Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:51:19.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aerodynamic investigation of S-duct intake for high power turboprop installed on a channel wing

Part of: ISABE 2017

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2017

Ç. Atalayer ,
J. Friedrichs  and
D. Wulff
Ç. Atalayer*
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Braunschweig, IFAS - Institute of Jet Propulsion and Turbomachinery. Braunschweig, Germany
J. Friedrichs
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Braunschweig, IFAS - Institute of Jet Propulsion and Turbomachinery. Braunschweig, Germany
D. Wulff
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Braunschweig, IFAS - Institute of Jet Propulsion and Turbomachinery. Braunschweig, Germany
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Installation effects on the S-duct intakes of a high power turboprop were investigated by comparing three different nacelle configurations as the channel wing, over-the-wing and conventional tractor wing using computational fluid dynamic methods. The interaction of the propeller, the wing, and the nacelle on the scoop type turboprop intakes were identified in terms of recovery and distortion on the aerodynamic interface planes. An actuator disc model was used to simulate the propeller downstream effects. The channel wing installation of S-ducts showed approximately 2% higher total pressure recovery than the other configurations. The channel wing configuration with a wrap-around S-duct experienced a 2% lower circumferential distortion intensity, whereas over-the-wing had an increase by 3% in comparison to the tractor wing. It was also observed that the S-duct type had a greater influence on the radial distortion intensity than the installation type. The swirl coefficient distribution showed that multiple peaks occurred as opposed to swirl results based on a single sector of the aerodynamic interface plane. The difference between swirl peaks of shaft penetration S-duct was reduced by 14% when installed on channel wing, whereas the peaks of wrap-around experienced 90° phase shift, and their difference showed 10% increase on channel wing.

Keywords

S-duct diffuser intakehighly loaded turbopropintake distortionswirl
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 121 , Special Issue 1242: The International Society of Air-breathing Engines (ISABE) 2017 Conference Special Issue , August 2017 , pp. 1131 - 1146
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper will be presented at the ISABE 2017 Conference, 3-8 September 2017, Manchester, UK.

References

REFERENCES

1. Radespiel, R. and Heinze, W. SFB 880: Fundamentals of high lift for future aircraft, CEAS Aeronautical J, 2014, 5, (3), pp 239-251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Seddon, J. and Goldsmith, E.L. Intake aerodynamics, 1999, AIAA Edu. Series, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
3. Ho, S.S.H., Subsonic Intake Duct Flows, PhD Thesis, 1990, The University of Salford.Google Scholar
4. Taylor, A., Whitelaw, J.H. and Yianneskis, M. Developing flow in S-shaped ducts – II - circular cross-section duct, NASA Tech Rep, 1984, CR-3759.Google Scholar
5. Britchford, K.M. The Aerodynamic Behaviour of an Annular S-shaped Duct, PhD Thesis, 1998, Loughborough University.Google Scholar
6. Hancock, J.P., Lyman, V. and Pennock, A.P. Analysis of results from wind tunnel tests of inlets for an advanced turboprop nacelle installation, NASA Tech Rep, 1986, CR-174937.Google Scholar
7. Little, B.H. and Trimboli, W.S. An experimental investigation of S-duct diffusers for high-speed prop-fans, Proceedings of the 18th Joint Propulsion Conference, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 1982, AIAA-82-1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Welge, H.R., Neuhart, D.H. and Dahlin, J.A. Analysis of mach number 0.8 turboprop slipstream Wing-Nacelle interactions, NASA Tech Rep, 1981, CR-166214.Google Scholar
9. Roosenboom, E.W.M., Heider, A. and Schröder, A. Assessment of propeller induced properties and active flow control using multiple image-based measurement systems, Proceedings of the 25th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Miami, Florida, USA, 2007, AIAA 2007-3810.Google Scholar
10. Witkowski, D.P., Lee, A.K.H. and Sullivan, J.P. Aerodynamic interaction between propellers and wings, J Aircr, 1989, 26, (9), pp 829-836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Sokhey, J.S. Three-dimensional transonic flow analysis of turboprop inlet and Nacelle configurations, Proceedings of the 22nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, USA, 1984, AIAA-84-0193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Müller, L., Heinze, W., Kozŭlovic, D., Hepperle, M. and Radespiel, R. Aerodynamic installation effects of an over-the-wing propeller on a high-lift configuration, J Aircr, 2014, 51, (1), pp 249-258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. SAE Inlet Total-Pressure-Distortion Considerations for Gas Turbines, SAE Aerospace Tech Rep, AIR1419B, 2013.Google Scholar
14. Atalayer, Ç., Friedrichs, J. and Wulff, D. Sensitivity analysis of a highly loaded turboprop S-duct intake by CFD methods, Proceedings of the 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 2014, AIAA 2014-3596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Lenfers, C. Propeller design for a future QESTOL aircraft in the BNF project, Proceedings of the 30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2012, AIAA 2012-3334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Atalayer, Ç., Friedrichs, J. and Wulff, D. S-duct intake configuration sensitivity of a highly loaded turboprop by CFD methods, ASME Turbo Expo 2015: Turbine Technical Conference and Expo., Montreal, Canada, 2015, GT2015-42932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Majić, F., Efraimsson, G. and O’Reilly, C.J. Potential improvement of aerodynamic performance by morphing the nacelle inlet, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2016, 54, pp 122-131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Ruiz-Calavera, L.P., Funes-Sebastian, D.E. and Perdones-Diaz, D., Powered model wind tunnel tests of a high-offset subsonic turboprop air intake, Proceedings of the 46th AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, 2010, AIAA 2010-6502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Walker, A.D., Barker, A.G., Carrotte, J.F., Bolger, J.J. and Green, M.J. Integrated outlet guide vane design for an aggressive S-shaped compressor transition duct, J Turbomachinery, 2013, 135, (011035-1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Colin, Y., Aupoix, B., Boussugea, J.F. and Chanez, P. Numerical simulation of the distortion generated by crosswind inlet flows, Proceedings of the 18th ISABE Conference, Beijing, China, 2007, ISABE-2007-1210.Google Scholar
21. Wilcox, D.C. Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models, AIAA J, 1988, 26, (11), pp 1299-1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Menter, F.R., Kuntz, M. and Langtry, R. Ten years of industrial experience with the SST turbulence model, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer, Antalya, Turkey, 2003, pp 625-632.Google Scholar
23. Allmaras, S.R., Johnson, F.T. and Spalart, P.R. Modifications and clarifications for the implementation of the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model, Proceedings of the 7th International Conf. on Computational Fluid Dynamics, Big Island, Hawaii, USA, 2012, ICCFD7-1902.Google Scholar
24. Sheoran, Y., Bouldin, B. and Krishnan, P.M. Compressor performance and operability in swirl distortion, J Turbomachinery, 2012, 134, (041008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar