Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T03:29:22.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of current rotor design comparison practices based on high-fidelity CFD methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2020

T. Fitzgibbon ,
M. Woodgate  and
G. Barakos Open the ORCID record for G. Barakos [Opens in a new window]
T. Fitzgibbon
Affiliation:
CFD Laboratory, School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
M. Woodgate
Affiliation:
CFD Laboratory, School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
G. Barakos*
Affiliation:
CFD Laboratory, School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
*
george.barakos@glasgow.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper provides an assessment of current rotor design comparison practices. First, the employed CFD method is validated for a number of rotor designs and is shown to achieve accurate performance predictions in hover and high-speed forward flight. Based on CFD results, a detailed investigation is performed in terms of comparing different rotor designs. The CFD analysis highlighted the need of high fidelity methods due to the subtle aerodynamics involved in advanced planforms. Nevertheless, the paper suggests that the correct basis for comparison in terms of performance metrics must be used to inform decisions about the suitability of the rotor blades designs for specific applications. In particular, when comparing blades of advanced planforms, direct torque and thrust comparisons are better than the commonly used lift to drag ratio and figure of merit.

Keywords

Rotor designRotorcraft CFDSolidity
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 124 , Issue 1275 , May 2020 , pp. 731 - 766
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2020

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

Perry, F. Aerodynamics of the world speed record, 43rd Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, St. Louis, Missouri, 1987.Google Scholar
Rauch, P., Gervais, M., Cranga, P., Baud, A., Hirsch, J., Walter, A. and Beaumier, P. Blue edge (TM): The design, development and testing of a new blade concept, American Helicopter Society 67th Annual Forum, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 2011.Google Scholar
Boeing, New Chinook Composite Blades Proven, http://www.boeing.com/features/2017/01/chinook-blades-01-17.page, 2017 [Online; accessed 22-March-2018].Google Scholar
Amer, K.Technical note: High speed rotor aerodynamics, J American Helicopter Soc, 1989, 34, (1), pp 63–63. doi:10.4050/JAHS.34.63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, F.Technical note: The contribution of planform area to the performance of the BERP rotor (Reply to Kenneth B. Amer), J American Helicopter Soc, 1989, 34, (1), pp 64–65. doi:10.4050/JAHS.34.64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeager, W., Noonan, K., Singleton, J., Wilbur, M. and Mirick, P. Performance and vibratory loads data from a wind-tunnel test of a model helicopter main-rotor blade with a paddle-type tip, Tech Rep, NASA-TM-4754, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leon, E., Le Pape, A., Desideri, J., Alfano, D. and Costes, M.Concurrent aerodynamic optimization of rotor blades using a Nash game method, J American Helicopter Soc, 2016, 61, (2), pp 1–13. doi:10.4050/JAHS.61.022009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, A., Le Pape, A., Peter, J. and Huberson, S.Aerodynamic shape optimization of hovering rotors using a discrete adjoint of the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations, J American Helicopter Soc, 2011, 56, (3), pp 1–11. doi:10.4050/JAHS.56.032002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imiela, M.High-fidelity optimization framework for helicopter rotors, J Aero Sci Tech, 2012, 23, (1), pp 2–16. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2011.12.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, O., Watkins, A., Goodman, K., Crafton, J., Forlines, A., Goss, L., Gregory, J. and Juliano, T. Blade tip pressure measurements using pressure sensitive paint, American Helicopter Society 68th Annual Forum, Fort Worth, Texas, 2012.Google Scholar
Steijl, R., Barakos, G.N. and Badcock, K.A framework for CFD analysis of helicopter rotors in hover and forward flight, Int J Num Methods Fluids, 2006, 51, (8), pp 819–847. doi:10.1002/d.1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steijl, R. and Barakos, G.N.Sliding mesh algorithm for CFD analysis of helicopter rotor-fuselage aerodynamics, Int J Num Methods Fluids, 2008, 58, (5), pp 527–549. doi:10.1002/d.1757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osher, S. and Chakravarthy, S.Upwind schemes and boundary conditions with applications to Euler equations in general geometries, J Comput Phys, 1983, 50, (3), pp 447–481. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(83)90106-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Leer, B.Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. V.A second-order sequel to Godunov’s Method, J Comput Phys, 1979, 32, (1), pp 101–136. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(79)90145-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Albada, G.D., van Leer, B. and Roberts, W.W.A comparative study of computational methods in cosmic gas dynamics, Astro Astrophys, 1982, 108, (1), pp 76–84. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-60543-7.Google Scholar
Axelsson, O.Iterative Solution Methods, Cambridge University Press, 1994, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodgate, M. and Barakos, G. An implicit hybrid method for the computation of rotorcraft aerodynamic flows, AIAA SciTech Forum, 54th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, K.W. Aerodynamic Characteristics of Two Rotorcraft Airfoils Designed for Application to the Inboard Region of a Main Rotor Blade, NASA TP-3009, U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command, TR-90-B-005, 1990.Google Scholar
Noonan, K.W. Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Rotorcraft Airfoil Designed for the Tip Region fo a Main Rotor Blade, NASA TM-4264, U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command, TR-91-B-003, 1991.Google Scholar
Overmeyer, A.D. and Martin, P.B. Measured boundary layer transition and rotor hover performance at model scale, Proceedings of the 55th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA-2017-1872, Grapevine, Texas, 2017, pp 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, K. and Brocklehurst, A. BERP IV aerodynamics, performance and Flight Envelope, 34th European Rotorcraft Forum, Liverpool, UK, 2008.Google Scholar
Brocklehurst, A. and Barakos, G.A review of helicopter rotor blade tip shapes, Progress Aerospace Sci, 2013, 56, pp 35–74. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2012.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jain, R. CFD performance and turbulence transition predictions on an installed model-scale rotor in hover, Proceedings of the 55th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA-2017-1871, Grapevine, Texas, 2017, pp 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgibbon, T., Jimenez-Garcia, A., Woodgate, M. and Barakos, G. Numerical simulation of different rotor designs in hover and forward flight, 44th European Rotorcraft Forum, Delft, Netherlands, 2018.Google Scholar
Prouty, R.More Helicopter Aerodynamics, 1988, PJS Publication, Peoria, III.Google Scholar
Le Pape, A. and Beaumier, P.Numerical optimization of helicopter rotor aerodynamic performance in hover, J Aerospace Sci Tech, 2005, 9, (3), pp 191–201. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2004.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balch, D. and Lombardi, J. Experimental study of main rotor tip geometry and tail rotor interactions in hover, Vol I - text and figures, Tech Rep, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1985, NASA-CR-177336-Vol-1.Google Scholar