Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-05T11:45:02.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to improve open rotor aerodynamics at cruise and take-off

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

C. Hall ,
A. Zachariadis ,
T. Brandvik  and
N. Sohoni
C. Hall*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, Whittle Laboratory, Cambridge, UK
A. Zachariadis
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, Whittle Laboratory, Cambridge, UK
T. Brandvik
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, Whittle Laboratory, Cambridge, UK
N. Sohoni
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, Whittle Laboratory, Cambridge, UK
*
cah1003@cam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A key challenge in open rotor design is getting the optimum aerodynamics at both the cruise and take-off conditions. This is particularly difficult because the operation and the requirements of an open rotor are very different at cruise compared to takeoff. This paper uses CFD results to explore the impact of various design changes on the cruise and take-off flow-fields. The paper then considers how a given open rotor design is best operated at take-off to minimise noise whilst maintaining high thrust. The main findings are that various design modifications can be applied to control the flow features that lead to lost efficiency at cruise and increased noise emission at take-off. A breakdown of the lost power terms from CFD solutions demonstrates how developments in open rotor design have led to reduced aerodynamic losses. At take-off, the operating point of the open rotor should be set such that the non-dimensional lift is as high as possible, without causing significant flow separation. This can be achieved through suitable amounts of re-pitch and speed up applied to a design. Comparisons with fully three-dimensional CFD show that the amount of re-pitch required can be determined using simplified methods such as two-dimensional CFD and a Blade Element Method.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1208 , October 2014 , pp. 1103 - 1123
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

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

1. Hanson, D.B. Infuence of propeller design parameters on far field harmonic noise in forward fight, AIAA J, 1980, 18, (11), pp 1313–1319.Google Scholar
2. Woodward, R.P. and Gordon, E.P. Noise of a Model Counter Rotation Propeller With Reduced Aft Rotor Diameter at Simulated Take-off/Approach Conditions (F7/A3), 1988, Technical report, NASA TM-100254.Google Scholar
3. Janardan, B.A. and Gliebe, P.R. Acoustic characteristics of counterrotating unducted fans from model scale tests, J. Aircraft, 1990, 27, (3), pp 268–275.Google Scholar
4. Wald, Q.R. The aerodynamics of propellers, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2006, 42, pp 85–128 Google Scholar
5. Mileshin, V.I., Nyukhtikov, M.A., Orekhov, I.K., Pankov, S.V. and Shchipin, S.K. Open Counter-Rotation Fan Blades Optimization Based on 3D Inverse Problem Navier-Stokes Solution Method With the Aim of Tonal Noise Reduction. ASME Turbo Expo 2008, GT2008-51173Google Scholar
6. Schnell, R., Yin, Y., Voss, C. and Nicke, E. Assessment and Optimization of the Aerodynamic and Acoustic Characteristics of a Counter Rotating Open Rotor, 2010, ASME Paper GT2010-22076.Google Scholar
7. Peters, A. and Spakovszky, Z. Rotor interaction noise in counter-rotating propfan propulsion systems, GT2010-22554, ASME Turbo Expo 2010, June 2010, Glasgow, UK Google Scholar
8. Zachariadis, A. Open Rotor Design for Low Noise, PhD thesis, 2010, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 2010.Google Scholar
9. Zachariadis, A., Hall, C.A. and Parry, A.B. Open rotor operation for improved aerodynamics and noise at take-off, ASME J Turbomachinery, 2013, 135, (1).Google Scholar
10. Brandvik, T., Hall, C.A. and Parry, A.B. Angle-of-attack effects on counter-rotating propellers at take-off, GT2012-69901, 2012, ASME Turbo Expo 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark Google Scholar
11. Zachariadis, A. and Hall, C.A. Application of a Navier-Stokes solver to the study of open rotor aerodynamics, ASME J Turbomachinery, 133, (3).Google Scholar
12. Spalart, P.R. and Allmaras, S.R. A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, Recherche Aerospatiale, 1994, 1, pp 5–21.Google Scholar
13. Dittmar, J.H., Gordon, E.B. and Jeracki, R.J. The Effect of Front-to-Rear Propeller Spacing on the Interaction Noise at Cruise Conditions of a Model Counterrotation Propeller Having a Reduced Diameter Aft Propeller. Technical report, NASA TM-101329.Google Scholar
14. Majjigi, R.K., Uenishi, K. and Gliebe, P.R. An Investigation of Counterrotating Tip Vortex Interaction. Technical report, 1989, NASA CR-185135Google Scholar
15. Schlichting, H. Boundary Layer Theory, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1960.Google Scholar
16. Parry, A.B. Theoretical Prediction of Counter-Rotating Propeller Noise PhD thesis, 1988, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.Google Scholar
17. Parry, A.B. and Crighton, D.G. Prediction of counter rotation propeller noise, AIAA 89-1141, 1989, 12th Aeroacoustics Conference, San Antonio, TX, UK.Google Scholar
18. Magliozzi, B., Brown, P. and Parzych, D. Acoustic Test and Analysis of a Counterrotating Prop-Fan Model, Technical report, 1987, NASA CR-179590.Google Scholar
19. Metzger, F.B. and Rohrbach, C. Benefts of blade sweep for advanced turboprops, J Propul, 1986, 2, (6), pp 534–540.Google Scholar
20. Rohrbach, C., Metzger, F.B., Black, D.M. and Ladden, R.M. Evaluation of Wind Tunnel Performance Testings of an Advanced 45 degree Swept Eight-Bladed Propeller at Mach Numbers from 0•45 to 0•85. Technical report, 1982, NASA CR-3505.Google Scholar
21. Parry, A.B. The effect of blade sweep on the reduction and enhancement of propeller noise, J Fluid Mech, 1995, 293, pp 181–206.Google Scholar
22. Dittmar, J.H. and Stang, D.B. Cruise Noise of the 2/9th Scale Model of the Large-Scale Advanced Propfan (LAP) Propeller, SR-7A. Technical report, 1987, NASA TM-100175.Google Scholar
23. Woodward, R.P. Noise of a Model High Speed Counterrotation Propeller at Simulated Take-off/Approach Conditions (F7/A7). Technical report, 1987, NASA TM-100206.Google Scholar
24. Goodhand, M.N. and Miller, R.J. Compressor leading edge spikes: a new performance criterion, ASME J Turbomach, 2010, 133, p. 021006.Google Scholar
25. Drela, M. and Youngren, H. A User’s Guide to MISES 2.53. MIT Computational Aerospace Sciences Laboratory, 1998.Google Scholar
26. Glauert, H. The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory, 1926, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar