Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:57:30.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Low Reynolds number proprotor aerodynamic performance improvement using the continuous surface curvature design approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2018

E. J. Avital Open the ORCID record for E. J. Avital [Opens in a new window] ,
T. Korakianitis  and
F. Motallebi
E. J. Avital*
Affiliation:
School of Engineering and Materials ScienceQueen Mary University of LondonLondon, UK
T. Korakianitis
Affiliation:
Parks College of Engineering, Aviation and TechnologySaint Louis UniversitySt. Louis,Missouri, USA
F. Motallebi
Affiliation:
School of Engineering and Materials ScienceQueen Mary University of LondonLondon, UK
*
*[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Low Reynolds number blade profiles of ReC=105–2×105 as based on the chord length and used for small unnamed air vehicles, and near space applications are investigated for single and counter-rotating (co-axial) proprotors, i.e. acting as rotors or propellers. Such profiles are prone for early stall, significantly reducing their maximum lift to drag ratio. Two profiles previously designed by our continuous surface curvature design approach named as CIRCLE are investigated in order to improve the performance of the proprotors. The profiles are redesigns of the common symmetric NACA0012 and asymmetric E387 profiles. Using general arguments based on composite efficiency and rotor’s lift to drag ratio, the performance envelope is noticeably increased when using the redesigned profiles for high angles of attack due to stall delay.

A new approach is derived to account for the distance between the rotors of a co-axial proprotor. It is coupled with a blade element method and is verified against experimental results. Single and co-axial CIRCLE-based proprotors are investigated against the corresponding non-CIRCLE-based proprotors at hover and axial translation. Noticeable improvements are observed in thrust increase and power reduction at high angles of attack of the blade’s profiles, particularly for the co-axial configuration. Plots of thrust, torque, power, composite efficiency and aerodynamic efficiency distributions are given and analysed.

Keywords

Low Reynolds number bladeProprotorSurface curvatureBlade element method
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 123 , Issue 1259 , January 2019 , pp. 20 - 38
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2018 

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

†

Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society.

References

1. Mueller, T.J. and DeLaurier, J.D. Aerodynamics of small vehicles, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2003, 35, pp 89-111.Google Scholar
2. Shen, X., Avital, E., Rezaienia, M.A., Paul, G. and Korakianitis, T. Computational methods for investigation of surface curvature effects on airfoil boundary layer behavior, J Algorithms & Computational Technology, 2017, 11, (1): 68-82.Google Scholar
3. Shen, X., Avital, E., Paul, G., Rezaienia, M.A., Wen, P. and Korakianitis, T. Experimental study of surface curvature effects on aerodynamics of low Reynolds number airfoil for small wind turbines, J Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 2017, 8, (5), p 053303.Google Scholar
4. Korakianitis, T., Hamakham, I.A., Rezaienia, M.A., Wheeler, A.P.S., Avital, E.J. and Williams, J.J.R. Design of high-efficiency turbomachinery blades for energy conversion devices with three-dimensional prescribed surface curvature distribution blade design (CIRCLE) method, Applied Energy, 2012, 89, pp 215-227.Google Scholar
5. Shen, X., Avital, E., Zhao, Q., Gao, J., Li, X., Paul, G. and Korakianitis, T. Surface curvature effects on the tonal noise performance of a low Reynolds number aerofoil, Applied Acoustics, 2017, 125, pp 34-40.Google Scholar
6. Zhang, S., Yang, X., Song, B. and Song, W. Aerodynamic design of a novel low-Reynolds-number airfoil for near space propellers, Proceedings of the 2015 Asian-Pacific Conference Aero Tech Sci, Jeju Korea, pp 603–607.Google Scholar
7. Wald, Q. The aerodynamics of propellers, Progress in Aerosp Sciences, 2006, 42, pp 85-128.Google Scholar
8. Gur, O. and Rosen, A. Comparison between blade-element models of propellers, Aero J, 2008, 112, (1138): 689-704.Google Scholar
9. Bai, X., Avital, E.J., Munjiza, A. and Williams, J.J.R. Numerical simulation of a marine current turbine in free surface flow, Renewable Energy, 2014, 63, pp 715-723.Google Scholar
10. Playle, S.C., Korkan, K.D. and Lavante, A. Numerical method for the design and analysis of counter-rotating propellers, AIAA J Propulsion, 1986, 2, (1): 57-63.Google Scholar
11. Leishman, J.D. Aerodynamic performance considerations in the design of a coaxial proprotor, J the American Helicopter Society, 2009, 54, p 012005.Google Scholar
12. Beaumier, P. A low-order method for co-axial propeller and rotor performance prediction, ICAS 2014 St Petersbourg, hal-0107955.Google Scholar
13. Juhasz, O., Syal, M., Celi, R., Khromov, V., Rand, O., Ruzicka, G.C. and Strawn, R.C. Comparison of three coaxial aerodynamic prediction methods including validation with model test data, J American Helicopter Society, 2014, 59, p 032006.Google Scholar
14. McCormick, B.W. Aerodynamics of V/STOL Flight. Dover Publications, Mineola, New York; 1999, pp 79–92, 96-97.Google Scholar
15. Hough, G.R. and Ordway, D.E. The Generalized Actuator Disk, 1964, TAR-TR 6401.Google Scholar
16. Morgado, J., Silvestre, A.R. and Pascoa, A. Comparison of post-stall models extended for propeller performance prediction, Aircraft Engineering and Aerosp Technology. An Int J, 2016, 88, (4): 540-549.Google Scholar
17. Spalart, P.R. On the simple actuator disk, J Fluid Mechcanics, 2003, 494, pp 399-405.Google Scholar
18. Dumitrescu, H. and Cardos, V. A stall-delay model for rotating blades, Proceedings of the Applied Mathematical Methods, 2007, 7, p 4100003.Google Scholar
19. Stepniewski, W.Z. and Keys, C.N. Rotary-wing aerodynamics. Dover Pub, New York; 1984: 350-355.Google Scholar
20. Tangler & Kocurek, Wind turbine post-stall airfoil performance characteristics guidelines for BEM methods, 2004, NREL/CP-500-36900.Google Scholar
21. Harrington, R.D. Full-scale-tunnel investigation of the static-thrust performance of a coaxial helicopter rotor, 1951, NACA TN2318.Google Scholar
22. Sheldahl, R.E. and Kilmas, P.C. Aerodynamic characteristics of seven symmetrical airfoil sections through 180-degree angle for use in aerodynamic analysis of vertical axis wind turbines, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, US, 1981, pp SAND80-2114.Google Scholar
23. Ghoddoussi, A. A More Comprehensive Database for Propeller Performance Validations at Low Reynolds Numbers, PhD thesis, Wichita State University, 2016.Google Scholar