frequency 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 Hz
pitting fatigue
total lifespan 𝑇𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 hour
Rainflow matrix N

equivalent rolling 3 1 equivalent rolling fatigue

F𝑟𝑚𝑐 = √ ∫|𝐹(𝑡)|3 ⋅ |𝑥̇ (𝑡)| ⋅ 𝑑𝑡 N
fatigue load 𝐿𝑒𝑞 load F𝑟𝑚𝑐
rolling
fatigue equivalent distance equivalent distance
𝐿𝑒𝑞 = ∫|𝑥̇ (𝑡)| ⋅ 𝑑𝑡 m
travelled travelled 𝐿𝑒𝑞
total lifespan 𝑇𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 hour
ball speed,
motor max max speed 𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥[𝑥̇ (𝑡)] max speed 𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 m/s
speed
stroke max position amplitude 𝐿𝑠 = max[𝑥(𝑡)] − min⁡[𝑥(𝑡)] stroke 𝐿𝑠 m
max load Fmax = max⁡[𝐹(𝑡)] max static load 𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥⁡ N
motor
max acceleration 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 = ⁡max⁡[|𝑥̈ (𝑡)|] max acceleration 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥⁡ m/s²
magnetic
saturation max power rate (𝑎𝑃𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝐹𝑃𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 ), (m/s²
𝑃𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 = max⁡[𝐹(𝑡) ⋅ 𝑥̈ (𝑡)]
(inertia effect) pair maximizing 𝑃𝑅 , N)
continuous
1
motor RMS load (*) 𝐹𝑟𝑚𝑠 = √ ⋅ ∫ 𝐹(𝑡)2 ⋅ 𝑑𝑡 RMS load 𝐹𝑟𝑚𝑠 N
temperature 𝑇

4
11TH-EASN IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1226 (2022) 012100 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1226/1/012100

1
RMS acceleration 𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑠 = √ ⋅ ∫ 𝑥̈ (𝑡)2 ⋅ 𝑑𝑡 RMS acceleration 𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑠 m/s²
𝑇
mean value of speed 1.5 1
representative of iron 𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑛 = √ ⋅ ∫|𝑥̇ (𝑡)|1.5 ⋅ 𝑑𝑡 iron speed 𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑛 m/s
losses 𝑇
ambient temperature 𝜃𝑎𝑚𝑏 °C
(*) to justify the use of RMS averaging, we display an equivalent motor temperature evolution over time by filtering the load
F(t) through a motor thermal model

Table 3. EMA pre-specification

Table 2. EMA specification

4. Processing flight data

4.1. Available flight data

Available data are load, position and actuator commands over time and over a complete mission
profile. These data comes from measurements on a given applicative helicopter flight test. Load is
measured through stress gauges. Position comes from potentiometers installed on PFCS kinematic.
Actuator commands are obtained from the ARINC bus linking the flight control computer (FCC) to
the actuator power unit. Transient flight phases (take off, landing) should be distinguished from
permanent flight phases (cruise) in the estimation of the indicators. The table below sums it (Table 3).
The final specification will take the maximum out of each line.

4.2. Processing data

Loads given by stress gauges do not need specific treatment if sample frequency enables to capture
current bandwidth dynamic. Positions data and their derivate need more attention as they are involved
in most of the indicators. The quality of data guarantees a representative specification. Quality means
no captured noise and relevant choice of sample frequency regarding environmental perturbations.
In practice, we may find two types of position data summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Sources of position data

For case 1, position data from rotational potentiometers includes an important level of noise (from
rotor & engine vibrations) and their derivatives (speed, acceleration) are inconsistent. Applying
conventional filtering methods is not convenient since noise removal introduces delays not coherent
with load data. An elegant solution is the Savitzky-Golay filter [9] which has two main advantages: -

5
11TH-EASN IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1226 (2022) 012100 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1226/1/012100

it does not introduce any delay in filtered data and - its polynomial approach easily gives derivatives
up to the 5th order.
For case 2, The FCC command has to go through a filter which is representative of the actuator
dynamism. We propose to apply a 3rd order filter in order to represent the position loop bandwidth
and classical ratio of 5-10 between position and speed loops bandwidths [8].

4.3. Statistical analysis

In non-transient phases such as cruise, we noticed that load, speed and acceleration mission profiles fit
Gauss statistical laws (Figure 8). Statistics is a tool for trends. Therefore, its use gets its interest for
extrema estimations when the available mission profiles are non-representative of helicopter lifespan.
In this case, an important extrema might be missed and the future EMA design might be undersized.
Consequently, we propose setting up some safeguards for load/speed/acceleration using statistical
values based on the Gauss law applied on data.
The safeguards would be set as it follows:
𝑁(𝜇, 𝜎);⁡⁡𝑋𝑠 = 𝜇 ± 𝑘𝑟 ⋅ 𝜎
with 𝑘_𝑟 = 4.75 such that 𝑃(𝑋 > 𝑋𝑠 ⁡) = 10−6. 𝑋 being the variable of speed/acceleration/load, 𝜇 the
mean value of 𝑋 and 𝜎 the standard deviation of 𝑋.
We propose to keep the maximum out of the maximum picked up on mission profile and the
statistical value given by 𝑋𝑠 = 𝜇 + 𝑘𝑟 ⋅ 𝜎.

Figure 8. Example of load distribution on 2

actuators on helicopter main rotor (cruise flight
phase, VSR700).

5. Comparison rotorcraft VS aircraft specification

To conclude this study, we propose to emphasize the specificity of rotorcraft PFCS for EMA
application by comparing the specification of an aircraft with the one of a rotorcraft. The comparison
is presented in Table 5. Aircraft data comes from a A320 simulator. Rotorcraft data comes from a real
helicopter flight (VSR700). To simplify the comparison and for confidentiality matters, results are
normalized as ratios of indicators.

5.1. Indicators
Some indicators need a few comments to be understood:
 𝑅𝑎 and 𝑅𝐹𝑟𝑚𝑠 are respectively the ratios:
continuous⁡inertia⁡load continuous⁡external⁡load
Ra = R Frms =
max inertia⁡load max external⁡load
 For rolling fatigue [4][10]: we set up an equivalent dynamic load 𝐹𝑟𝑚𝑐 such as:
1
𝑁𝑒𝑞 ⁄3 𝐿𝑒𝑞
𝐹𝑑 = 𝐹𝑟𝑚𝑐 ⋅ ( 6 ) ⁡;⁡⁡𝑁𝑒𝑞 =
10 𝑝
𝐿𝑒𝑞 the equivalent distance travelled, p a supposed relevant pitch ratio for the application.

6
11TH-EASN IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1226 (2022) 012100 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1226/1/012100

 For the inertia impact: we propose 2 indicators of the load produced by the inertia effect
normalized by the external load.
 𝑅𝐽𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the ratio of the load produced by the max acceleration out of the max external load to
fight against. Be aware that max acceleration and max load might not appear at the same time.
 𝑅𝐽𝑃𝑅 is based on the pair (𝑎𝑃𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝐹𝑃𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) which is the acceleration and the load maximizing
the power rate. It gives the load produced by the acceleration 𝑎𝑃𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 normalized by the
external load 𝐹𝑃𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 . Here, 𝑎𝑃𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 and 𝐹𝑃𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 appear at the same time on the mission profile.
 One would thus expect those 2 indicators to be close to each other if the max acceleration and
load occur at the same time, but could be significantly different if the peak acceleration occurs
while the external load is smaller or the other way around.
 For loss analysis:
 The iron losses from hysteresis and Foucault current contributions are supposed to be expressed
by a Steinmetz-like formula (see 𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑛 Table 1) [11] [12]. 𝑅𝐼𝐿 is the ratio of the iron losses
produced by 𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑛 and the ones produced by the max transient speed 𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 . 𝑅𝐼𝐿 gives an idea of
the importance of iron losses during operation (Figure 7).
 The RMS averaging reflects the averaged motor heating over a mission profile. The load seen
by the motor 𝐹𝑚,𝑟𝑚𝑠 can be extended as developed in Figure 9. To identify better the inertia
impact on motor heating (Joules losses), we define 2 indicators 𝑅𝑃𝑅 and 𝑅𝑎𝑅𝑀𝑆 (Figure 9).
𝑅𝑎𝑅𝑀𝑆 reflects the inertial load alone. 𝑅𝑃𝑅 reflects the coupling of the inertial and external load
using the Power Rate.
 The Power Rate is defined by:
𝑃𝑅(𝑡) = 𝑎(𝑡) ⋅ 𝐹(𝑡)
It is a conservative quantity throughout the mechanical transmissions considering ideal
efficiencies.
 The equivalent masses 𝑀𝑒𝑞,𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑡 and 𝑀𝑒𝑞,𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑡 are supposed to be relevant orders of
magnitude already proved in these applications.

Figure 9. Inertia impact indicators

5.2. Comments
Aircraft application has got the heaviest load spectrum; here we note a factor of roughly 50. In both
applications, loads have to be maintained all along flight phases, so we expect and observe roughly
same levels of equivalent heating (ratio R Frms ) and fatigue (ratio R Frmc ).
Helicopter requires 3 times more position bandwidth with, during cruise flight, a longer stroke.
This should go with higher speed & acceleration (ratios 𝑅𝐼𝐿 & 𝑅𝑎 do not show it clearly). However,
we see it through much higher induced losses linked to high dynamism (𝑅𝑃𝑅 & 𝑅𝑎𝑅𝑀𝑆 ) and a similar
level of iron losses 𝑅𝐼𝐿 .

7
11TH-EASN IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1226 (2022) 012100 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1226/1/012100

During transient phases such as take-off & landing, the inertia effect takes a significant part as
much in rotorcraft as in aircraft application. During the transient period of time, this effect is canceled
out by the EMA thermal time constant.
What’s more, if we focus on 𝑅𝐽𝑚𝑎𝑥 and 𝑅𝐽𝑃𝑅 :
- on rotorcraft side, we observe that the tail rotor actuator (TRA) suffers much more from
dynamism than the main rotor actuator (MRA). The difference of dynamism contribution is
significant. This involves higher losses, hence very high 𝑅𝑃𝑅 & 𝑅𝑎𝑅𝑀𝑆 on TRA compared to MRA.
Obviously, the TRA design will have to be driven by small intern inertia.
- compared to aircraft, the rotorcraft has an external load contribution much smaller than the
dynamism, hence 𝑅𝐽𝑚𝑎𝑥 and 𝑅𝐽𝑃𝑅 are higher on rotorcraft side and 𝑅𝑃𝑅 & 𝑅𝑎𝑅𝑀𝑆 smaller on aircraft
side.
Finally, we observe that 𝑅𝑃𝑅 < 𝑅𝑎𝑅𝑀𝑆 on TRA and 𝑅𝑃𝑅 > 𝑅𝑎𝑅𝑀𝑆 in MRA. This means that there is
a significant level of external/inertia load coupling on MRA.
All things considered, both applications have their own technical difficulties: for aircraft, heavy
loads; for rotorcraft, high dynamism which takes a significant importance in EMA design due to the
losses it induces.

6. Conclusion
This paper presented a data driven specification which built a parallel between measurement data on
flight and EMA technologies using indicators to estimate over mission profiles. Then, it highlighted
two interesting precautions: - the application of an elegant filter in case of noisy data, - the use of
statistics as safeguards for peak values in case of non-representative set of mission profiles. Finally,
the comparison aircraft/rotorcraft emphasized their main characteristics: high load for aircraft, high
dynamism for rotorcraft. What’s more, on rotorcraft, it showed a clear difference between the
specification for a main and a tail rotor actuator. Hence, the importance to take into accounts the speed
and the acceleration into the next step of the EMA preliminary study: sizing.

Table 5. Comparison aircraft VS rotorcraft application

(*) for none disclosure, rotorcraft stroke/load values are given as a percentage of aircraft values

8
11TH-EASN IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1226 (2022) 012100 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1226/1/012100

References
[1] Jean-Charles Maré. Les actionneurs aéronautiques 2 : solutions à puissance et signaux
électriques, volume 2. ISTE Group, 2017.
[2] Guan Qiao, Geng Liu, Zhenghong Shi, awen Wang, Shangjun Ma, and Teik C Lim. A
review of electromechanical actuators for more/all electric aircraft systems. Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C : Journal of Mechanical Engineering
Science, 232(22) :4128–4151, 2018.
[3] Youcef Abdelli. Etude et commande de convertisseurs statiques multifonctions en vue de
l’amélioration de la qualité de l’énergie électrique. PhD thesis, Université de Nantes, 2005.
[4] Marc Budinger. Preliminary design and sizing of actuation systems, 2014, HDR, Université
de Toulouse..
[5] Clément Coïc. Model-Aided Design of a High-Performance Fly-by-Wire Actuator, Based on
a Global Modelling of the Actuation System using Bond-graphs. PhD thesis, INSA
Toulouse, 2016.
[6] Amine Jaafar. Traitement de la mission et des variables environnementales et intégration au
processus de conception systémique. PhD thesis, INP Toulouse, 2011.
[7] Aurelien Reysset. Conception préliminaire d’actionneurs électromécaniques-outils d’aide à
la spécification et à la génération de procédures de dimensionnement pour l’optimisation.
PhD thesis, INSA Toulouse, 2015.
[8] LACROUX, Gérard. Les actionneurs électriques pour la robotique et les asservissements.
Technique et Documentation-Lavoisier, 1985.
[9] SAVITZKY, Abraham et GOLAY, Marcel JE. Smoothing and differentiation of data by
simplified least squares procedures. Analytical chemistry, 1964, vol. 36, no 8, p. 1627-1639.
[10] BUDYNAS, Richard Gordon, NISBETT, J. Keith, et al. Shigley's mechanical engineering
design. New York : McGraw-Hill, 2008.
[11] BUDINGER, Marc, LISCOUËT, Jonathan, HOSPITAL, F., et al. Estimation models for the
preliminary design of electromechanical actuators. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2012, vol. 226, no 3,
p. 243-259.
[12] GRELLET, Guy, Pertes dans les machines tournantes. Techniques de l’Ingénieur, D3450V1,
1989