Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T00:15:36.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simplified propeller analysis and design including effects of stall

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2016

L.W. Traub
L.W. Traub*
Affiliation:
Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Department, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott, Arizona, US
*
traubl@erau.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A simplified method to analyse propellers based on vortex theory is presented. Small-angle approximations are implemented to eliminate the need for iteration in the determination of the induced angle-of-attack. A stall model is developed and combined with analytic relations describing the blade aerofoil characteristics, eliminating the need for look-up tables of aerofoil behaviour. The method is also extended to serve as an optimal propeller design tool. Comparisons of the approach with experiment are presented for validation as an analysis tool. Use of the theory as a design tool is also demonstrated through contrast with an existing blade design methodology.

Keywords

propeller analysis; propeller design; propeller stall modelpropellersMicro Air Vehicle (MAV)Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV)
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 120 , Issue 1227 , May 2016 , pp. 796 - 818
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2016 

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. Rankine, W.J.M. On the mechanical principles of the action of propellers, Transactions of the Institute of Naval Architects, 1865, 6, pp 1-18.Google Scholar
2. Froude, R.E. On the part played in the operation of propulsion differences in fluid pressure, Transactions of the Institute of Naval Architects, 1889, 30.Google Scholar
3. Glauert, H. The Elements of Airfoil and Airscrew Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
4. Goldstein, S. On the vortex theory of screw propellers, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 1929, 123, pp 440-465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Betz, A. Schraubenpropeller mit Geringstem Energieverlust, Nachrichten der Koniglichen Gesellshcaft der Wissenschafen zu Gottingen, Mathematisch-Physikalsche Klasse, 1919, Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Gottingen, Germany, pp 193–217.Google Scholar
6. Masquelier, M. Application of the Vortex Lattice Method to Propeller Performance Analysis, MS Thesis, 1982, Air Force Institute of Technology, Colorado Springs, Colorado US.Google Scholar
7. Carroll, J. and Marcum, D. Comparison of a blade element momentum model to 3D CFD simulations for small scale propellers, SAE Int J Aerospace, September 2013, 6, (2), pp 721-726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Breton, S P. Study of the stall delay phenomenon and of wind turbine blade dynamics using numerical approaches and NREL's wind tunnel tests, PhD Dissertation, June 2008, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
9. Ronsten, G. Static pressure measurements on a rotating and non-rotating 2.375 m wind turbine blade. Comparison with 2D calculations, J Wind Engineering and Industrial Aero, 1992, 39, pp 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Snel, H., Houwink, R., van Bussel, G.J.W. and Bruining, A. Sectional prediction of 3D effects for stalled flow on rotating blades and comparison with measurements, Proc. European Community Wind Energy Conference, 1993, Lübeck-Travemünde, Germany, pp 395-399.Google Scholar
11. Chaviaropoulos, P.K. and Hansen, M.O.L. Investigating three-dimensional and rotational effects on wind turbine blades by means of a quasi-3D Navier Stokes solver, J Fluids Engineering, 2000, 122, pp 330–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Du, Z. and Selig, M.S. A 3-D stall-delay model for horizontal axis wind turbine performance prediction, AIAA Paper 98-0021, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Corrigan, J.J. and Schilling, J.J. Empirical model for stall delay due to rotation, Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society Aeromechanics Specialists Conference, 1994, San Francisco, California, US.Google Scholar
14. Lock, C.N.H. A graphical method of calculating the performance of an airscrew, British A.R.C Report, R&M 1675, 1935.Google Scholar
15. Slavik, S. Preliminary determination of propeller aerodynamic characteristics for small aircrafts, Acta Poltytechnica, 2004, 44, (2), pp 103–108.Google Scholar
16. Larrabee, E.E. Practical design of minimum induced loss propellers, SAE Paper 700585, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Adkins, C.M. and Liebeck, R.H. Design of optimum propellers, J of Propulsion and Power, 1994, 10, (5), pp 676–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Phillips, W.F., Mechanics of Flight, 2004, John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey, US, pp 135–145.Google Scholar
19. Leishman, J.G. and Crouse, G.L. Jr., State-space model for unsteady airfoil behaviour and dynamic stall, AIAA Paper 89-1319, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Traub, L.W. High-incidence airfoil lift and drag estimates, J Aircr, 2012, 49, (1), pp 311–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Traub, L.W. Aerodynamic impact of aspect ratio at low Eeynolds number, J Aircr, 2013, 50, (2), pp 626–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Barlow, J.B., Rae, W.H., and Pope, A. Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing, 3rd ed., 1999, Wiley-Interscience, New York, US.Google Scholar
23. Hartman, E.P. and Biermann, D. The aerodynamics of full-scale propellers having 2, 3 and 4 blades of Clark Y and R. A. F. 6 airfoil sections, NACA Report 640, 1938.Google Scholar
24. Silverstein, A. Scale effect on Clark Y airfoil characteristics from NACA full-scale wind tunnel tests, NACA Report 502, June 1934.Google Scholar
25. UIUC Propeller Data Base, http://aerospace.illinois.edu/m-selig/props/propDB.html, accessed 1 April 2014.Google Scholar
26. McCormick, B.W. Aerodynamics, Aeronautics, and Flight Mechanics, 2nd ed., 1994, Wiley, New York, US, pp 317–318.Google Scholar