Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:38:17.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence analysis of propeller location parameters on wings using a panel/viscous vortex particle hybrid method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2017

H.B. Wang ,
Z. Zhou ,
X.P. Xu  and
X.P. Zhu
H.B. Wang*
Affiliation:
College of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, China Science and Technology on UAV Laboratory, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, China
Z. Zhou
Affiliation:
College of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, China Science and Technology on UAV Laboratory, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, China
X.P. Xu
Affiliation:
College of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, China Science and Technology on UAV Laboratory, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, China
X.P. Zhu
Affiliation:
Science and Technology on UAV Laboratory, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, China
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For aircraft that employ distributed propeller propulsion systems, the distributed propeller slipstream increases the analysis complexity. The objective of this paper is to rapidly analyse the influence of propeller slipstream on a wing using a fast prediction approach to perform conceptual design studies. This fast approach is implemented through a panel/viscous vortex particle hybrid method taking into account the air viscosity effect. The parametric studies of propeller streamwise, spanwise, vertical installed position, propeller number and rotational direction are conducted for a rectangular wing platform in two different propeller-wing configurations. The results indicate that the propeller slipstream causes both the augmentations of the wing lift and drag in a traditional tractor propeller layout. For an over-the-wing propeller configuration, however, the obvious lift increase and drag decrease can be obtained. A rear propeller position relative to the wing chord leads to a beneficial increase in lift while a fore propeller location is able to decrease the wing drag. The maximum increment of the lift-to-drag ratio can be achieved by 17.6% when the propeller is located at 30% of the wing chord, which shows a considerable advantage in improving the wing aerodynamic efficiency.

Keywords

Distributed propeller slipstreampanel/viscous vortex particle hybrid methodtractor propeller arrangementover-the-wing propeller configuration
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 122 , Issue 1247 , January 2018 , pp. 21 - 41
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.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Noll, T.E., Ishmael, S.D., Henwood, B., Perez-Davis, M.E., Tiffany, G.C., Madura, J., Gaier, M., Brown, J. M. and Wierzbanowski, T. Technical findings, lessons learned, and recommendations resulting from the helios prototype vehicle mishap, NASA 20070022260, 2007, Hampton, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
2. Thouault, N., Breitsamter, C., Gologan, C. and Adams, N.A. Numerical analysis of design parameters for a generic fan-in-wing configuration, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2010, 14, (1), pp 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Farrar, B. and Agarwal, R. CFD Analysis of open rotor engines using an actuator disk model, 52nd AIAA Aerospaces Science Meeting, AIAA 2014-0408, 2014, National Harbor, Maryland, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Veldhuis, L.M. and Luursema, G.W. Comparison of an actuator disk and a blade modeling approach in Navier-Stokes calculations on the SR-3 propfan, 18th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA 2000–4528, 2000, Denver, Colorado, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Hu, D.M., Ouyang, H. and Du, Z.H. A study on stall-delay for horizontal axis wind turbine, Renewable Energy, 2006, 31, (6), pp 821–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Liu, T.L. and Pan, K.C. Application of the sliding mesh technique for helicopter rotor flow simulation, J Aeronautics, Astronautics and Aviation, 2012, 44, (3), pp 201–210.Google Scholar
7. Nicolas, T., Breitsamter, C. and Adams, N.A. Numerical and experimental analysis of a generic fan-in-wing configuration, J Aircraft, 2009, 46, (2), pp 656–666.Google Scholar
8. Richason, T.F., Katz, J. and Ashby, D.L. Unsteady panel method for flows with multiple bodies moving along various paths, AIAA J, 1994, 32, (1), pp 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Katz, J. and Maskew, B. Unsteady low-speed aerodynamic model for complete aircraft configurations, J Aircraft, 1988, 25, (4), pp 302–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Degennaro, A.M. Three-dimensional panel method hydrodynamic models of oscillating fins, 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, AIAA 2012-0129, 2012, Nashville, Tennessee, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Wie, S.Y., Lee, S. and Lee, D.J. Potential panel and time-marching free-wake coupling analysis for helicopter rotor, J Aircraft, 2009, 46, (3), pp 1030–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Leishman, J.G., Bhagwat, J.M. and Bagai, A. Free-vortex filament methods for the analysis of helicopter rotor wakes, J Aircraft, 2002, 39, (5), pp 759–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Huberson, S., Rivoalen, E. and Voutsinas, S. Vortex particle methods in aeroacoustics calculations, J Computational Physics, 2008, 227, pp 9216–9240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Opoku, D.G., Triantos, D.G., Nitzsche, F. and Voutsinas, S.G. Rotorcraft aerodynamic and aeroacoustic modeling using vortex particle methods, 23rd International Congress of Aeronautical Sciences, 2002, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
15. Voutsinas, S.G. Vortex methods in aeronautics: how to make things work. Int J Computational Fluid Dynamics, 2006, 20, (1), pp 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Willis, D.J., Jaime, P. and Jacob, K.W. A combined PFFT-multipole tree code, unsteady panel method with vortex particle wakes, Int J Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2007, 53, (8), pp 1399–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Katz, J. and Plotkin, A. Low-Speed Aerodynamics (2nd ed), 2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Tan, J.F. and Wang, H.W. Simulating unsteady aerodynamics of helicopter rotor with panel/viscous vortex particle method, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2013, 30, (1), pp 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. He, C.J. and Zhao, J.G. Modeling rotor wake dynamics with viscous vortex particle method, AIAA J, 2009, 47, (4), pp 902–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Cottet, G.H. and Koumoutsakos, P. Vortex Methods: Theory and Practice, 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Eldredge, J.D., Leonard, A. and Colonius, T. A general deterministic treatment of derivatives in particle methods, J Computational Physics, 2002, 180, (2), pp 686–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Hess, J.L. Calculation of potential flow about arbitrary three dimensional lifting bodies, McDonnel Douglas MDC J5679-01, 1972, Long Beach, California, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Calabretta, J. A Three Dimensional Vortex Particle-panel Code for Modeling Propeller-airframe Interaction, MS thesis, California Polytechnic State University, California, US, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Richason, T.F., Katz, J. and Ashby, D.L. Unsteady panel method for flows with multiple bodies moving along various paths, AIAA J, 1994, 32, (1), pp 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Kinnas, S.A. and Hsin, C.Y. Boundary element method for the analysis of the unsteady flow around extreme propeller geometries, AIAA J, 1992, 3, (3), pp 688–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Gaggero, S. Villa, D. and Brizzolara, S. RANS and panel method for unsteady flow propeller analysis, 9th International Conference on Hydrodynamics, 2010, Shanghai, China, pp 564–569.Google Scholar
27. Smith, B.E. and Ross, J.C. Application of a panel method to wake-vortex/wing interaction and comparison with experimental data, NASA-TM-88337, 1987, Moffett Field, California, US.Google Scholar
28. Robert, J.M., Walker, B.S. and Milard, B.F. Experimental results for the eppler 387 airfoil at low Reynolds numbers in the Langley low-turbulence pressure tunnel, NASA TM4062, 1988, Hampton, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
29. Rahman, M.M., Agarwal, R.K. and Lampinen, M.J. Wall-distance-free version of Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model, AIAA J, 2015, 53, (10), pp 3016–3027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Menter, F.R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications, AIAA J, 1994, 32, (8), pp 1598–1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Walters, D.K. and Leylek, J.H. Computational fluid dynamics study of wake-induced transition on a compressor-like flat plate, J Turbomachinery, 2005, 127, (1), pp 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Caradonna, F.X. and Tung, C. Experimental and analytical studies of a model helicopter rotor in hover, NASA TM-81232, 1981, Moffett Field, California, US.Google Scholar