Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T05:40:26.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A flow separation model for hydrofoil, propeller and duct sections with blunt trailing edges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2018

Weikang Du Open the ORCID record for Weikang Du [Opens in a new window]  and
Spyros A. Kinnas
Weikang Du*
Affiliation:
Ocean Engineering Group, Department of Civil, Architecture and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, TX 78712, USA
Spyros A. Kinnas
Affiliation:
Ocean Engineering Group, Department of Civil, Architecture and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, TX 78712, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: allendu1988@utexas.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The panel method does not apply to hydrofoils, propellers and ducts with blunt trailing edges due to the flow separation downstream. In this paper, a model is proposed to represent the flow separation with an extension, and a low-order panel method coupled with a boundary layer solver is used. The criteria of zero lift and zero moment are adopted to determine the end of the extension zone, and flow separation criteria are used to determine the starting points on either side of the section. The model is applied to hydrofoil, bare duct and ducted propeller sections with blunt trailing edges. The pressure distributions and skin frictions along the hydrofoils and ducts correlate well with those from the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes method. The thrust and torque of the propeller agree much better with experimental measurements when the extension is determined from this model rather than choosing random locations. This model requires much less computational effort while preserving high accuracy, and thus can be used reliably in designing and analysing hydrofoils and propeller ducts with blunt trailing edges.

JFM classification

Boundary Layers: Boundary layer separation Mathematical Foundations: Computational methods
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 861 , 25 February 2019 , pp. 180 - 199
Copyright
© 2018 Cambridge University Press 

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

Abbott, I. H. & Von Doenhoff, A. E. 1959 Theory of Wing Sections, Including a Summary of Airfoil Data. Courier Corporation.Google Scholar
Baltazar, J., Falcão de Campos, J. A. C. & Bosschers, J. 2012 Open-water thrust and torque predictions of a ducted propeller system with a panel method. Intl J. Rotating Mach. 2012, 1–11.Google Scholar
Bosschers, I. J. & van der Veeken, R.2008 Open water tests for propeller Ka4-70 and duct 19A with a sharp trailing edge. Tech. Rep. 224457-2-VT. Maritime Research Institute.Google Scholar
Bosschers, J., Willemsen, C., Peddle, A. & Rijpkema, D. 2015 Analysis of ducted propellers by combining potential flow and RANS methods. In Proc. 4th Int. Symposium on Marine Propulsors, pp. 639–648. Institute for Fluid Dynamics and Ship Theory (FDS) – Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), German Society for Maritime Technology (STG).Google Scholar
Drela, M. 1989 XFOIL: An analysis and design system for low Reynolds number airfoils. In Low Reynolds Number Aerodynamics, pp. 1–12. Springer.Google Scholar
Greenway, M. E. & Wood, C. J. 1973 The effect of a bevelled trailing edge on vortex shedding and vibration. J. Fluid Mech. 61 (2), 323–335.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, M. 2006 A RANS-based analysis tool for ducted propeller systems in open water condition. Intl Shipbuild. Prog. 53 (3), 205–227.Google Scholar
Kerwin, J. E., Keenan, D. P., Black, S. D. & Diggs, J. G. 1994 A coupled viscous/potential flow design method for wake-adapted, multi-stage, ducted propulsors using generalized geometry. Trans. Soc. Nav. Archit. Mar. Engrs 102, 23–56.Google Scholar
Kerwin, J. E., Kinnas, S. A., Lee, J.-T. & Shih, W.-Z. 1987 A surface panel method for the hydrodynamic analysis of ducted propellers. In Transactions of Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.Google Scholar
Kerwin, J. E. & Lee, C.-S. 1978 Prediction of steady and unsteady marine propeller performance by numerical lifting-surface theory. In Transactions of Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.Google Scholar
Kim, S., Kinnas, S. A. & Du, W. 2018 Panel method for ducted propellers with sharp trailing edge duct with fully aligned wake on blade and duct. J. Mar. Sci. Engng 6 (3), 1–22.Google Scholar
Kinnas, S. A., Fan, H. & Tian, Y. 2015 A panel method with a full wake alignment model for the prediction of the performance of ducted propellers. J. Ship Res. 59 (4), 246–257.Google Scholar
Kinnas, S. A., Lee, H., Sun, H. & He, L. 2007 Performance prediction of single or multi-component propulsors using coupled viscous/inviscid methods. In Proc. 10th Int. Symposium on the Practical Design of Ships and other Floating Structures, Houston, TX. American Bureau of Shipping.Google Scholar
Kuiper, G.1992 The Wageningen propeller series. Tech. Rep. 92-001. Published on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Maritime Research Institute (MRINE).Google Scholar
Lee, H. & Kinnas, S. A. 2006 Prediction of cavitating performance of ducted propellers. In Proc. 6th Int. Symposium on Cavitation, CAV2006. Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN).Google Scholar
Magi, E. C. & Gai, S. L. 1998 Flow behind castellated blunt-trailing-edge aerofoils at supersonic speeds. J. Fluid Mech. 375, 85–111.Google Scholar
Majdfar, S., Ghassemi, H., Forouzan, H. & Ashrafi, A. 2017 Hydrodynamic prediction of the ducted propeller by CFD solver. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 25 (3), 268–275.Google Scholar
Moulijn, J. 2015 Application of various computational methods to predict the performance and cavitation of ducted propellers. In Proc. 4th Int. Symposium on Marine Propulsors, vol. 15, p. 31. Institute for Fluid Dynamics and Ship Theory (FDS) – Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), German Society for Maritime Technology (STG).Google Scholar
Pan, Y. & Kinnas, S. A. 2011 A viscous/inviscid interactive approach for the prediction of performance of hydrofoils and propellers with nonzero trailing edge thickness. J. Ship Res. 55 (1), 45–63.Google Scholar
Park, H., Lee, D., Jeon, W.-P., Hahn, S., Kim, J., Kim, J., Choi, J. & Choi, H. 2006 Drag reduction in flow over a two-dimensional bluff body with a blunt trailing edge using a new passive device. J. Fluid Mech. 563, 389–414.Google Scholar
Pope, S. B. 2000 Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reynolds, O. 1894 On the dynamical theory of incompressible viscous fluids and the determination of the criterion. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 186, 123–164.Google Scholar
Servini, P., Smith, F. T. & Rothmayer, A. P. 2017 The impact of static and dynamic roughness elements on flow separation. J. Fluid Mech. 830, 35–62.Google Scholar
Su, Y. & Kinnas, S. A. 2017 A generalized potential/RANS interactive method for the prediction of propulsor performance. J. Ship Res. 61 (4), 214–229.Google Scholar
Surana, A., Grunberg, O. & Haller, G. 2006 Exact theory of three-dimensional flow separation. Part 1. Steady separation. J. Fluid Mech. 564, 57–103.Google Scholar
Tian, Y. & Kinnas, S. A. 2012 A wake model for the prediction of propeller performance at low advance ratios. Intl J. Rotating Mach. 2012, 1–11.Google Scholar