Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Design and Performance Calculations of A Propeller For Very High Altitude Flight
Design and Performance Calculations of A Propeller For Very High Altitude Flight
/ TM--1998-20663
Design and Performance Calculations of a Propeller for Very High Altitude Flight
L. Danielle Lewis Koch Center, Cleveland, Ohio Research
National Space
Aeronautics Administration
and
Lewis
Research
Center
February
1998
::ii!ili!i_ ....
:iii!iiiiii_._
Available NASA Center for Aerospace Information 800 Elkridge Landing Road 'Lin_icum Heights, MD 21090-2934. Price Code: A07
DESIGN
AND
CALCULATIONS ALTITUDE
OF A PROPELLER
FLIGHT
by L. DANIELLE KOCH
Submitted
in partial
fulfillment
of Masters
of Science
Thesis
Advisor:
Department CASE
of Mechanical WESTERN
and Aerospace
Engineering
RESERVE
UNIVERSITY
DESIGN
AND
CALCULATIONS ALTITUDE
OF A PROPELLER FLIGHT
:,ii!_
:_iiii!il
by L. DANIELLE KOCH
'iiiii_
ABSTRACT
study
capable
of subsonic 63.4 at
to absorb maintained
at 25.9 To
cruise
velocity
produce
momentum results
combined
two and
three-dimensional
Ducted
Propfan The
Analysis 387
Code airfoil
analysis section
Eppler
designs Tunnel
Langley analysis
Low-Turbulence programs
written.
data was also used to validate number are compared low used of 0.20. for a range number
ADPAC
numbers surface
of 60,000 pressure
numbers
and Mach
vii
0.75.
by ADPAC ADPAC
predictions
thrust,
5% lower account
Simplifying
iiiil
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
How
!ii:_:
fortunate
I am to have
so many
blessings
to count!
For
their
patience
I would
like to thank
and
It to
grateful
enthusiasm,
I would a long
Dave road,
Bents
and
Tony
the ERAST
team.
It has been
and your
optimism
made
a difference. financial support available, While I am I would slightly a better like to thank NASA, Jeff of
beyond engineer
I believe
of the
through
this thesis
ix
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
................................................................................................................. .......................................................................................... ...................................................................................................... ........................................................................................... of Airfoil and Airfoil Performance Data ..............................
vii ix xi 1 6 22 42 52
Validataion Experimental
4---Propeller 5---ADPAC
Two-Dimensional
Aerodynamic
Predictions
86 97 114 116
Three-Dimensional
.......................................................................................
........................................................................................................
NOMENCLATURE
a = speed chord = = of sound
Cd CI
= D/(qS) = L/(qS)
Cp
pressure
coefficient=
2 ,, 2+(r-OM
(y)M,o 2 2 +(y -1)M _
CP
power torque
CQ
CT d D = = =
thrust
ratio = V/(nd)
L M
= =
n P
= =
speed
._.
pressure
= 0.5pV
xi
r
Rtip
radius
= =
tip radius wing thrust x component y component freestream z component of velocity of velocity velocity of velocity distance from airfoil surface area
ii!ili!!i_'
chordwise distance
distance
= (y/v)(XwJ9)
"l_wail
at the wall
ii, _i! _i
xii
CHAPTER
1-INTRODUCTION Background
and determination flight a remotely is being under program. between 24.4 of possible. piloted
a new
developed NASA's
a consortium Research
academic
Environmental
Technology
measurements
at altitudes
fi)and
30.5
km
to further These
measurements taken
augment
samples satellites
by the ER-2
fundamental decisions
us to make
we choose
of there near
suitable
propulsion propulsion of
system systems km
is
the
most of
capable
term ft).
25.3
(83,000
ft) or
Studies
summarized goal
program's a
that
gas turbine
power
or a turbocharged
reciprocating
-::
::
::.-
:::::,::
::::::
:::::
:::::
: ::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::
::
::
::
::
Non-airbreathing aircraft
or hybrid
systems goal.
likely
candidates
for propelling
an
altitude
of the
conceptual
aircraft Presented
being
considered,
power
produced study
is of
by a propeller.
vehicle
readily data.
three-dimensional 7 (ADPAC), a
Advanced
Analysis
Code-Version design.
Navier-Stokes
to develop
a propeller
Propeller Design requirements studies done. is an iterative that are based The ERAST system propeller mission performance Table Altitude Power Maximum Relative Mach Mach Number Number process. on the best requirements
in Table shown
Near-Term propulsion
expected
1. Propeller
Cruise
2. ERAST
Mission
Requirements Goal Long-Term (2000 +) 30.5 km ( 100,000 ft) 4000 km (2160 nmi) Goal
- 2000)
Radius weight
(83,000 ft) 1000 km (539 nmi) 150 kg (330 lbm) Access to undisturbed in moderate
225 kg (496 lbm) free stream turbulence to -100 C crosswinds worldwide 0.40 < M < 0.85
Deployment
of operations
Overview of the
Having method thesis chapters to meet are briefly a firm them. set The
Design
Methods must
designer
design
in this in the
described
below.
discussed
to follow.
Step While
1.
The this
Eppler airfoil
was
chosen thicker
section
propeller
blade.
considerably because
typically good
used
it was
selected
was available
A grid
study
was
conducted
to determine
mesh 387
ADPAC
an appropriate coefficients
validated
by comparing for a
surface
to experimental
pressure
coefficients
of angles
of attack.
design (Ref.
program 2)
based
described number
Reynolds
experimentaldata from the Eppler 387 were incorporatedinto the program and a seriesof propellersweredesigned.
Step 4.
performance for higherMachnumbers sinceno experimental datawerefoundfor this regime. The Reynoldsnumber-Machnumbercombinationswere identified by the resultsof Step3.
Step 5. The resultsfrom Step4 were incorporated into the strip-theorydesignand analysiscodes. Another setof propellerswas designed, examinedand comparedto arrive at the final geometry. Off designperformance calculationsweremadefor the final propellerdesignwith the strip-theoryanalysisprogram.
Step 6. A three-dimensional computational meshfor the final propeller designwas made,andADPAC was usedto make a three-dimensional performanceprediction. TheADPAC resultwascompared to the strip-theoryresultat the designpoint.
2 Performance Data
propeller and
most
decisions Accuracy
of blade design or
sections conducted
with
may be aided
by modem
numerical until
and analysis is
be used with any confidence data. in high much and altitude research
calculated
perfomaance
the
piloted done
vehicles,
behavior
of steady numbers.
unsteady, Reynolds
and
three
Low 3, since
numbers
are those
the unpredic:tiblity
of laminar of this
many
to design layer
airfoils
boundary
layer
at low Reynolds
For subsonic flows, the laminar boundary layer over an airfoil at low Reynoldsnumberhasbeenobserved to behavein threedifferent pattemsasreported in Reference3. The laminar boundarylayer may either transition naturally to a turbulentboundarylayer,may fully separate from the airfoil surface, or may separate andreattach to the airfoil surfaceforminga laminarseparation bubble. Performance is best if the laminar boundarylayer naturally transitionsto a turbulent boundary layer before reaching the adverse pressuregradient. With increasedenergy, the turbulent boundary layer is able to withstand the adverse pressure gradientandthe flow will be ableto stayattached to the airfoil surfacemuch longeryielding good lift anddragcharacteristics. Full separationresultsin a severeperformancedegradation. The airfoil will stall at high anglesof attackwhen the laminarboundarylayer completelyseparates from the airfoil surfacenearthe leadingedge. Full separation canalsooccurat lower anglesof attack if the laminar boundarylayer is unableto overcomean adverse pressure gradient. A separationbubbleis formed when the laminar boundarylayer, unableto overcomean adversepressuregradient,separates but then reattaches to the airfoil surfaceaftertransitioningto turbulent. Typically, the laminar shearlayerwill begin transitioning immediately downstreamof the separationpoint. The separated
turbulentshearlayerwill thengrow quickly entrainingflow from the free stream until it reattaches to the airfoil surface.Within the bubble is a region of slow moving
<
:NI
i::
::i:i .....
i i:::_!::!_
i!i
!_i
ii ...... :
'_:_i:!iii
flow surface
center remains
lying
near
point.
The
across
and increases
where
the flow reattaches. separation bubble depends separation upon bubbles seen, how rapidly the laminar as chord free stream layer tripping and has time
of the
shear
layer
Generally, While
not always
clearly
roughness,
usually
airfoil seen
of the separation
by reducing
needed
(Ref. 4). studies showed could could found found Pressure number range data, and angle good that at an altitude vary range for from 50,000 of 25.9 km (85,000 to 200,000 design Reynolds while limit fi) propeller relative of 0.80. freeNo
blade stream
Reynolds Mach
to the low
number tested
387 airfoil
(LTPT)
of airfoil
of attack, performance
airfoils
numbers
blade
for academic
purposes
modelling. The the Langley in Figures always seen variation LTPT 1 and of the lift and drag for Reynolds 2. numbers coefficients of 60,000, for the Eppler 100,000 387 measured at
At a Reynolds
number
of 60,000, reattachment.
laminar
reattach and
an angle
of attack were
of 7.50 . observed
without
measurement
used were not able to resolve This behavior may would loops result
be needed
to prove
iand Millard
observed
designed
hysteresis
numbers
Figures surface
5 show
of pressure 60,000
coefficients
numbers figures
ranging and
of 8.00 . measurements
others
reported techniques
oil flow
visualization
10
separationbubble decreasedas Reynolds number was increased. Oil flow visualizationindicatedthat the boundarylayer naturallytransitionedfor a Reynolds numberof 200,000anda = 8.O0 . TheEppler 387hasbeentestedin several otherfacilities andthe datafrom the Langley Low-TurbulencePressureTunnel have been used to validate numerous airfoil design and analysiscodes. Comparisons of theseresults shedlight on the many challenges still faced. Reference5 presents experimentalresultsfrom testsof two dimensionalmodelsof the Eppler 387 in the Low TurbulenceWind Tunnel at Delft andthe Model Wind Tunnel at Stuttgart. As reportedin Reference 5 andseen again in Figures6 through 11 , observations at Langley for a Reynoldsnumber of 60,000wereconfirmedin testsof an Eppler387sectionin the Low TurbulenceWind Tunnel at Delft, but not by testsin the:Model Wind Tunnel at Stuttgart. Reasons for thesediscrepancies are still unknownbut havebeenassociated with differencesin tunnel turbulencelevels, model quality, model mounting configurations,and force measurement methods. The Eppler-Somers code(Re 5) andDrela's XFOIL andISEScodes(Ref. 6, 7) areamongthe designandanalysiscodesthathavebeenvalidatedwith the Eppler 387 data taken at Langley. The XFOIL and ISES codesuse an inviscid/viscous interaction technique while the Eppler-Somerscode couples complex mapping, potential flow and boundary, layer techniquestogetherto solve for the flow field around an airfoil. General agreementbetweenthe calculatedand experimental
11
resultswas good for eachof thesecodes,althoughagreement degraded asReynolds number decreased.This degradationis inherent to the techniqueused since as Reynoldsnumberdecreases andthe boundarylayerthickensthe interactionbetween the inviscid andviscousregion getsstrongerandthe boundarylayer approximations becomelessaccurate (Ref. 8). At Reynoldsnumbersabove 100,000thesecodesare practicaldesigntoolsbecause theycansolvefor anairfoil's performance quickly.
l
r_
01
ol
==
(D
(1,)
O4 00_,D
=o"
II
o. c/c:/
o H H
k_
ooo ooo ooo H li fl
e_
ee
I3 'lu!oU23
_!'I
em
13
1.4
w=-,4
v==l
ol,--{
!
0.01 0.02
!
0.03
I
0.04 Drag Coefficient,
I
0.05 Cd
I
0.06
!
0.07 0.08
Re = 60,000 M = 0.05 Re = 100,000 M = 0_08 Re = 200,000 M ...._,.G6 of Drag Coefficient with Reynolds Pressure Number "Funnel as Measured at
the Langley
Low-Turbulence
14
-5
2, - l'-"
0..
-0-0
0 ----0 .... o
2 0
I 0.1
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0.6
l 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
1 l
X/C
-oLangley Data, M = 0.05
Figure
3" Pressure
Coefficient
versus
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 60,000
Turbulent Reattachment Oil Flow Visualization 0 .... 0 ...... 0 ....... _.... 0 ....... 0 ..
-I0--. 0 0 ........ 0 ...... 0 ......... 0----0----0...... 0---0 ...... 0 ...... 0---0 .... 0 -- O----0 ..... O 0 0 0 -0 .... 0 O0 o
: _>oooo
l 0.1 I 0.2 I 0.3 I 0.4 I 0.5 I 0.6 i 0.7 I 0.8 I 0.9 ,
X/C
-oLangley Data_ M = 0.08
Figure
4: Pressure
Coefficient
versus
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 100,000
15
-5
-4
--1
""
O. 00 ..... 0 ........ 0 .... 0---0 .... O----O .... 0--0 .... 0 .... 0 ..... 0 .... 0 0 .... O-
0 0
I 0.1
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0.6
I 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
X/C
-OLangley Data, M = 0.06
Figure
5" Pressure
Coefficient
versus
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 200,000
16
1.3
I I
\ i _'
:/"
v=--4
//
v==t
_o / o ./
/"
O
/ _==l
,/ .
,/'
//'
/
/
_1'_,// I
/
i /
4I
-5 0
i
5
I
10
I
15 20
_, degrees
-o- Langley Dats_: Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.16% -+ Delft Data, Tuanei Turbulence Level = 0.03% ->< Stuttgart Data, TunnelTurbulence Level - 0.08%
Figure
6- Comparison of Measured Lift Coefficients from Tests at Langley, Delft, and Stuttgart
17
13
v==-4
o=q
L)
-I-,,,4
..
,,
--0.1
,?-.
<, I
O.O5
-0.2 0.02
I
0.03
!
0.04
I
0.O6
I
0.07 0.08
Drag Coefficient, Cd
-e-x:. --'_Langley Data, Tunnel Turbulence Intensity = 0.16% Dolt1 Data, Tunnel Turbul__::_=_ IntcrL_ity = 0.03% Stuttgart Data, Tunnel Tur_en_ Intensity = 0.08%
Figure
7- Comparison Tests
of Measured Delft,
versus
Drag Coefficients
at Langley,
at Re = 60,000
18
Io4
/_" ,
.,, ./ /
/' / .. / /
I'
/.//I
..
p-
/
i / ._.
/ ;
/ //._.
.....
v,-
/'//
_(
/'/ //
....
02
/.'_
"
.;
/?
I_/"
:.,
//
.I.-.-4.
/ /
I
-5 0
I or, degrees
5
I
10 15
-o- Langley Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 006% Deltt Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.03% -_ Stuttgart Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.08% Figure 8: Comparison of Measured Lift Coefficients Tests at Langley, Delft, and Stuttgart versus Angle of Attack at Re = 100,000 from
19
1.4
1.2
"-
1-
0.8-
v-_
0.6-
v-q
0.4-
0.2--
0-
-0.: 0.01
I
0.025
!
Drag Coefficient,
4
I
0.055 0.07
Cd
-_-_
Langley Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level .... 9.06% DeLft Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.03% Stuttgart Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.08%
Figure
20
_=,,I
O O O O
_,=1
J
/
+'! /
t
I
-5 0
I
5
I
10
!
15 2O
co, degrees -_-_ -_ Figure Langley Data.. Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.06% DclR Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0_03% Stuttgart Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.08% versus Angle of Attack at Re200,000
10: Comparison of Measured Lift Coefficients from Tests at Langley, Delft, and Stuttgart
21
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Drag Coefficient, Cd -o-_ Figure Langley Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.06% Delft Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level - 0.03% Stuttgart Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.08% Lift Coefficients versus Drag and Stuttgart at Re = 200,000 Coefficients
CHAPTER
Grid ADPAC code that was Study and ADPAC
casing
treatments applications
is flexible
than
ADPAC
geins is
This feature
studying
Special
commands
with each other. several turbomachinery in the regime 387 experimental and of interest data from nonfor the
ADPAC
unvalidated Eppler
The two-dimensional used for this validation. at hand was to conduct computational
LTPT The
first task
study
is to identify
the minimum
For subsonic
number
flow_:_
formed. created.
coordinates
the Langley
pressure
22
23
"Level 3" grid had23,409points,andthe "Level 2" grid had5,945points. Eachgrid extendedten chordlengths upstream,downstream, above,and below the blade. The minimum acceptablenumber of points is desiredto reduce computationaltime. Increasingthe numberof grid points past that of the Level 4 meshwas considered prohibitive. Views of the entirecomputational domainfor the threetwo-dimensional gridscanbe foundin Figures12through14. Figures15throl,gh 17 showthe portion of eachmeshcloseto the airfoil surfaceanddisplaythe packingof grid points in the boundarylayerregion. Two otherfiles arerequiredby ADPAC in orderto run a calculation,an input file and a boundarydatafile. The input file containsparameters that allow one to scalethe non-dimensional grid. In the boundarydatafile, one canspecify the angle of attackand how the boundariesof the grid are to be treated.A combination of parameters within the input andboundarydatafiles setthe flow conditions. For all the two-dimensionalairfoil performancecalculations,the freestreamMach num_?,.r _ was fixed on the horizontal straight sections of the outer boundary of the computationalgrid. Total temperature and total pressurewere fixed on the inlet curved sectionof the outer
vertical velocity Mach exit plane A no-slip at the blade number below boundary, condition and static pressure was fixed at the straight the
on the blade
surface, code,
forcing
The Mach
numbers
experimental
generally
24
Eachgrid was usedto calculatethe flow at Reynoldsnumbersof 60,000, 100,000and200,000while angleof attackwasnominally 8.00.
set to match airfoil chordwise that given by the experiment. coefficients Figures plotted 18 through against data. the Good Angle of attack was
20 show
the calculated
surface position
pressure
and compared
to the experimental
with the Level. 4 grid and the experimental of 60,000 which would have the longest
bubble
21 shows inverse
value
as As
of the number
for each be
packed
airfoil
to resolve from
boundary
of the grid
line away
the wall,
y+, is defined
by Schlichting
YI
+
"l_wallp
where is the
distance wall,
from and
the airfoil
surface,
x,,.,,,
p is the
v is the 4 mesh
fluid
kinematic
values
of y+ for the first grid line of the Level 0.0915, and 0.1537 for Reynolds numbers
of 60,000,
and 200,000,
25
Accompanying each solution is a set of convergence plots. Figures 22 through 24 containtwo convergence plots for eachsolution: the Root Mean Square (RMS) Error, andthe Numberof Separated pointsat eachiteration. The RootMean Square Error was definedto be the sumof the squares of the residualsof all the cells in the mesh, the residualbeing the sum of the changesof the five conservative variables,p, pu, pv, pw, andpe. The ADPAC definition of a separated point was a cell whosevalue for Vxwasnegative.Generally,for the low Mach numbercases, the calculationwas run until the numberof separated points seemed to be constantand theresidualswerereduced by atleastthreeordersof magnitude. The Level 4 grid was then usedfor a seriesof calculationsat a Reynolds numberof 60,000 andanglesof attackrangingfrom -2.94 to 12.00 . The Level 4 grid was chosenbecauseof the good agreementbetween the surfacepressures calculatedby ADPAC andthe experimentaldataat a Reynoldsnumber of 60,000 (Fig. 18). Lift coefficientswerecalculatedfor eachangleof attackandcanbe seen comparedto the Langleyresultsin Figure25. Pressure coefficientdistributionsare presentedin Figures26 through 31 for eachof the colored points in Figure 25. Figures32 through 37 are the corresponding convergence histories for eachof the selectedADPAC calculations. Sincethe viscousdragresult was unavailablefrom ADPAC, it wasestimated by calculatingskin friction dragon both sidesof a flat plate drag(Ref. 10):
26
Cd=
1.328
of the viscous
drag 38.
coefficients
were
then
plotted
against
the
agreement
between
the ADPAC
calculated
values
Examination was
codes,
unable
at angles
of attack was
of ADPAC.
8.01 there
with ADPAC
in experiments prediction
in the Langley
at the trailing
(Fig. 30 - 31).
27
=J=
/!!/
!!r/
,, ,.,_
Figure
12:
Entire
Level
2 Computational
Mesh
of the Eppler
387 Airfoil
Figure
13" Entire
Level
3 Computational
Mesh
387 Airfoil
N omll
oml
mu_ oj_
_u
ollt
c_
m_
c_ 00 C_
oN
c_
E
C_ c_ c_
_N
onU
v_
c_
omU
c_
_O
omu
29
Figure
16" Portion
of Level
3 Mesh
Close
to the Airfoil
Surface
Figure
17"
Portion
of Level
4 Computational
Mesh
Close
to the Airfoil
Surface
30
-5
0 ,_
........
_..____,_.____._:_
1 "_i 2 0
"_ "_'__ 0.1 I 0.2 I 0.3 I 0.4 I 0.5 I 0.6 I 0.7 ! 0.8 I 0.9
o ---
Langley
Data,
X/C
Figure
18:
Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position
and
Different
Computational
Re - 60,000
and _ = 8.01
-5
i
3
_
___ ___
-2!_::_.
1 2
IT_
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
M M M M
= = = =
X/C
Figure
19:
Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise 100,000
Position
and
Different
Computational
and _ - 8.00
31
<>
X/C
Level
Figure
20:
Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position
and
Different
Computational
Re = 200,000
and _= 8.00
1.5
1 --
rj
0.5
--
0.001
Figure
21-
Calculated
of Computational
32
-2 I
tO
12:
rj3
-4
<
h ...... u _... -.
o _) Q ..J -8
i
-I0 0 500
I
1 000
I
! 500
I
2000 2500
I
3000
I
3500 4000
Iteration
Number
/ ........ Q O / / /
Z_
........
.
:S < .............................................................................
I 0 500 1000
I 1500
.! 2000 2500
I 3000
! 3500 4000
Iteration
Number
Figure
22- Comparison
of the Convergence
Histories,
Re = 60,000
M = 0.2
-2
t_ I
r,,r.l
0 e_ 0 .-I -8
I
-I0 500
I
1 000
I
1500
I
2000
I
2500
I
3000
I
3500 4000
--
Iteration
Number
4000
cI / / 2000
x 6.
0
I_&]<<--
..... ,-" I
50O 1000 1500
I
2000
I
2500
I
3000
I
3500 40O0
Iteration
Number
Figure
23: Comparison
of the Convergence
Histories,
Re = 100,000
M = 0.2
33
-2
L--
r_t3
C/3 -'-,_. _,_ '-. i'!):),._.._.,_...._
O -I0 0
I
500
I
1000
I
1500
I 2000
I 2500
I 3000
I 3500
I 4000
I 4500 5000
Iteration Number
L. /yJ j_
r./3
I
1 000
,
1500
I
2000
_
2500
_
3000
I
3500
Iteration Number
Figure
24: Comparison
of the Convergence
Histories,
Re = 200,000
M = 0.2
t__
r_
6Jl
_----,,,_
(Dr.,,_
tt
"::::t"
o .-,I
,::5
It
It ._
g3
+f
r_
!j_ ee
,q
IO 'lu0!__0o3
U!l
e_
35
-5
-4
-3
I O.1
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0.6
I 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
Langley ADPAC
Data,
M = 0.05 M = 0.20
Calculation,
Figure
26" Pressure
Coefficient
Re = 60,000
0-0 _
0 0 - .....
Goo._---o--o_o
-o_---o
I 0.1
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0_6
I 0.7
Langley ADPAC
Data,
M = 0.05 M = 0.20
Calculation,
Figure
27: Pressure
Coefficient
Re = 60,000
36
-4-
-3_
-2-
-l
-_:00
0 o
o _0
o 0
o 0
0 _.0_
o 0
o 0-
o - 0-_--
<Z__. 0 ,-
___0___0
2 0
I O. 1
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0.6
I 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
Langley ADPAC
Data,
M = 0.05 M = 0.20
X/C
Calculation,
Figure
28: Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 60,000
if
2
0
I
0.1
I
0.2
I
0.3
I
0.4
I
0.5
I
0.6
!
0.7
!
0.8
I
0.9
o Langley Data, M = 0.05 ADPAC Calculation, M = 0.20 Figure 29" Pressure Coefficient Re-
X/C
Chordwise
Position,
37
-5
_2I%o<_.
_ o
__|,.m
--0
.... O_ 0 _ O 0
o--o..... o o ---_---
I
0 0.1
I
0.2
l
0.3
I
0.4
I
0.5
I
0.6
I
0.7
I
0.8
I
0.9
Langley ADPAC
Data,
M = 0.05 M = 0.20
X/C
Calculation,
Figure
30" Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 60,000
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0.6
l 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
Langley ADPAC
Data,
M = 0.05 M -0.20
Calculation,
Figure
31" Pressure
Coefficient
Re = 60,000
% ! g
'l
I .......
%
-' O
'
g
0
o'x O',,
o G",
II
o o
II
I
"l
g
O0
'q
.q
II
m
0 o
!i
.. l'
t-,
g
I
1
o
X,D
g..
,,O
E gz
o
,, E /
;;_ g., O -3
0 0 e_
-_-_
ob II
e,,
z .o
IN J "-'
z
0 ._ L.
oo
i
i
Z - =
c_
/
/
.o "_ "
...., O_..,
oN -\
m
I. o
'4_ om
(
\
\ \ eet ",.,\
,,
o
o
=
D e_ g:l I.
-._ .. \ o o o
=
12 I.... D = O
5 i o o o
It
t
o o o
=I o
" o
o
L) .<
gh
/
<
"-_ 0 o
L-
L) L) .,
gh
//
g
o eq
gl
I. =
om_
I ..-----7 i"
"_7.
.<
oo o
"=--:
g
o --,
o
0 eel
g
o ,-,I
D I.
olmal
39
I
O
I:::
0'2
-4
-6
O
-I0 0
I I000
I 2000
I 3000
! 5000
I 6000
I 7000
8ooo
r._ ......
4000
C_ t... c_
2000
r./D o l..,, /. /
8000
Figure
34" ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re = 60,000
M = 0.20 c_ = 6.01
-4
o"2
-6
O O -8
-10
I 1000
I 2000
I 3000
I 4000 Iteration
I 5000 Number
I 6000
I 7000
I 8000
9ooo
4ooo
.. O
I ,- t-_---._.__._... __
.. .. . i /
2000
O"2 / O L. / / /
: /
E Z ! 1000
I 2000
I 3000
I 4000 Iteration
I 5000 Number
I 6000
I 7000
! 8000
9000
Figure
35" ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re = 60,000
M = 0.20 ct = 7.00
4O
2L
-4 -6 L_"_,..,,
C_O C)
I 0 500 1000
I 1500
I 2500
I 3000
I 3500 4ooo
4000
...,9 O
/
/
2000 /
O CL_ ./
I 500
I i 000
I ! 500
I 2500
! 3000
I 3500 4000
Figure
36: ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re = 60,000
M = 0.20 _ = 8.01
-2
i.i
0
_2
-4
-6
_0 Q -8
-10
I 1000
I 2000
I 3000
I 5000
I 6000
I 7000
8000
60OO
0
4OOOm
I C/2 0 / / .. /
,/ ./
2000
./
8000
Figure
37" ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re = 60,000
M = 0,,20 tx = 9.00
41
1.4
1.3
'4-
....
1.2
<>_----o-<>--_<>----
t
,, .4.4" / / t"
\
<> @ | --
t
/ 0.9--
"F /
0 /
L)
v,-I
O
0.6-/
4
'
o'
o----_
//
"o
t O
0.5-_ / / / 0
/ ,o
L)
0.4 v=,,l '
0.3
I!,
,, It" -!_ B \
0.2
I
0.03
I
0.04
!
0.05
I
0.06
I
0.07
!
0.08
I
0.09
I
O. 1
!
O. ! I 0,12
Drag Coefficient,
-o-t-Langley ADPAC Data, M = 0.05 Calculation, M = 0.20
Cd
Figure
38:
Comparison
Coefficient
versus
CHAPTER
Propeller Fundamentals (Ref. analysis 11). Primarily theory could While removed
Design
Using
Experimental established
Airfoil
by Glauert
of computers, making
solutions of
be
after
a number Adkins
remained
of the
assumptions,
iterative
analysis
procedures
which,
with the aid of a computer, quickly. of momentum theory, the flow flow,
performance Glauert the propeller. propeller inviscid, number Glauert continuous, increases
of a propeller used
a combination
element
theory
In the momentum
that
The propeller
is thought
pressure
surface through
is constant
although
a blade
theory
to get more
detailed
information airfoil
results from
Trailing
vortices
are shed
the blade
42
43
vortices on the
cause blade
elements yield
and once
integrated
of the blade,
ultimately
propeller
power, other
and efficiency. than Glauert's momentum-blade velocities element are found theory exist, It was design were angle for
in which
the induced
algorithms simplifying
analysis
Adkins lightly
procedures in the
eliminated Prandtl
loaded flow.
approximation contraction
procedures to form
continue
to neglect
sheet
is assumed
a rigid helical
surface,
energy
A design
will be optimized
as momentum operate
at an angle
of attack
to the maximum
lift-to-drag
Liebeck 2.
give Briefly,
eleven
steps
the at the
iterative beginning
design of a of
velocity,
number
of radial along
or chord angles,
the blade.
The program
44
chord or
radial
lift coefficient
distributions factors,
(depending Reynolds
on which number,
distribution
was specified
39).
This
ensured
airfoil
design
program
statements 1 and
the Langley
2. For chord
Reynolds number
100,000,
experimental number
of 60,000
if the
Reynolds
designs The
the
specified
propeller
of blades exceed
not
80%
maximum criteria
propeller,
these
propeller
designs,
the three-bladed
propeller
benefits
to a two-bladed
design,
the extremely
raises design.
manufacturing The
be avoided better
three-bladed because
efficiency
four-bladed
design
of the decreased
disk loading.
45
respectively. Comparisons of the propeller geometries can be found in Figures40 _ough 42. Examinationof the blade twist distributionsfor all three designs(Fig. 40) showeda 'hook' in the curveas the bladewastwistedthroughthe stalledportion of the lift curve for
Since was viscous optimized the experimental were data at the Reynolds in these that number the of 60,000 three-bladed (Fig. 1).
losses
designs,
by relaxing
section
lift coefficient
be less
a constant
corresponding 43 - 44).
set (Fig.
'hook' the
near
would
to be
decreased of refining
to increase
the chordlengths
of the inboard
sections.
The exercise
studies
showed
specified With
number
distribution
a reasonable could
hook number
Reynolds
and relative
number that
to account
for compressibility
effects
46
neglectedin the presentdesigns. As will be shown in the next chapter,ADPAC would be usedto makeperformance predictionsfor the Eppler387 airfoil operatingat thesetransoniclow Reynoldsnumberconditions. Finally, the design studieswere usefulin identifying feasiblevaluesfor thepropellerdiameterandnumberof blades.
47
1.6-10 5
1.4"10 5
-,...,.,,
//
Z
/ ,/ ./
/ /
1"105
//
D
/ /" /' /: \,.
8" 104
.-.
// // / /
_
\
6.1o 4
/ / / , 0.I
I 0.2
I 0.3
I
0.4
l
0.5
l
n
I
0.7 0.8
I
0.9 1
r/Rtip Figure 39: Design Reynolds Number vs. Non-dimensional Radial Position
9O
<_L,
80
70--
60--
_,:-'-...._
50--
40--
3O 0
I 0.I
I 0.2
I 0.3 0.4
r/R.tip
-o_'+ Blade Blade Blade Twist Twist Twist Angle, Angle, Angle, 2 Bladed 3 Bladed 4 Bladed Propeller, Propeller, Propeller, Rtip Rtip Rtip = 3.4 m - 2.3 = 1.75 m m
Figure
40"
Blade
Twist
A_gle
(degrees)
vs. Non-dhnensional
Radial
Position,
Designed
Using
Langley
2-D Experimental
Data Only
48
0.8
t.,
0.6
0.4
.1[ --_" ._.
0.2 I 0.1 I 0.2 I 0.3 I 0.4 I 0.5 ! 0.6 I, 0.7 ! 0.8 ! 0.9 _-LJ 1
-e_ -+-
r/Rtip
Rtip = 1.75 m
Figure
(meters)
Radial Data
Position, Only
Using
Langley
1.2
I ' '
O O
0.6
rj
0.4
_,,,I ._/ //.,// . ./ / ." " /al_..
0.2
I 0 0.1
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0.6
! 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
r/Rtip
-e'< + Lift Coefficient, LiR Coefficient, Lift Coefficient, 2 Bladed 3 Bladed 4 Bladed Propeller, Propeller, Propeller, Rtip = 3.4 m Rtip = 2.3 m Rtip = 1.75 m
Figure
42:
Radial Data
Position, Only
Designed
Langley
.......
-.
..
C_
/-"
"4-
........
50
1.2
1.18
_D 0,.._ 1.16 0
1.14
1.12
1.1 0.1
I
0.2
!
0.3
!
0.4
I
0.5
!
0.6
!
0.7
!
0.8
!
0.9
r/Rtip Figure 44- Lift Coefficient Design, Tip Radius vs. Non-dimensional = 2.3 m, Langley Radial Position, Three Data Only Bladed
2-D Experimental
90
80
60
50
40 0.1
!
0.2
!
0.3
I
0.4
!
0.5
..... !
0.6
!
0.7
I
0.8
I.
0.9
oc_
r/Rtip Figure 45- Blade Three Twist Angle (degrees) vs. Non-dimensional = 2.3 m, Langley Radial 2-D Data Position, Only
Bladed
Design,
Tip Radius
51
0.8
0.6 O
L)
0.4
O -O
I
0.1 0.2
!
0.3
!
0.4
!
0.5
I
0.6
!
0.7
!
0.8
! "o
0.9
r/Rtip Figure 46: Chord Design, (meters) vs. Non-dimensional = 2.3 m, Langley Radial Position, Three Data Only Bladed
Tip Radius
2-D Experimental
1.5' 105
1.10 5
loooo
r.,_
.<>
_, 1o 4
.0
I
0.1 0.2
l
0.3
I
0.4
I
0.5
l
0.6
I
0.7
l
0.8
I
0.9
r/Rtip Figure 47: Reynolds Design, Number vs. Non-dimensional = 2.30 m, Langley Radial Position, Only Three Bladed
Tip Radius
2-D Data
CHAPTER 5
ADPAC ADPAC program the blade distribution average (Figure Two-Dimensional results Aerodynamic were combined effects Predictions with the strip theory design
two-dimensional to account
for compressibility
To do so, number an
number and 3.
to identify each
number
segment
48).
values
3. Reynolds
Number
Number
mesh
of the Eppler
387 (Figures
14 and
of attack 3. that
Reynolds
pressure corrected
relative
number
Prandtl-Glauert
compressibility
correction
(Ref. 13)
52
53
where Cpo
stream
pressure
coefficient with
free in
Mach
coefficients drag
turn was
integrated found
to yield
coefficients. once
coefficient by drag on
by adding
component
by Schlichting
in Reference
are found
in Figures ADPAC
52.
Plots
and corresponding
history
plots
of 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , and Segment Segment points 2 in Figures 4 in Figures at each iteration An examination that agreement is generally corrected validation, and 6.49 . between
9 are
given 76,
1 in Figures 77
Segment
3 in Figures
100. Where
appropriate,
of supersonic
history
at Re = 60,000 values
shows data
calculated
good. data
suction
than the
would
ADPAC For
between appears
periodic
shedding
layer,
the pressure
distribution in Figure
at 8.01 and
streamlines
shown
102
54
conditionindicatemultiple separation andreattac_ent points nearthe trailing edge of the suctionside. Theseresults,aswell as all of the otherADPAC resultspresented here,arenot time-accurate, but represent the steadystateflow solutionachievedwith local time stepping. The local time steppingtechniqueadvances eachcell in time by an incrementequal to the maximum allowabletime step for that cell. Generally, largercellsawayfrom a boundary, layerwill havea largertime stepthansmallercells closerto a solid surface. Examinationof the resultsin Segment2 for a Reynoldsnumberof 100,000 anda Mach numberof 0.55showsthattherewas alsogenerallygood agreementfor anglesof attackrangingfrom -2.88 to 4.00. Shockwavesnearthe leadingedgeare seenin the ADPAC predictionsfor anglesof attackgreaterthan6.00. Full stall is not predictedat 14.04 .
and an experiment As Mach more differences The Prandtl-Glauert be needed is i_creased between are seen correction is inadequate for these conditions
to validate from
predictions. Segment
Shock
4 with differences
60,000 Langley
of 0.75
predictions at these
be expected ADPAC
of the Prandtl-Glauert
55
the airfoil is unableto producea strongleadingedgesuctionas a result of the shock wavesseenateveryangleof attack.
56
1.5 1.4-1.31.21ol-
' 0.25 :
i
..
i +
0._5
_.
I + -I-
0.89i
--
d-
.p -+ [Segment2 ] [Segment3 ] _
...........................................................................................................
0.9-0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
.......... 0 ..... n
+ .......... -_
^ _.00 -Ira
@
........ 0 .....
-Isegmet' i
I
0.3
!
0.4
I
0.5
I
0.6
I
0.7
!
0.8 0.9
-O+-
Relative Reynolds
Mach
Number
Number/100,000
Figure
48"
Segmented
Reynolds
Number
and Mach
Number
Distributions
::
.: :: :
:.:::_::.:i:i
.....
._: =============================
57
1.4
/ /
1.3 / /" 1.2 // o O/" .,.........
/ / l.l
,/ o
//_< d"
/
_"" t-
_D
.vu{ 0.8 /_ ,
/
, .,," _%>
y,/ // ,,." ,_ .
+1-
0.7
(D
0.6
o_
0.5 //
0.4 /_//
0.3 t, '" L/
_i///
"-0.1 --4
I
--2
I
0
I
2
I
4
I
6
I
8
I
10
degrees
_ * ....
Figure
49:
Comparison of ADPAC Predicted Lift Coefficients Re = 60,000 and M = 0.20, 0.45, 0.75
at
: :
::?-: _:
"::
Y:::
:_ : "
?::_::::: :- ....
:/":
:"/:Y ,, /:i_ i: ::i : :71:? !: I::I:::i:UZI_:I:L ::i:?:!?::: .... I"Y!:::!:: "_i:::::i:L U::III!:I:":i:::Y::Z_:::I_ _L:;: :?Z:i:iG::!!_ii_i_:_!:i/i:!::!!::i:!:!:!:::L:::!:i::ii:!_::?::iiii::!i!i;:: ::!:::ii:::Z:ii!:_:::::_:_::'::i::
58
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.08
t,m
0.06
0.04
0.02
I
-4 "2
I
0
I
2
I
4
I
6
I
8
I
I0 12
degrees
I-
'
Re = 60,000 M = 0.2 Least Squares Polynomial Fit of Re = 60,000 M = 0.2 Re = 60,000 M = 0.45 Least Squares Polynomial Fit of Re = 60,000 M = 0.45 Re = 60,000 M = 0.75 Least Squares Polynomial Fit of Re = 60,000 M = 0.75
Figure
50: Comparison of ADPAC Predicted Drag Coefficients Attack at Re - 60,000 and M = 0.20, 0.45, 0.75
vs Angle
of
59
1.4
,,,/
\ \
_I ,
/
/,{
//
//
)
-v.- 0.7
I /
) O N:'
0.6
//
/
_ 0.5
I
4
I
6
I
8
I
I0
o )<
Re=I00,000M=0.55 Least Squares Polynomial Fit of Re = 100,000 M = 0.55 Re = 100,000 M = 0.65 Least Squares Polynomial Fit of Re = 100,000 M =0.65
degrees
Figure 51" Comparison of ADPAC Predicted Lift Coefficientsat Re = 100,000 and M = 0.55,0.65
60
0.2
I'
0.18
! I I I
0.16
I t /
/ /
0.14
/ / /
0.12
/" /' / .' /.
/
/
/ /
,/
/
O
//. ///
o/:
0.08
/// /. /
/:
o .,/o
/
0.06
X
./ /" / /. /,,
/
/
/ / /. ,/
..... (>
0.04
/L,. '
.._
0.02
!
-4 -2
I
0
I
2
I
4
!
6
I
8
I,
10
I
12
I
14 16
Figure
vs Angle
of
61
! 0 0.1
! 0.2
! 0.3
I 0.4
! 0.5
I 0.6
! 0.7
! 0.8
! 0.9
' I
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.45
X/C
Figure
53- Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 60,000
I 0.1
I 0.2
I 0.3
! 0.4
! 0.5
I 0.6
! 0.7
I 0.8
! 0.9
0 ....
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.45
Figure
54" Pressure
Coefficient
Re = 60,000
62
_0 >
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
__.
9_ .... 0
__0 .... O_
O:...... 0---
o_om
I O.1
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0.6
I 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
J 1
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.45
Figure
55" Pressure
Coefficient
Re = 60,000
--_.._
_---^_-e_------_-_O-----O ----0--0_ V V V V --
-0---70-- 0----0---0---0
I 0 0. I
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0.6
I 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.45
Figure
56: Pressure
Coefficient Re-
63
-5
0
.
. _
0 "'' 0 o-
"
/ "/ o
,. ""
_o-o-----------
2 0
I 0.1
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0.6
I 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.45
X/C
Figure
57 Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 60,000
-5
--4
--3 _
-2 --
----. ....
..... "'" 0
--
| --
.f"_"_"-
--
0-
o_ o \o /o_o_ o..8....
..--_ ...... O---0 .... 0---0 .... 0---0---0- ..... 0-- 0----0-----0-----0 ..... _ 0-- -0.... 0
2 0
I 0.I
! 0.2
I 0.3
! 0.4
! 0.5
I 0.6
! 0.7
! 0.8
I 0.9
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.45
X/C
Figure
58" Pressure
Coefficient Re-
Chordwise
Position,
64
i
0
f._
r./2
.,.,,,,i
-6
I 500
I 1000
I 1500
! 2000 Iteration
I 2500 Number
I 3000
! 3500
! 4000 4500
3000
.....
, _.._
. .
-..._
2000
/ /
/
/
1000
/
-._
--
- -._,__Y
,; 0
J 500
I 1000
I 1500
I 2000 Iteration
I 2500 Number
I 3000
I 3500
I 4000 4500
Figure
59: ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re = 60,000
M = 0.45 c_ =4.00
t/-I r.,o
-4 i
t
_o
O
-6
.... __.._.. _ ,,---... __ ...... I _'_.. ....... , . _,' _ ..... ,--_, _,,..........................................
-8 0
I 500
I 1000
I 1500
I 2000 Iteration
I 2500 Number
I 3000
I 3500
I 4O00 4500
4OOO
t_
1.4
..t_
2000 ,/
,/ Or) /
,_ 0
I 500
! i 000
I 1500
! 2000 Iteration
I 2500 Number
! 3000
I 3500
! 4000 4500
Figure
60: ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re = 60,000
M = 0.45 a =4.99
65
gr-I o'2
\\
\
\-. O,
I
2OO
I
400
I
600
I
800
!
1000
I
1200 1400
Iteration Number
4000 I I I I I I
p.I-" ::I
-g_o
CCJ
2OO0
/ /: / / ..i: /t ....
/7 f
Iteration Number
Figure
61" ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re = 60,000
M = 0.45 Gt =6.01
I
t-. O
I=:
-4
I .-_.o
-6
.",'. -.-..........................
I
0 500
!
1000
I
!500
!
2000
!
2500
!
3000
!
3500
!
4000 450O
Iteration Number
4000 I I I I I I I I
c_ ,, /. L_.
--.--.
_ ----- _....._.,_,_ ._
zg.
r._
2ooo
t /
t/ // ,/
f XA , :I
0
......
/ '
I
500
I
1000
I
1500
I
2000
!
2500
I
3000
I
3500
!
4000 4500
Iteration Number
Figure
62" ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re = 60,000
M = 0.45 tz =7.00
66
-2
I.r-1
r./2
O r-. _0 O _--
-8 0
I 500
I Io00
! 1500
! 25000
I 3OOO
1 35OO
4ooo
4000
/ .-. I-,
2ooo
n .., / ,/ O_ i: ": ._''' " "-
500
I 1000
I 1500
! 2500
I 3000
1 3500
4000
Figure
63" ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re-
60,000
M = 0.45 c_ = 8.01
-3
m !.,.
I::
O'2
T
L
O t. O .....
-7 0
I 500
I 1000
I 1500
I 2000 Iteration
! 2500 Number I
I 3000
! 3500
!_ 4000 4500
6000
, "-,.. --._..
4000
(,,,,,' I" L.. J /
_ ca,
r,t)
2000
I 500
I 1000
I ! 500
I 2000 Iteration
I 2500 Number
I 3000
I 3500
I 4000
45oo
Figure
64- ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re = 60,000
M = 0.45 tx = 9.00
67
-3
-2
I
0 0.1
I
0.2
I
0.3
I
0.4
I
0.5
I
0.6
I
0.7
I
0.8
I
0.9
X/C
O Corrected ADPAC Langley Calculation, Data M = 0.55
Figure
65" Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 100,000
-4-
-3
-2
t..-
L)
"1
/
o o
.......... O__ 0 .... 0 0 --0 0 -0---0 --_0- ! i
00_-0---_0----0
0_0
0------0---0_-----0
---0
l 0.1
l 0.2
l 0.3
I 0.4
l 0.5
l 0.6
l 0.7
l 0.8
I 0.9
I I
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.55
Figure
66: Pressure
Coefficient
Re - 100,000
68
I 0.1
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0.6
I 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
X/C
o Corrected ADPAC Langley Calculation, Data M = 0.55
Figure
67: Pressure
Coefficient Re-
Chordwise
Position,
_210%OOOo
--0
,,
-..._
o - .o .... o- --o
-o
-o
. o -o -- -o- -o --o-
2 .............. 0
i 0.1
.......
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0.6
I 0.7
I 0.8
! 0.9
X/C
o Corrected ADPAC Langley Data Calculation_ M = 0.55
Figure
68- Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 100,000
69
-,0
...... ___.o..... o o
o- __o____ . _o-.._o_o_
--) ..... o---O-----O..... 0----0---0-0---0-0 ..... 0.-__ 0----0 ---0 "-0---0-- --0-----0-0
I 0 0. !
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0.6
I 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.55
X/C
Figure
69" Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 100,000
-5
-2'-"
"0
..... o
0-o----o----o
-o ---
-o .---o--
I 0.1
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0.6
I 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.55
Figure
70" Pressure
Coefficient
Re = 100,000
.......
:>
:::
::
:: .....
:::: ........
:'?
.... ....
Y!:/:;i,
Y: ....
?!Y
, :Y i::
.:: : :
7O
I 500
I 1000
I 1500
I 2000 Iteration
I 2500 Number I
I 3000
I 3500 4000
3000
2000
/
/ i
_ t_
r./2
lO00
/ /
,-?...... 0
I 500
I 1000
l 1500
I 2500
I 3000
i 3500 4000
Figure
71" ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re - 100,000
M - 0.55 _ - 4.00
I
I--4 O m r.P2 L] i o.,
_U2 O
-6
'_.,__ '-_ .,,.._ ../
......
----,- ........
! 500
I 1000
I 1500
! 2500
1 3000
I 3500
4000
3000
ta_
/
2000 /
/
1000
/
/ / _L 0 I 500 I 1000 I 1500 I 2000 Iteration Number I 2500 I 3000 _L..._ ."_ _,00
4000
Figure
72" ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re = 100,000
M = 0.55 c_ = 5.01
71
i.,,o
-21
u,.]
= O L.
-8 ,I. 400
I ,4000.
._'_ 200
0
.1.,
;_,,,
"" I I I I I I I
.4000.
400O
I
'
_._
_,.,
/_'-----.
.__
Z o'J
2000
,/
,,
.................................
0 0
I
500
!
1000
I
i 500
!
2000
I
2500
I
3000
I
3500 4000
Iteration Number
Figure
73" ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re = 100,000
M = 0.55 cz = 6.00
i.., O
-2 -4
,.--,
-6
_.
....
_ ..... _. _ jr--
-8
,.lj
! .400q
.,.., = ,.,
IO00/
500
k
,-L
/..__i
"_
r_
""I f
\r -/ .400(
_l _
4000]
I .......
I "- ...................
2000
//
'
0 0
i
500
!
1000
I
1500
I
2000
I
2500
!
3000
!
3500 4000
Iteration Number
Figure
74" ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re = 100,000
M = 0.55 _ = 7.00
o"
O O ......... i ........... O 0
.....
o o o 0
00
.._=
II
".
'h /
t
1' // .o o
lt
.,r ../"
i F 1
It
'k., ),, \, I 1 , O o t-) ('-4
]
e-, l,=. (1.)
/
r /i (I.)
'L t "-,..)
E Z
/
.=_ I
II ?
E /
m t-0._ t...
= [ -
II
._g
g.= (1.,) .....
("
"--
,q
o o
o
Im
\ -
o
.4,,,,,)
1 i
J
_<t
i
?
._-
/
f "1)
t o
e_
..
/
/
f'
)
o
._:
I
/. 1
(.
/ -
D ;;). O
t -
_.j
...... I
0 0
_
\.
L)
o w-)
.< <
.<
./
-0
.....q
_ i,,-"I
0 0 0 '_ o o o o
o o
oo
_-u_ISPf'd 01 i_q
s)u!od 0!uosaodns
jo aoqtun N slu!od pole.led:) S jo JoqtunN
om
a0aa/tSI,kr'dOI _0q
0.0
73
-5
_CCO0 > , / / -
0 ....
_ _0=____
" " o o o 0 O --
o o
--o
o------o--o--o------o--o--o--o--o--o--o
- o
o --:--_--_
I 0.1
I 0.2
l 0.3
l 0.4
I 0.5
l 0.6
t 0.7
l 0.8
I 0.9
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.65
X/C
Figure
77: Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 100,000
-3-
-2
_oo o
-| / /
o---o
0 0 "\0 0 0
..
0
--. __ .-- _ ___
/
00 /6>0_0 1 > I 0.1 I 0.2 I 0.3 l 0.4 I 0.5 0 0 0 0 "---0 0 0 0 0
l 0.6
I 0.7
t 0.8
I 0.9
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.65
X/C
Figure
78- Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 100,000
74
-4"-"
-_O_o
/ --/ >,/
O
. _- ...... --_ " ..\_
_0
\,_/':
O
0
.... O0
0 .... 0
I 0.1
l 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
! 0.5
I 0.6
I 0.7
! 0.8
I 0.9
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.65
X/C
Figure
79- Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 100,000
-5
-4
-3
-2
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'"
.... 0
-0_
- o_ _ o_
--0
0 ' 0--0-----0-----0_- 0
..---_-o---6_,__ o -0 o-- o
lr_O_" 2 0
o..... _._ :
_ 0.1
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.65
X/C
Figure
80- Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 100,000
.......
. :
.....
...... ::
....
: :::
::
::
:...
.....
.....
....
::: .....
, ......:
::
: _
::::
::
::::
.:
::
::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
75
-5
-4
.... -.......
i /
-----_____._O___O_
o
,......
0 0 0
.................. 0
o ---o _ o
0 (_<:_0 0 0 0
o ...... o --o-
-o-
I 0.1
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
l 0.6
I 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.65
Figure
81" Pressure
Coefficient
Re = 100,000
I > 0
-%_o
o
m
o
0 -"'0"
o
'-" 0 0
I 0.1
I 0.2
l 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0.6
I 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.65
Figure
82- Pressure
Coefficient
Re = 100,000
76
,. r_
-2 -4 __ -6
-8 ,.1,
I 25OO
I 25oo
4000
i
_ -._..
t,.,
----..
_
') r/_
20oo
"'J' 0 "
s _---_
]
I
1000
!
1500
I
2000
500
2500
Iteration Number
Figure
83" ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re = 100,000
M = 0.65 x = 4.00
I,-4 O tzd
I=
! 4000,
2000
c,--.,,
"_o
t_ G,)
1000
....... ",___._j_.._j..-.. "-,-...._J" ....... ._ ........ .._ ,._-...._. _j. -_..__ ..... ..
........... --.
1,
4ooo.
4000
,,.._._ J'--
_,.._.,/_'".,..._.__ -......._
__..
....-,
_.) ra_
2000 0 0
"..........
Figure
84: ADPAC
Convergence
History,
Re = 100,000
M = 0.65 ct = 5.01
.....
I ....
1......... g
'4
....
0 0 0
o"
0 0
I
I i
0 0
_D
r-:
II
_D
0 0
II
_D
il
II
t_ _D
'q
_D
E z
II
z
t_
II
o.=o
i g.
o
o_
i 3
D g_
0
:=
I
/
I !
r--" f
t-
0 0 ,<
!
i! ) ?
/
o
0 _J 1
0 0 ,< ,<
g0 1,1
,<
oe
g0
aoaa_tSI_ OI i_0l
._
O'Q t_ OO OO
oo
Numberof
Separated Points
Number of
Supersonic Points
Number Supersonic
of Points
f,o 0 0 0 o0 o 0
,-.. 0 0
_p
/
!
3 3
l-
,/ i
l I
m
"1
t_
et_
mmo
I/
_g 1
mm_ 0
o
,,B I _ o i
oo
'D
if
II
I
,.
xg
II
=z
C_"t,,} Q
i-
,.,,,...
II
ox LXa
II l
)
.,,.,
I
i.
II
II
....
........
.....
.... l ............. lm
79
-5
-4
-3
-2
<>o
----O -O--0-- 0 --0
-0--0--0-
I 0.1
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
! 0.6
I 0.7
! 0.8
! 0.9
Corrected ADPAC
Langley Calculation,
Data M = 0.75
X/C
Figure
89" Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 60,000
--0
7>
/
o
0 0 0 0 o. 0 0 0
_,
0
_.
"7 o 0 0 0
_-0---0---0--0-
--0--0--0---0
-0
--
, 0
I 0.1
I 0.2
i 0.3
I 0.4
I 0.5
I 0.6
l 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
X/C
O Corrected ADPAC Langley Calculation, Data M = 0.75
Figure
90: Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 60,000
80
0 .... 0
l 0.1
I 0.2
I 0.3
I 0,4
I 0.5
I 0.6
I 0.7
I 0.8
I 0.9
X/C
o Corrected ADPAC Langley Calculation, Data M = 0.75
Figure
91" Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 60,000
-2
-!i V
__--'-f 0
0 -0 ....
I___oo
2L,. 0
! 0.1
! 0.2
! 0.3
I 0.4
I 0,5
1 0.6
! 0.7
! 0.8
! 0,9
X/C
o Corrected Langley Calculation, Data M = 0.75 _- ADPAC
Figure
92" Pressure
Coefficient
Chordwise
Position,
Re = 60,000
-" _0o o o
"
I'
'I'
I .....
I ....
|.....
............
oo
o o
0
om o_
,<>o
Im
o 0
i
o o
0 0 o
?
!
o
0
o
oj og
O_ 0
o o
o_ 0 --" 0 0
0
0 o
/ o_ 0
E_
!
o oo o
/
0 0 (-,,.
II
>.,, .o o
o
J
Io
l
, I
o
0
o_ O_
oP^ _
o_
De
ml _D o_
eo o o o o
Number Supersonic
of Points
De
Number Supersonic
of Points
to
.1_
oo
d,
_D tJI
ee
...., o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
g
I
0
o o
i i
/
/ J
3
o g
o t_
o
l-
-/
/
t_
I _mle
t_
De
o o
g o
oo Ix9
_g
0
II
_go
II
z
i '-1
I l
II
o
II
t_
---I tji
--d LXl
gQ
-I
J
g_ II
_D _D
O _ I .........
II
t t
i
Imme
Number Supersonic
of Points
Number Supersonic
of Points
t_ kD O0
ee
l,d 0 Q
o
..,,-
oo
_,
f
ee oo
I 1
.....
i ....
oo
t..
I ,,
t
m
1_
,,
0"Q 'D t_
lame
(
I: L
(
_
i
_,
o ml
? 1
., .,
a"
oo L_
...
_m
t_
0 --t
J (
1
z
II
II
-'I O
._
II
...d L#I
..
II
g_ II
",,4
II
_______1______
............ I!
...........
,,
;.
| ..............
,.,
,'
_
O
o od II
It3
Ox
It
It%
.I
II
i
...
._
...
II
1-
g
L. J
o.,
_
t/% t"q
_D
x
L i J O eq -..., t0,2
_D
E
I
II
.2
II
I
ox
o I::::
_.o_
L '3 L.. J
1,1 O
ollm
-a'oo
o
ella
r I
i
n I
--
l i
]
_D 1,1 _D
_D _J0 1,1
f : I,
I' O
',
t
., t
L_ L_ <
........ I :: I
oo o O
,r
L_ L_ .< .<
i...... "--o ,,-,
../.
.......
,,,i
oe
(.,,
,,,p 0o
0 [ _0"I
0 0
0 0
0 0
_D
i0.I.I_[ S_
o_ o_
emll
t_J0
ellm
85
Figure
101- Pressure
Distribution
for Re = 60,000
M - 0.45
cx= 8.01
Figure
102" Streamlines
Over
Surface
of the Airfoil,
Re = 60,000
_= 8.01
CHAPTER
Propeller
Design
Using
Two-Dimensional
ADPAC Langley
4 using
and
each
conditions
in Table
3 were
design statements
analysis used
programs
(Figures
49 through values
conditional
were
to apply these
predicted
the length
of the blade. exercise designed diameter, new was to see what using effect elevated Mach numbers data. the same chord, would Keeping as was and lift
designs,
twist,
coefficient
distributions
can be found
in Figures
103 through
still show
a 'hook'
the degradation
is increased, of attack.
the laminar
stall found
angles
ADPAC
predictions
predicted
designs
86
87
To
the average
optimize maximum
This was done necessary relative Efficiency considered The performance the propeller The program this
to increase 4.
sections,
chord,
in figures 85.1%.
propeller
design
to be the final design. strip-theory predictions geometry, iterates the power, tests analysis program was used Input angle, to generate to the analysis cruise Mach off-design program propeller includes
number, angle
velocities
of attack. be found
distribution coefficients
blade
can
many
integrity, match
program point.
should
that calculated
by the analysis
program
at design
performance
maps Variations
were created
by changing
ratio power,
of the propeller.
efficiency, in figures
coefficients point,
of pitch
At design
of the advance
at the 75%
radial
position
is 42.52 .
88
performance
curves
to operating While
the propeller
at a slightly
maintaining
the design
advance position
of 1.814,
angle
may
be desirable
power
to stall when To decrease not will yield affect point Actual twist in the the a
advance
predicted larger
increase
in thrust
portion and
for both
as the blades
A structural performance
would
to be conducted
to understand
more
fully
89
(127.9 lbs) 83.9 kW (112.6 hp) 932.1 N-m (687.5 ft-lbs) 1.814
Torque Advance
90
8O
7O
.-... -...\
6O
5O
4O
30'
I
0 0.1
I
0.2
I
0.3
I
0.4
I
0.'i
I
0.6
I
0.7
! 0.8
I 0.9
r/Rtip
-o- Blade _ -+ Blade Blade Twist Twist Angle, Angle, 2 Bladed 3 Bladed 4 Bladed Propeller, Propeller, Propeller, Rtip - 3.4 m Rtip = 2.3 m Rtip = 1.75 m Twis Angle,
Figure
103: Blade
Twist
Angle Using
(degrees) ADPAC
Radial
Position,
Designed
0.8
I-i
0.6
r..)
0.4
I
0.7
!
0.8 0.9
r/Rtip
-__ -+Chord, Chord, Chord, 2 Blade<_ Propeller, 3 Bladed 4 Bladed Propeller, Propeller, Rtip = 3.4 m Rtip = 2.3 m Rtip = 1.75 m
Figure
(meters) Using
Radial Only
Position,
ADPAC
II
f_
0
em em
o o
elm em
o
m OO O
O
m em
u.
om
:h _c,i,-; "._ II II d
\.\ ,, ,\
II
ellll
@ d
!.
-.,
em
.. ', ,
E
@
O O O
L_
em
888
_._-__
R', I
ellll
.q o
,._t
Ii
em
o
O
em
92
80 <>
70
\O\
""O-
60
50
" O
L.,_.
40
30
0.1
I
0.2
!
0.3
!
0.4
!
0.5
I
0.6
!
0.7
I
0.8
!
0.9
r/Rtip Figure 107: Blade Twist Angle Using (degrees) ADPAC vs. Non-dimensional Predicted Values Only Radial Position,
Designed
0.8
0.6 O
L)
0.4 O ...........
O--
O ........
O .....
0.2 -
<>
I
0.1 0.2
.... !
0.3
!
0.4
!
0.5
I
0.6
I
0.7
!
0.8
I
0.9 I
r/Rtip Figure 108: Chord Designed (meters) Using vs. Non-dimensional Predicted Values Radial Only Position,
ADPAC
93
. \.
1.5105 0 ,.Q
\ \
1.10 5
o 0 _:_ 5.104 0
\ t>
10000 O 6000
I
0.|
!
0.3
I
0.4
!
0.5
I
0.6
!
0.7
!
0.8
I
0.9
0.2
r/Rtip Figure 109" Reynolds Designed Number Using vs. Non-dimensional Predicted Values Radial Only Position,
ADPAC
0.8
1 0
0o
0.7
2:
0.6 O
/
fJ
0.5 O rio
_O A _
0.4
I 0.3
I
0.4
I
0.5
I
0.6
I
0.7
!
0.8
!
0.9
r/Rtip Figure 110" Relative Designed Mach Using Number ADPAC vs. Non-dimensional Predicted Values Radial Only Position,
94
0.9
0.8
_<
"'" ''",.....,
0.7
0.6
\,
0.5 1.7
l
1.8
I
1.9
I
2
I
2.1
I
2.2
I
2.3
I
2.4 2.5
Advance
Beta _' -_ Beta Beta at 75% at 75% at 75% R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R = 40.00 degrees degrees--Design degrees
Ratio,
Point
Figure
111"
Propeller
Efficiency
Ratio
for a Range
of Pitch
0.25
0.2
"_ _D
0.15
O
4--1 r_
0.!
d_
0.05
[.., I
2.2
I
2.3
I
2.4 2.5
-'< -_
degrees degreesdegrees
Advance
Design Point
Ratio,
Figure
112: Thrust
Coefficient
versus
Advance
Ratio
for a Range
of Pitch
Ang es
95
0.5
04
L_
4_ .p,q
0.3
O O
L_
O
0.2
T:_L.
-.
0.1
-... "U
I
.7 1.8
I
19
I
2
I
2.1
I
2.2
!
2.3
1
2.4 2.5
Advance
--x+ -oBeta Beta Beta at 75% at75% at 75% R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R. = 40.00 degrees degrees-Design degrees Point
Ratio,
Figure
113: Power
Coefficient
versus
Advance
Ratio
for a Range
of Pitch
Angles
0.08
0 /
0.06
o_
0.04
0
rj
0
-_ 'B--.. "4-. -....
"'0_.
tD
"B
"-x... -...g...
0.02
--.... "'._
"13
I
1.7 1.8
I
1.9
I
2
I
2.1
I
2.2
I
2.3
I
2.4 2.5
Advance
- Design Point
Ratio,
Figure
114:
Torque
Coefficient
versus
Advance
Ratio
for a Range
of Pitch
Angles
96
1.5
<)-- - -
" -0
<_ | I -
O
X s / o /.---._'" X .- _.--'I" .... ..... ' /K _,,MI /' .. I' / ,. I I . ..p'" - - o X ..... -I,-" .... I' , 11 _ _ ---.a-_D .... ---B---I_| I I I 'Ir_o ,K--_
_.
I
0.5
I
I
k
1.5 2 2.5
Radius, meters
-_" -a-_" Beta at 75% R - 45.00 degrees Beta at 75% R = 42.52 degrees - Design Point Beta at 75% R = 40.00 degrees Beta at 75% R = 50.00 degrees
Distributions
116
and 117.
mesh
of the flowfield
around
the propeller and one radius grid points. and pressure hub fixed was on the
upstream from
entire
was
cylinder. surfaces
established surface.
cylindrical were
as a "slip" plane,
freestream
Mach grid.
boundary
computational
called "C"
TCGRID
written one
by Roderick blade
(Ref.
grid around
as a somewhat originally to
upstream for
of the blade.
TCGRID it was
intended create
turbomachinery
challenge
TCGRID As
were shown
consisted block
"C"
broken
97
98
separate blocks (Blocks 1-4),andthe coarseinlet block is shownin yellow as Block 5. The fine meshwas retainedfor Block 1 closestto the blade,while the meshwas coarsened by eliminating everyother grid line from the original fine meshto yield Blocks 2 through 4. The coarsemeshwasbroken at the comersof the "C" grid to avoid possibleproblemswithin ADPAC concemingstretchingratios, or the relative sizeof neighboringcomputational cells. Figure 119is a view forward looking aft of the computational domainsurroundingoneof the threepropellerblades. Figures120 through 122showthe portion of the computational meshnearthe inlet block region, near the blade hub, and near the exit region, respectively. SeparateFORTRAN programs were written to extend the mesh radially outwards creating Blocks 6 through 10(Fig. 123). There are many featureswhich are desiredof a computationalmesh_some for physical reasons and some to comply with the ADPAC program format. Physically,thereagainshouldbe enoughgrid pointspackedcloseto the bladesurface so that theboundarylayercanbe resolved. The grid shouldalsoextendwell into the free streamaheadof the blade,behind the blade, and radially outward. It is also recommended that the gridlinesfollow thetrailing edgeangleof the bladesectionsso that separation andany vorticesthat may be shedcan be seen. The challengewhen creatinga meshis meetingall theserequirements while keepingthe numberof grid points to a minimum to reducecomputationaltime. Practically, the upstreamand downstreamextentsof the meshweresacrificedin orderto addgrid points closerto
99
surface. meshes
Even seen
mesh
is much
coarser
the quarter
and 3.671
at r/Rtip
a mesh ratios
an ADPAC 1.3.
three-dimensional TCGRID
to vary until
ratios
uses
a multigrid solutions
method
to speed the
convergence. mesh
by coarsening
by eliminating
of multigrid direction
are recommended
if the number
of cells
Coordinates
edge
also meet this criterion for an inlet block, the inlet block
grid must be square all grid blocks ADPAC propeller Figure because separated blade 124. must was
coordinates
history
After
three
sections
the hub,
100
midspan,and tip
shown indicated Mach edge in Figures
where 131.
and
Mach solution
number at the
no separation
number
two-dimensional
near the trailing of the blade 132 and calculated 133. and can be ......
with a shock
wave
approximately clearly
one quarter
power, from
coefficients
to results
calculations. 137.
The comparisons
5 or graphically
in Figures
Table
5. Comparison
Results ADPAC
Point at the
the Design Efficiency Thrust Power Torque Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Thrust 0.8509 0.1411 0.3007 0.04785
Design
Power
Torque
703.7 (519.0
N-m ft-lbs)
101
power, attributed
coefficients factors.
5% lower.
can be
r/Rtip
Secondly, two-dimensional
solution
of grid
Finally,
as shown analysis
into account
programs.
number
domain
in Figure
102
Figure
116:
The Three-Bladed
Propeller
and Extended
Hub Surface,
Side View
Figure
117:
Front
View
of Three-Bladed
Propeller
103
t 2 3 4
Figure
118: Computational
Mesh
Blocks
and Solid
Surfaces,
Axial
View
Figure
119: Forward
Looking
Blade
and Computational
104
Figure
120:
Magnified
View
of Inlet
Block
Region
Figure
121"
Magnified
View
of Blade
Region
105
Figure
122-
Magnified
View
of Trailing
Edge
Region
Figure
123:
View
and Above
the Blade
Tiw--
106
-4
-{
O ,--1
-8'
,
0
I
500
I
1000
I
1500
I
2000
I
2500 3000
._
O
2-i0 4
r_
_
o
1.104
,.,-,, _",,-,,.,,.,__ ._,__"'_
..-..
"'_--._...-..._.,___
0 0 5O0 1000
I
1500
I
2000
I
2500 3OO0
Iteration Figure 124: Convergence History for the Three-Dimensional Calculation ADPAC
r/Rtip = 0.406
r/Rtip = 0.666
r/Rtip = 0.905
Figure
125"
Hub, Midspan,
107
0.7$00
,9.2500
Figure
126:
Pressure
Ratio
Contours
for r/Rtip \
= 0.406
Math Number
\_l,
Figure
127-
Mach
Number
Contours
for r/Rtip
- 0.0406
108
.... k.
i /
/,-
_. _
./
!/
/ <!/ /
.......
l_mre
Ralio,
PI/Pt
: .!
.\_-J
\ \. ",. / ./
,
,
::
Figure
128:
Pressure
Ratio
Contours
for r/Rtip
= 0.666
0.7500
0.0000
/
Figure 129: Mach Number Contours for r/Rtip = 0.666
C_ C_
II
z,,
r_
0 C_
O
i,,,,,,-I
c_
ee
N)
em
110
Figure
132:
Suction
Surface
Pressure
Distribution
Figure
133:
Mach
Number
Distribution
Over
the Suction
Side
of the Blade
III
0.9
_-..,--,-...._.....
0.8
o o
., _,,=a
0.7
\
'.\
[.T-1
0.6
\
'\
4"
,\
0.5
I I.g
I !.9
I 2
I 2.1
I,
,,
I
2.3
I
2.4 2.5
2.2
Advance
-_+ o Beta Beta Beta at 75% at 75% at 75% R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R = 40.00 degrees degrees-Design degrees at the Design Point Point
Ratio,
ADPAC
3-D Calculation
Figure
134:
Comparison
of Strip Theory
and ADPAC
Calculations
of Efficiency
0.25
0.2
0.15 aJ
p=q
QJ O
4--t
0.1
0.05
I
1.7 1.8
I
i.9
I
2
Advance
Beta + -_ o Beta Beta at 75% at 75% at 75% R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R = 4000 degrees degrees degrees at the Design Point - Design Point
Ratio,
ADPAC
3-D Calculation
Figure
135:
Comparison
of Strip
Calculations
of Thrust
112
0.5
.i
0.4
r,..)
0.3
r,..)
0
0.2
0.I _-rl I 1.7 1.8 I !.9 I 2 I 2.1 I 2.2 I 2.3 ! 2.4 2.5
Advance
--'<_ -o o Beta Beta Beta ADPAC at 75% at 75% at 75% 3-D R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R = 40.00 Calculation degrees degrees-Design degrees at the Design Point Point
Ratio,
Figure
136: Comparison
Calculations
of Power
0.08
i
I
CY
4--t
O_
.vm
0.04 O
0.02
B..
Advance
-_ t -eo Beta Beta Beta ADPAC at 75% at 75% at 75% 3-D R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R = 40.00 Calculation degrees degrees degrees at the Design Point - Design Point
Ratio,
Figure
137: Comparison
Calculations
of Torque
111
0.9
0.8 Q, o
:\ oI,,_
0.7
"'" "4
_,
\
r.l.l
0.6
\i 4"
0.5
I 1.8
I 1.9
I 2
I 2.1
I
2.2
I
2.3
I
2.4 2.5
Advance
-_Beta Beta Beta o at 75% at 75% at 75% R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R = 40.00 degrees degrees-Design degrees at the Design Point Point
Ratio,
ADPAC
3-D Calculation
Figure
134:
Comparison
of Strip Theory
and ADPAC
Calculations
of Efficiency
0.25
0.2
0.15 O
E
0.1 0 rj) 0.05
Advance
-3<-4-o o Beta Beta Beta at 75% at 75% at 75% R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R = 40.00 degrees degreesdegrees at the Design Point Design Point
Ratio,
ADPAC
3-D Calculation
Figure
135:
Comparison
of Strip
Calculations
of Thrust
112
0.5
.I
0.4
0.3
o
g.,
0.2
O.l
I
1.7 1.8
!
1.9
I
2
I
2.1
I
2.2
I
2.3
!
2.4 2.5
Advance
-'_ _ -o o Beta at 75% R = 45.00 degrees Beta at 75% R = 42.52 degrees-Design Point Beta at 75% R = 40.00 degrees ADPAC 3-D Calculation at the Design Point
Ratio, J
Figure
136" Comparison
of Strip
Calculations
of Power
0.08
f'
CY
4-a
0.06
0.04 O
0.02
I
1.7 1.8
I
1.9
I
2
I
2.1
!
2.2
I
2.3
I
2.4 2.5
Advance
-_ _' -eo Beta at 75% R = 45.00 degrees Beta at 75% R = 42.52 degrees - Design Point Beta at 75% R = 40.00 degrees ADPAC 3-D Calculation at the Design Point
Ratio, J
Figure
137" Comparison
of Strip
Calculations
of Torque
113
........
:.........
Figure
138:
Tip Vortex
Streamlines
O.3OOO
O.4OOO
O..._H)O
Figure
139:
Pressure
Distribution
of the Computational
CHAPTER 8--CONCLUSION
Comparison ADPAC, weaknesses within ADPAC lower a numerical of both of the strip theory design and code, analysis sheds results light predicted with those from and was while 5%
Navier-Stokes techniques.
analysis Propeller
on the by
efficiency
methods coefficients
approximately
results. to the strip theory process, propeller's tool. design must quickly from and analysis be able and strip methods is speed. conditions Liebeck's can be off-
Since easily
design and
to change and
Adkins' theory
analyses
calculating map.
at many
a propeller was
simplifying Liebeck's
achieved
and
methods. main advantages to make of using ADPAC was the elimination and analysis the of simplifying visualization were clearly of seen a
required
calculation
Shocks
of time to Ieam how to run the code, the output files. This time
to post-process
is in addition
to
114
115
actually run the calculation. The three-dimensional meshconsumeda greatamount of time sinceapproximately22 hourswere neededto complete 100 iterationson a dedicated workstationwith anR8000processor. In conclusion,the fusion of
methods generation stratosphere. transonic unavailable that the with ADPAC, two dimensional strip theory design and analysis a good in firstEarth's number were
Navier-Stokes capable of
yielded
propeller
subsonic
flight
coefficients generated
since
results results
for
propeller thick
of the
on the suction
outboard
sections. airfoil
Improvements results
to this design
ADPAC (if
methods
experimental
unavailable), iterations
prediction
REFERENCES
[ 1 ] ERAST
Leadership
Team.
Piloted
Aircraft
(RPA)
NASA,
of Aeronautics
(Code
[2] Adkins, C.N. and R.H. Liebeck. 1983. Design of Optimum Propellers. American Instintue of Aeronautics and Astronautics. AIAA-83-0190. [3] Mueller, To J. 1985. Low Reynolds Group for Aerospace No. 288. and WoC. Reynolds. Separation. York: in Notre 1989. The Instability Number Indiana. Number Research Vehicles. Neuilly-Sur-Seine, NTIS,
France:
Advisory
and Development.
of Two-
Aerodynamics:
Results Low-
for
at Low Reynolds
Numbers
An Analysis Dame,
Airfoils.
Aerodynamics:
the Conference
Springer-Verlag Low-Reyonlds 1106-1113. 1989. Prediction Number Flows. of Aerodynamic In Low Reynolds in Notre York: Performance Number Indiana. June Dame, of Number Airfoils. Journal of Aircraft.
M. 1992. Transonic
Volo 29 No. 6 (Nov.-Deco) [8] Coiro, D.Po and CodeNicola. in Low Reynolds Proceedings
Airfoils
Aerodynamics:
Hall, E.Jo and D.A. Top and R.A. Delaney. Manual.Cleveland: NASA Lewis Layer
Research Theory.
[ 10]
Schlichting,
H. 1960. Boundary
McGraw-Hill.
116
117
Elements
of Aerofoil
and Airscrew
Theory,
Cambridge"
Aeronautics,
and Flight
Mechanics,
Anderson, Company.
1989. Introduction
to Flight.
New
York:
McGraw-Hill
Book
[ 14] Chima,
R.V.
1990.
TCGRID.
Cleveland:
NASA
Lewis
Research
Center.
REPORT
DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducin_ this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Design and Performance
2.
REPORT
DATE
3.
REPORT
TYPE
AND
DATES
COVERED
February
1998
Technical
5.
Memorandum
I_IUMBERS
FUNDING
Calculations
of a Propeller
for Very
High
Altitude
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) National Lewis Aeronautics Research Ohio Center 44135-3191 and Space Administration
E-11102
Cleveland,
9.
SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY
NAME(S)
AND
ADDRESS(ES)
10.
National Washington,
Aeronautics DC
NOTES submitted Western (216) as a thesis Reserve 433-5656. in partial University, fulfillment Cleveland, of the requirements Ohio, January for the degree 1998. Responsible of Masters person, of Science L. Danielle in Koch,
Engineering organization
to Case code
7565,
12a.
DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY
STATEMENT
12b.
DISTRIBUTION
CODE
UnclassifiedSubject
Categories:
This publication
13. ABSTRACT
is available
200
(Maximum
Reported
here is a design
study of a propeller
for a vehicle
capable
of subsonic
flight in Earth's
stratosphere.
All propellers
presented
were required to absorb 63.4 kW (85 hp) at 25.9 km (85,000 ft) while aircraft cruise velocity was maintained the final design, classic momentum and blade-element theories were combined with two and three-dimensional Advanced Ducted Propfan Analysis Code (ADPAC), compared. programs transonic numbers angles written. a numerical Experimental and calculated of 60,000 of attack, calculations ADPAC assumptions Navier-Stokes analysis code. The Eppler of the constant the strip theory 60,000 attack. section design propeller designs data from the Langley surface pressure Low-Turbulence are compared
at Mach 0.40. To produce results from the Tunnel was used in numbers of section pressure A of
The experimental
ADPAC
and a Mach
number
of 0.20. Experimental
experimental
data was unavailable, and 100,000 to the variation point. Propeller of thrust,
in addition at design
model of the final design with strip-theory methods, results. Simplifying by strip theory
by ADPAC
1.5% of 5%
although
and torque
High-altitude;
CLASSIFICATION
ADPAC
SECURITY OF CLASSIFICATION
16.
PRICE
CODE
20.
LIMITATION
OF
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
Unclassified
Standard Prescribed 298-102 Form by ANSI 298 Std. (Rev. Z39-18 2-89)