Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wjfd9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T09:39:25.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimisation and analysis of efficiency for contra-rotating propellers for high-altitude airships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2019

J. Tang Open the ORCID record for J. Tang [Opens in a new window] ,
X. Wang ,
D. Duan  and
W. Xie
J. Tang*
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
X. Wang
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
D. Duan
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
W. Xie
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
*
tangjw@stju.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An improved variational optimization approach is established to optimize and analyse the propulsion efficiency of the high-altitude contra-rotating propellers for high-altitude airships based on the Vortex Lattice Lifting Line Method. The optimum radial circulation distribution, chord and pitch distribution are optimized under the maximum lift-to-drag ratio of aerofoils. To consider the effects of the actual Reynolds number and the Mach number of each aerofoil section, aerodynamics such as lift coefficient, drag coefficient and lift-to-ratio are obtained by interpolating a CFD database, which is established by numerical simulations under different Reynolds number, Mach number and angles-of-attack. The improved method is verified by validation cases on a high-altitude CRP using the three-dimensional steady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes solver and moving reference frames technique. The optimization results of thrust, torque and efficiency for both the individual front/rear propeller and CRP are shown to agree reasonably well with the CFD results. Using the improved approach, the influence of blade numbers, diameter, rotation speeds, axial distance and torque ratio on the optimum efficiency of CRPs is illustrated in detail by conducting parametric studies.

Keywords

High-altitude airshipsContra-rotating propellersOptimizationAnalysisEfficiency

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 123 , Issue 1263 , May 2019 , pp. 706 - 726
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2019 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Jamison, L., Sommer, G.S. and Porche, I.R. High-Altitude Airships for the Future Force Army, Rand Arroyo Center TR-234-A, 2005, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
Colozza, A. Initial feasibility assessment of a high altitude long endurance airship. NASA CR-2003-212724, 2003.Google Scholar
Liu, P.Q., Duan, Z., Ma, L. and Ma, R. Aerodynamics properties and design method of high efficiency-light propeller of stratospheric airships. Int Conf Remote Sens, Environ Transp Eng, June 2011, pp 8041–8044. doi:10.1109/RSETE.2011.5964019.Google Scholar
Liu, P.Q., Tang, Z.H., Chen, Y.X. and Guo, H. Experimental feasibility assessment of counter-rotating propellers for stratospheric airships. 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA 2015–1019, January 2015. doi:10.2514/6.2015-1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, J.H., Song, W.P., Yang, X.D. and Zhang, Y. Investigation on improving efficiency of high-altitude propeller with tandem configuration. 35th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA 2017–3575, June 2017. doi:10.2514/6.2017-3575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zha, G.C., Carroll, B.F., Paxton, C.D. and Conley, C.A. High-performance airfoil using coflow jet flow control, AIAA J, 2007, 45, (8), pp 2087–2090. doi:10.2514/1.20926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Y.F., Che, X.K. and Nie, W.S. Numerical study on propeller flow-separation control by DBD-plasma aerodynamic actuation, IEEE Trans Plasma Sci, April 2013, 41, (4), pp 892–898. doi:10.1109/TPS.2013.2248384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, J.H., Song, W.P. and Yang, X.D. Effects of proplet on propeller efficiency, Am Inst Phy Conf Series, September 2011, 1376, (1), pp 165–168. doi:10.1063/1.3651864.Google Scholar
Tang, Z.H., Liu, P.Q., Chen, Y.X. and Guo, H. Experimental study of counter-rotating propellers for high-altitude airships, J Propul Power, 2015, 31, (5), pp 1491–1496. doi:10.2514/1.B35746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biermann, D. and Gray, W.H. Wind-tunnel tests of single- and dual-rotating pusher propellers having from three to eight blades, NACA ARR-(WR-L-359), February 1942.Google Scholar
Paik, K.J., Hwang, S., Jung, J., Lee, T. and Lee, Y.Y. Investigation on the Wake Evolution of contra-rotating propeller using RANS computation and SPIV measurement, Inter J Naval Archit Ocean Eng, 2015, 7, (3), pp 595–609. doi:10.1515/ijnaoe-2015-0042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xin, G.Z., Ding, E.B. and Tang, D.H. A design method for contra-rotating propeller by lifting- surface method, J Ship Mech, April 2006, 10, (2), pp 40–46 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Biermann, D. and Hartman, E.P. Wind-tunnel tests of four- and six-blade single- and dual-rotating tractor propellers, NACA Rept, 1942, 28, (747).Google Scholar
McHugh, J.G. and Pepper, E. The characteristics of two model six-blade counter-rotating pusher propellers of conventional and improved aerodynamic design, NACA ARR-(WR-L-404), June 1942.Google Scholar
Coney, W.B. A Method for the Design of a Class of Optimum Marine Populsors, PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1989.Google Scholar
Epps, B., Chalfant, J., Kimball, R., Techet, A. and Chryssostomidis, C. OpenProp: An open-source parametric design and analysis tool for propellers, 2009 Grand Challenges in Modeling & Simulation Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 2009, pp 104–111.Google Scholar
Epps, B.P. and Kimball, R.W. Unified rotor lifting line theory, J Ship Res, December 2013, 57, (4), pp 181–201. doi:10.5957/JOSR.57.4.110040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerbs, H.W. Moderately loaded propellers with a finite number of blades and an arbitrary distribution of circulations, Trans Soc Naval Archit Marine Eng, 1952, 60, pp 73–123.Google Scholar
Morgan, W. The design of counterrotating propellers using Lerbs’ theory, Trans Soc Naval Archit Marine Eng, 1960, 68, pp 6–38.Google Scholar
Morgan, B.M. and Wrench, J.W. Some computational aspects of propeller design, Method Comput Phy, 1965, 4, pp 301–331.Google Scholar
Kerwin, J.E., Coney, W.B. and Hsin, C.Y. Optimum circulation distributions for single and multi-component propulsors, Twenty-First American Towing Tank Conference, Washington, DC, August 1986, pp 53–62.Google Scholar
Laskos, D. Design and Cavitation Performance of Contra-rotating Propeller, SM thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2010.Google Scholar
Epps, B.P. An Impulse Framework for Hydrodynamic Force Analysis: Fish Propulsion, Water Entry of Spheres, and Marine Propellers, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2010.Google Scholar
Zheng, X.K., Wang, X.L., Cheng, Z.J. and Han, D. The efficiency analysis of high-altitude propeller based on vortex lattice lifting line theory, Aeronaut J, February 2017, 121, (1236), pp 141–162. doi:10.1017/aer.2016.112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selig, M.S. and Guglielmo, J.J. High-lift low Reynolds number airfoil design, J Aircraft, January 1997, 34, (1), pp 72–79. doi:10.2514/2.2137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, R. and Liu, P.Q. Numerical simulation of low-Reynolds-number and high-lift airfoil S1223, Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2009, WCE 2009, London, July 2009, 2, pp 1691–1696.Google Scholar
FLUENT Software Package, Ver 6.3.26, FLUENT Inc., 2006.Google Scholar
Spalart, P.R. and AllMarchas, S.R. A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 92–0439, Reno, NV, U.S.A, January 1992. doi:10.2514/6.1992-439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar