Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-4xs5l Total loading time: 0.21 Render date: 2021-06-14T09:03:14.443Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2020

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
Corresponding

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.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

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 6363. 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 6465. 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 113. 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 111. 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 216. 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 819847. 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 527549. 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 447481. 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 101136. 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 7684. 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 136.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 3574. 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 129.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 191201. 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

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

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

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

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

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *