Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:55:57.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tiltrotor CFD Part I - validation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2017

A. Jimenez-Garcia ,
G.N. Barakos  and
S. Gates
A. Jimenez-Garcia
Affiliation:
CFD Laboratory, School of Engineering, James Watt South Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
G.N. Barakos*
Affiliation:
CFD Laboratory, School of Engineering, James Watt South Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
S. Gates
Affiliation:
Leonardo Helicopters, Aerodynamics Department, Yeovil, United Kingdom
*
George.Barakos@glasgow.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents performance analyses of the model-scale ERICA and TILTAERO tiltrotors and of the full-scale XV-15 rotor with high-fidelity computational fluids dynamics. For the ERICA tiltrotor, the overall effect of the blades on the fuselage was well captured, as demonstrated by analysing surface pressure measurements. However, there was no available experimental data for the blade aerodynamic loads. A comparison of computed rotor loads with experiments was instead possible for the XV-15 rotor, where CFD results predicted the FoM within 1.05%. The method was also able to capture the differences in performance between hover and propeller modes. Good agreement was also found for the TILTAERO loads. The overall agreement with the experimental data and theory for the considered cases demonstrates the capability of the present CFD method to accurately predict tiltrotor flows. In a second part of this work, the validated method is used for blade shape optimisation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 121 , Issue 1239 , May 2017 , pp. 577 - 610
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. Maisel, M.D., Giulianetti, D.J. and Dugan, D.C. The history of the XV-15 tilt rotor research aircraft: From concept to flight, NASA SP-2000-4517, 2000.Google Scholar
2. Potsdam, M.A., Schaller, D.F., Rajagopalan, R.G. and Silva, M.J. Tilt rotor aeromechanics phenomena in low speed flight, Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Specialist’s Conference on Aeromechanics, AHS, San Francisco, CA, 2004, pp 1-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Narducci, R., Jiang, F., Liu, J. and Clark, R. CFD modeling of tiltrotor shipboard aerodynamics with rotor wake interactions, Proceedings of the 27th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA, San Antonio, Texas, 2009, pp 1-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. AugustaWestland AW609, http://www.agustawestland.com/product/aw609, last visited data: 22/11/2015.Google Scholar
5. Harris, J.C., Scheidler, P.F., Hopkins, R. and Fortenbaugh, R.L. Initial power-off testing of the BA609 tiltrotor, Proceedings of the 66th Annual Forum, AHS, Phoenix, Arizona, 2000, pp 1-9.Google Scholar
6. Felker, F.F. and Light, J.S. Rotor/wing aerodynamic interactions in hover, NASA-TM-88255, May 1986.Google Scholar
7. Potsdam, M.A. and Strawn, R.C. CFD simulations of tiltrotor configurations in hover, J American Helicopter Society, 2005, 50, (1), pp 82-94, DOI: 10.4050/1.3092845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Bridgeman, J.O., Cummings, A., Narramore, J.C. and Kisor, R. Analysis of V-22 rotor blade performance enhancements for improved payload, Proceedings of the 64th American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, AHS, Montreal, Canada, 2008, pp 1-12.Google Scholar
9. Development of an advanced rotor for tilt-rotor, http://www.transport-research.info/project/development-advanced-rotor-tilt-r otor, last visited date: 22/11/2015.Google Scholar
10. Visingardi, A., Khier, W. and Decours, J. The blind-test activity of TILTAERO project for the numerical aerodynamic investigation of a Tilt rotor, Proceedings of the European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering, ECCOMAS, Jyväskylä, Finland, 2004, pp 1-20.Google Scholar
11. Beaumier, P., Decours, J. and Lefebvre, T. Aerodynamic and aero-acoustic design of modern tilt-rotors: The ONERA experience, Proceedings of the 26th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS, Anchorage, Alaska, 2008, pp 1-11.Google Scholar
12. Decours, J. and Lefebvre, T. Navier-Stokes computations applied to tilt-rotors, Proceedings of the 33rd European Rotorcraft Forum, ERF, Kazan, Russia, 2007, pp 1-18.Google Scholar
13. NICETRIP - Novel innovative competitive effective tilt rotor integrated project: NICETRIP website, http://www.nicetrip.onera.fr, last visited date: 02/07/2015.Google Scholar
14. Advancement of proprotor technology, task II - wind-tunnel test results, NASA CR-114363, September 1971.Google Scholar
15. Weiberg, J.A. and Maisel, M.D. Wind-tunnel tests of the XV-15 tilt rotor aircraft, NASA TM–81177, April 1980.Google Scholar
16. Felker, F.F., Betzina, M.D. and Signor, D.B. Performance and loads data from a hover test of a full-scale XV-15 rotor, NASA TM–86833, September 1985.Google Scholar
17. Bartie, K., Alexander, H., McVeigh, M., Mon, S.L. and Bishop, H. Hover performance tests of baseline meter and advanced technology blade (ATB) rotor systems for the XV-15 tilt rotor aircraft, NASA CR–114626, October 1986.Google Scholar
18. Light, J.S. Results from an XV-15 rotor test in the national full-scale aerodynamics complex, Proceedings of the 53rd American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, AHS, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 1997.Google Scholar
19. Betzina, M.D. Rotor performance of an isolated full-Scale XV-15 tiltrotor in helicopter mode, Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society Aerodynamics, Acoustics, and Test and Evaluation Technical Specialist Meeting, AHS, San Francisco, CA, 2002, pp 1-12.Google Scholar
20. Wadcock, A.J., Yamauchi, G.K. and Driver, D.M. Skin friction measurements on a hovering full-scale tilt rotor, J American Helicopter Society, 1999, 99, (4), pp 312-319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Philipsen, I. and Heinrich, S. Test report on measurements on the NICETRIP large-scale powered model in DNW-LLF, Project number 2410.1338, August 2013.Google Scholar
22. Lebrun, F. NICETRIP test - ERICA 1/5th scale powered model in the test section no.2-45m 2 of S1MA wind tunnel, Test Report Number PV 1/17648 DSMA, June 2014.Google Scholar
23. Kaul, U.K. and Ahmad, J. Skin friction predictions over a hovering tilt-rotor blade using OVERFLOW2, Proceedings of the 29th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2011, pp 1-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Kaul, U.K. Effect of inflow boundary conditions on hovering tilt-rotor flows, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics, ICCFD7, Big Island, Hawaii, 2012, pp 1-19.Google Scholar
25. Spalart, P.R. and Allmaras, S. A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, La Recherche Aérospatiale, 1994, (1), pp 5-21.Google Scholar
26. Yoon, S., Pulliam, T.H. and Chaderjian, N.M. Simulations of XV-15 rotor flows in hover using OVERFLOW, Proceedings of the 50th AHS Aeromechanics Specialists, AHS, San Francisco, CA, 2014, pp 1-11.Google Scholar
27. Sheng, C. and Zhao, Q. Investigations of XV-15 rotor hover performance and flow field using U2NCLE and HELIOS codes, Proceedings of the 54th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA, San Diego, California, 2016, pp 1-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Gates, S. Aerodynamic analysis of tiltrotors in hovering and propeller modes using advanced Navier-Stokes computations, Proceedings of the 39th European Rotorcraft Forum, ERF, Moscow, Russia, 2013, pp 1-26.Google Scholar
29. Abras, J. and Narducci, R. Analysis of CFD modeling techniques over the MV-22 tiltrotor, Proceedings of the 66th Annual Forum, AHS, Phoenix, AZ, 2010, pp 1-11.Google Scholar
30. Lefebvre, T., Beaumier, P., Canard, S., Pisoni, A., Pagano, A., van der Wall, B., D’Alascio, A., Arzoumanian, C., Riziotis, V. and Hermans, C. Aerodynamic and aero-acoustic optimization of modern tilt-rotor blades within the ADYN project, Proceedings of the European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering, ECCOMAS, Jyväskylä, Finland, 2004, pp 1-20.Google Scholar
31. Decours, J., Beaumier, P., Khier, W., Kneisch, T., Valentini, M. and Vigevano, L. Experimental validation of tilt-rotor aerodynamic predictions, Proceeding of the 40th European Rotorcraft Forum, ERF, Southampton, UK, 2014, pp 1-12.Google Scholar
32. Lawson, S.J., Steijl, R., Woodgate, M. and Barakos, G.N. High performance computing for challenging problems in computational fluid dynamics, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2012, 52, (1), pp 19-29, DOI: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2012.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Steijl, R. and Barakos, G.N. Sliding mesh algorithm for CFD analysis of helicopter rotor-fuselage aerodynamics, Int J for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2008, 58, (5), pp 527-549, DOI: 10.1002/d.1757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Steijl, R., Barakos, G.N. and Badcock, K. A framework for CFD analysis of helicopter rotors in hover and forward flight, Int J for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2006, 51, (8), pp 819-847, DOI: 10.1002/d.1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Hirt, C.W., Amsten, A.A. and Cook, J.L. An arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian computing method for all flow speeds, J Computational Physics, 1974, 14, (3), pp 227-253, DOI: 10.1006/jcph.1997.5702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Osher, S. and Chakravarthy, S. Upwind schemes and boundary conditions with applications to Euler equations in general geometries, J Computational Physics, 1983, 50, (3), pp 447-481, DOI: 10.1016/0021-9991(83)90106-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Roe, P.L. Approximate Riemann solvers, parameter vectors, and difference schemes, J Computational Physics, 1981, 43, (2), pp 357-372, DOI: 10.1016/0021-9991(81)90128-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. van Leer, B. Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. V.A second-order sequel to Godunov’s Method, J Computational Physics, 1979, 32, (1), pp 101-136, DOI: 10.1016/0021-9991(79)90145-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. van Albada, G.D., van Leer, B. and Roberts, W.W. A comparative study of computational methods in cosmic gas dynamics, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1982, 108, (1), pp 76-84.Google Scholar
40. Axelsson, O. Iterative Solution Methods, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. Jarkowski, M., Woodgate, M., Barakos, G.N. and Rokicki, J. Towards consistent hybrid overset mesh methods for rotorcraft CFD, Int J for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2014, 74, (8), pp 543-576, DOI: 10.1002/fld.3861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42. Dehaeze, F. and Barakos, G.N. Aeroelastic CFD computations for rotor flows, Proceedings of the 37th European Rotorcraft Forum, ERF, Galarate, Italy, 2011, pp 1-20.Google Scholar
43. Jimenez, A. and Barakos, G.N. Hover predictions on the S-76 rotor using HMB2, Proceedings of the 53rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA, Kissimmee, Florida, 2015, pp 1-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. Cambier, L., Heib, S. and Plot, S. The Onera elsA CFD software: input from research and feedback from industry, Mechanics and Industry - Cambridge Journals, 2013, 14, (3), pp 159-174, DOI: 10.1051/meca/2013056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. Biava, M. RANS Computations of Rotor/Fuselage Unsteady Interactional Aerodynamics, PhD Thesis, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aerospaziale, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy, 2007.Google Scholar
46. Kroll, N., Eisfeld, B. and Bleecke, H. The Navier-Stokes code FLOWer, Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics, Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1999, 71, pp 58-71.Google Scholar
47. Wilcox, D. Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advacned turbulence models, AIAA J, 1988, 26, (11), pp 1299–1310, DOI: 10.2514/3.10041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48. Bruin, A. and Schneider, O. A discussion of measured static and dynamic rotor loads during testing of the ERICA tilt-wing rotorcraft configuration in DNW-LLF wind tunnel, Proceeding of the 40th European Rotorcraft Forum, ERF, Southampton, UK, 2014, pp. 1-15.Google Scholar
49. Vigevano, L., Beaumier, P., Decours, J., Khier, W., Kneisch, T. and Vitagliano, P. Tilt-rotor aerodynamics activities during the NICETRIP project, Proceeding of the 40th European Rotorcraft Forum, ERF, Southampton, UK, 2014, pp 1-14.Google Scholar
50. Menter, F.R. Two-equation Eddy-Viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications, AIAA J, 1994, 32, (8), pp 1598-1605, DOI: 10.2514/3.12149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51. Jeong, J. and Hussain, F. On the identification of a vortex, J Fluid Mechanics, 1995, 285, (1), pp 69-94, DOI: 10.1017/S0022112095000462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. Acree, C. Rotor design options for improving XV-15 Whirl-Flutter stability margins, NASA TP–2004-212262, March 2004.Google Scholar
53. Brocklehurst, A. High Resolution Method for the Aerodynamic Design of Helicopter Rotors, PhD Thesis, University of Liverpool, UK, June 2013.Google Scholar
54. Ffowcs-Williams, J.E. and Hawkings, D.L. Sound generation by turbulence and surfaces in arbitrary motion, J Computational Physics, 1969, 264, (1), pp 321-342, DOI: 10.1098/rsta.1969.0031.Google Scholar
55. Lighthill, M.J. On sound generated aerodynamically. I. General theory, Proceedings of the Royal Society, 1952, 221A.Google Scholar
56. Brentner, K.S. and Farassat, F. Modeling aerodynamically generated sound of helicopter rotors, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2003, 39, (2), pp 83-120, DOI: 10.1016/S0376-0421(02)00068-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57. Gopalan, G. and Shmitz, F.H. Far-field near-in plane harmonic main rotor helicopter impulsive noise reduction possibilities, Proceedings of the 64th Annual Forum, AHS, Montréal, Canada, 2008, pp 1-22.Google Scholar
58. Gopalan, G. and Shmitz, F. Understanding far field near-in-plane high speed harmonic helicopter rotor noise in hover: Governing parameters and active acoustic control possibilities, Proceedings of Specialist’s Conference on Aeromechanics, AHS, San Francisco, CA, 2008, pp 1-23.Google Scholar
59. Kusyumov, A., Mikhailov, S., Garipova, L., Batrakov, A. and Barakos, G. Prediction of helicopter rotor noise in hover, Experimental Fluid Mechanics, EPJ, Česky’ Krumlov, Czech Republic, 2015, pp. 1-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar