Aerospace Science and Technology 108 (2021) 106399

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

Aerodynamic performance of mutual interaction tandem propellers

with ducted UAV
Mohsen Rostami a , Amir hamzeh Farajollahi b,∗
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University (TMU), Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Imam Ali University, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper describes progress made on the new design and analysis of a twin-propeller (front and rear)
Received 4 October 2020 with duct. Major advantage of this design is that the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) could complete the
Received in revised form 25 November 2020 mission with only one engine, in the case of failure in one of the engines. Such a design also makes a
Accepted 28 November 2020
fair weight distribution within the UAV, which makes it more stable. Furthermore, this design makes it
Available online 4 December 2020
Communicated by Mehdi Ghoreyshi
possible to arm the UAV with missiles and other military equipment easily. Ducts traditionally increase
the propulsive force produced by propeller at high speeds. Improper design of the duct can result in
Keywords: performance loss of the UAV. Therefore, the UAV model with Six different duct configurations is analyzed
Twin-propeller to find the most appropriate duct design. The Moving Reference Frame (MRF) method is implemented
Duct and examined in CFD simulations for flows around a moving rigid body. Variations included rotational
MRF speed of the propeller, incident angle allowing a comprehensive understanding of the overall aerodynamic
CFD characteristics of this design. The results of this study show good conformity with the experimental
Aerodynamics
outcomes. Lift force and drag force are studied with different angles of attack. This work shows that rear
and front propeller design with duct improves the efficiency by 6%, which offers better performance than
two-propeller (without duct) designs.
© 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction aircraft design, different results can be expected and performed

During recent years, interest in Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)
has shown an enormous growth in both military and civil avia-
tion. The increased demand has led engineers and designers to
search for methods to improve flight performance, especially for
long endurance reconnaissance and intelligence missions. However,
the validation of a performance improvement technique requires a
high number of flight.
For low speed, propeller aircraft are more effective than jet
engines [1]. For this reason, propellers are often used instead of
jet engines in UAVs. In the front engine settings, the current in
which the propeller operates is disrupted by the fuselage, wings
and other parts of the aircraft. Changes in velocity field before the
propeller can influence the propeller’s efficiency and performance
significantly. On the other hand, the rotating propeller alternates
the flow around the fuselage, which can lead to a change in the
aerodynamic drag of the entire aircraft. Since the systems are in-
terconnected, it is impossible to analyze them separately. Depend-
ing on the specific solutions, geometry and parameters and the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a.farajollahi@sharif.edu (A.h. Farajollahi).
[2,3].
Front engine configuration is widely used for light aircraft, ro-
torcraft and UAVs. For UAVs, it is easy to install the engine and
propeller at the back of the fuselage. Depending on the mission,
most aircraft equipment should be located at the front of the
aircraft. For example, surveillance systems require a wide, unob-
structed front-view for proper operation of cameras and antennas
that prevent the propeller mounted on the nose in the tractor con-
figuration [2–4]. In addition, the air units are very sensitive to
vibration and placing the power unit at the end of the fuselage
reduces the negative vibration effect.
UAVs are often restricted due to space concerns and fuel con-
sumption. There is a limited range in which the mass center of a
UAV can be located to have a safe and controlled flight. In addi-
tion, equipment and cargo can be placed near the center of mass
only to maintain stability, which often leads to wasted space and
reduced efficiency [5]. By placing the engine in front and rear, the
aircraft can maintain balance and stability during flight, while also
allowing the front and rear spaces of the aircraft by the processor
equipment, equipment or cargo that they need depending on the
type of transport or use to be occupied. The advantage of this type
of design over the single engine type is the reduction of the risk

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2020.106399
1270-9638/© 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
M. Rostami and A.h. Farajollahi
Nomenclature
vr relative velocity
ω rotational velocity
ρ fluid density
Ui velocity component
μe f f effective viscosity
μt turbulence viscosity
H the total enthalpy
T fluid temperature
δi j Kronecker delta function
λ thermal conductivity
Prt turbulent Prandtl number
Fig. 1. Overview of Kulik’s twin engine UAV.
of not performing flight work due to engine failure. The design of
two engines on the wings is an asymmetric pressure in the event
of power loss or failure of one engine, which can adversely affect
the lateral stability of the UAV and lead to a plane crash. According
to the longitudinal design, the weakness shown is eliminated.
So far, various methods have been introduced to study the
performance of propeller, which are classified into three general
categories: experimental tests, numerical methods, and the devel-
opment of analytical relationships.
We will look at some of the studies conducted in the field of
UAVs as followed next. All of these methods have their own ad-
vantages and disadvantages. For the first time in 2008, Kharchenko
et al. [6] built a Hunter twin-engine UAV at the National Aviation
University. In 2011, Kulik et al. [7] introduced a new geometry by
relocating two engines (Fig. 1). This geometry reduces aerodynamic
drag and eliminates vibration in the event of engine failure, which
increases the UAV’s efficiency in aerial work. This article, however,
does not provide any data on design improvement.
In the late 2016, Seda [8] patented the UAV shown in Fig. 2.
This research is one of the latest works done in the field of twin-
engine UAVs. No numbers are reported in this study.
Brent et al. [9] conducted an experimental study on fans. In
their study, they used a wind tunnel to determine the performance
of 79 plane blades. Experiments were performed in both dynamic
and static conditions. These experiments were conducted at dif-
ferent wind speeds and rotation speed ranges from 1500 to 7500
rpm. The experiments were performed in a low-speed wind tun-
nel at the University of Illinois (UIUC). They presented the results
in tabular and graphical form.
Detters et al. [10] used different blade types in performance
using the same method as Brent. The performance of 27 small-
scale propellers was tested and data were collected for thrust
force, power and propeller efficiency for a specific range of ad-
vance ratios. What is certain is that experimental testing is not
cost-effective for every problem, and useful laboratory results still
cover a limited range of different dimensions and Reynolds.
In the computational fluid dynamics method, aerodynamic
forces are calculated using blade geometry and solving Navier-
Stokes equations [11]. In this method, a pattern of flow around
2
Aerospace Science and Technology 108 (2021) 106399
h static enthalpy
k turbulent kinetic energy
j axial advanced ratio
n rotational speed, round per second
D propeller diameter, M
cT thrust coefficient
T thrust
CQ torque coefficient
Q torque, N·M
CP propeller efficiency
T back thrust of back propeller
the blade is shown. Sohas et al. [12] used CFD analysis to study
ship propeller flow. Initially, the geometry was drawn with CAD
software, with specific propeller dimensions and blade angles. The
cylindrical chamber is intended as the domain of the flow, with the
inlet at a distance of 3D (with D as the diameter of the propeller)
from the blade and the outlet in the downstream 4D from the
same point. The meshing was performed for the whole solution
range and the k-ω turbulence model was used. In their modeling,
they used the MRF source displacement method to rotate the pro-
peller. The obtained trust and torque results were compared with
the experimental results and showed good correlation. Their re-
sults showed that the CFD method can display the flow properties
with good accuracy.
Benini [13] conducted a study comparing existing methods for
determining propeller blade performance, including blade momen-
tum theory1 and RANS three-dimensional numerical solution using
CFD Fluent. Their studies showed that the numerical method used
gives reliable results independent of the progress ratio, with a
maximum difference of 5% compared to the experimental results.
In addition, numerical analysis gives better results compared to the
blade momentum theory.
Zhang et al. [14] use Ansys Fluent software to analyze the use
of blade performance in the forward current and in the oppo-
site wind conditions (wind from the sides). The authors used a
similar Turner Framework (MRF) approach. The studied fan is 10
inches in diameter with a maximum RPM of 7000 with a maxi-
mum Reynolds number of about 100,000 in 75 budget lengths. Due
to the fact that the solution was unstable and unbearable density,
you chose the sliding mesh method and it was done from a vortex
turbo-charged model separated by RANS standards.
Kotti and Rajendran [15] used the Fluent software to evaluate
the performance of the APC propeller and compared the results
with available experimental data. The propeller was 10 inches in
diameter and 7 inches wide. The propeller geometry is modeled
as a semi-propeller. The authors used the MRF approach similarly
to that used by Turner [15] and Zhang et al. [13]. The error per-
centage in the thrust coefficient remained below 5% compared to
the experimental measurements below the high progress ratios (J
< 0.7).
A study by NASA [31,32] on duct rotors found that ducts in-
crease thrust at higher RPMs (>4000). At relatively low RPMs,
there are more losses by adding a duct (higher drag inside). It was
also found that by reducing the gap between the tip and the duct,
even at lower RPMs, an increase in thrust is observed [16].
Ducts traditionally increase the propulsive force produced by
propeller at high speeds [27]. According to Rafael Yuli [18], ducts
for some optimal conditions may create up to 30% more thrust
than free propellers. A duct-propeller system consists of two com-
ponents - the first is the fan or propeller. Ducts can increase pro-
duction thrust [19,20] and reduce propeller tip losses [21,22]. Most
M. Rostami and A.h. Farajollahi Aerospace Science and Technology 108 (2021) 106399

Fig. 2. Overview of Seda’s UAV.

studies show that ducts increase static thrust. If not optimized,

ducts can also lead to excessive losses. The results show that when
the propeller has a stronger backflow, the advantages of using the
propeller duct in low Mach numbers are significant. In addition,
ducts can increase safety and reduce the noise emission of pro-
peller. These types of duct-propeller systems have been used more
for concept models and have been studied more in recent years.
The performance advantage of using a duct around a propeller is
due to the way the duct is affected and changes the flow field cre-
ated by the propeller’s rotational motion. Placing the duct around
the propeller reduces the pressure at the main edge of the duct,
hence allowing the rotor disc to draw more air [23] and increas-
ing the flow rate through the rotor disc plate. This in turn reduces
the angle of attack of the αb propeller blades as shown in Fig. 3.
The outline explains the effect of using the duct around the pro-
peller. The left shows the open propeller, and the right shows the
propeller-duct system. The figure shows that the duct accelerates
the Va input current in the rotor disk and thus decreases α b, and
by increasing Aj decreases the velocity of the output jet Vj . Re-
ducing the effective attack angle of the blades also increases the
progress ratio at which the blade begins to wear out. Removing
the force from the rotor means reducing the propeller interaction
to generate thrust in the duct-propeller system. Increasing the ve-
Fig. 3. Impact of the main ledge of the duct [23].
locity of mass flow at the main edge of the duct (the part of the
duct where low-pressure suction forces are present) increases the
In the following study, to improve the performance of UAVs,
thrust of its propulsion system.
the use of twin-propeller, one in the front and one in the rear,
Martin and Tung [24] showed that by increasing the radius of
has been proposed. The most important feature of this design is
the duct attack edge, the duct thrust can be increased. However,
that if one of these engines fails for any reason, the other engine
the attacking edge of the flat causes strong non-mirror suction
alone can perform the mission. Another advantage of this method
around the edge of the duct and affects the negative stability
is that it is balanced due to the distribution of weight throughout
of the duct fan. According to Martin and Tung, at low RPM, the
the UAV, which will greatly contribute to the stability of the UAV
duct produced by the duct is reduced by intra-duct viscous losses.
and make it easier to add military equipment to it. Due to the lack
Therefore, the open propeller produces lower thrust at lower RPM
of information on this type of propellers arrangement, there was
than the propeller duct propeller. a need for research on the aerodynamic effect of this arrangement
Graf, Fleming, and Neg [25] examined the effect of duct edge on each other. To achieve this goal, the amount of thrust force in
geometry in 2008 using five different conduit edge shapes. The re- three modes of front engine, rear engine and front-rear propeller
sults showed that the leading edge radius relative to the airfoil will be checked and the results will be displayed. For numerical
thickness is effective in static duct thrust. The shape of the ledge solution, the MRF method has been used, which is a very common
with a small forward radius is best in the conditions of forward method in numerical solution and has been mentioned in most
flight and lateral wind. articles and scientific works. The second proposed design for the
Deng et al. [26] studied the aerodynamic performance of an best improvement of the twin-propeller UAV was the use of ducts.
in-house-designed 12-inch ducted fan UAV, which has a pair In this design, the duct will increase efficiency, reduce noise and
of contra-rotating fan system was experimentally investigated prevent the effects of lateral winds on the performance of the pro-
by means of force, pressure and PIV measurements. The results peller.
showed that the rotational speed crucially influences the force
production, where a higher frequency will result in a considerable 2. Numerical models
increase in force mainly due to the induced low-pressure region
by the inlet lip, however, the propulsive efficiency (indicated by In flow problems, equations are often solved within an absolute
power loading) shows a contrary tendency. reference framework. However, if a flow region consists of mov-

3
M. Rostami and A.h. Farajollahi Aerospace Science and Technology 108 (2021) 106399

ing parts, the simulation in the absolute reference frame can no

longer be considered for solution. This complicates the solution
process and the use of dynamic mesh method consumes a lot of
computational resources. Fortunately, MRF is an efficient modeling
method without the need for additional computational resources.
This method has many advantages in simulating rotating device.
The flow is considered to be compressible and the equations of
continuity, momentum and energy are also solved in the flow field
[28].
The governing equations for circulating around the body, which
performs general movements including rotation and transfer, are
formulated in a non-inertial reference format based on a method
called the “moving reference frame (MRF)” [29] (Fig. 4).
In this section, the system of equations is briefly reviewed to
provide a theory of the implementation of computational fluid dy-
Fig. 4. Moving reference frame.
namics.
The moving reference frame approach in computational fluid
dynamics simulations adopts a non-inertial relative reference
frame, which moves with the body.
In this study, the MRF model is used for the steady state. The
equations for the steady state are expressed as Equations (1)-(2):
−
→
∇ · vr = 0 (1)
→− → − → → − →
ρ∇ · − → − −
v r v + ρ ω ∗ v = −∇ p + ∇ τ + F . (2) Fig. 5. Propeller APC-10 ∗ 7.

Where the vr relative velocity and ω is the rotational velocity.

For turbulent flows, the flow variables are decomposed into
mean time values (u) and their oscillating components (u  ). These
hypotheses lead to the RANS equations as follows:
∂ρ ∂  
+ ρU j = 0 (3)
∂t ∂xj
∂ ∂   ∂P
(ρ U i ) + ρUiU j = +
∂t ∂xj ∂ xi
   
∂ ∂Ui ∂U j 2 ∂ Uk
μe f f + − μe f f δi j (4)
∂ xi ∂xj ∂ xi 3 ∂ xk
 
∂ ∂P ∂   ∂ ∂T μt ∂ h
(ρ H ) − + ρU j H = λ + ∗ +
∂t ∂t ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj Prt ∂ x j
    
∂ ∂Ui ∂U j 2 ∂ Uk ∂k
U i μe f f + − μe f f δi j + μ .
∂xj ∂xj ∂ xi 3 ∂ xk ∂xj
(5)
Where ρ is the fluid density, U i is the velocity component, P
2ρ δ k
ij
is the sum of the static pressure and 3
from boussinesq hy-
pothesis, μe f f is effective viscosity, which is the sum of molecular
viscosity μ and turbulence viscosity μt · H is the total enthalpy, T
is the fluid temperature, δi j is the Kronecker delta function, λ is
the thermal conductivity, Prt is the turbulent Prandtl number, h is
the static enthalpy and k is the turbulent kinetic energy.
The shear stress transfer turbulence model (SST) k-ω is used
to estimate the turbulence of the flow around the propeller. This
model has been validated and has positive results for turboma-
chine blades, wind turbines and strong negative pressure gradient
in the boundary layer.
The k-ω model is an empirical standard model based on the
Fig. 6. Flow domain and boundary. a) Fixed domain and boundary conditions in-
transitional equations for the variable k for turbulence kinetic en- cluding inlet, outlet, fixed domain and rotating domain, b) rotating domain.
ergy and specific dispersion rate [33,34]. The shear stress transport
model (SST k-ω ) is similar to the standard k-ω model with some with negative pressure gradient and can be applied under vis-
modifications including the fact that it’s a mixture of equations of cose layers without any additional damping [34]. Although the k-ω
the k-ω model near the wall area and k- model in the area away model has weaknesses for streams with free flow boundaries, it
from the surface. These features make this model more accurate can still provide good estimates for general ultrasonic flows. By
and reliable for a wider range of flow. adding two other equations to the RANS equations, the k-ω model
The turbulence k-ω model is used as a closure to solve the estimates the turbulent kinetic energy k and the specific scattering
RANS equations. This model has high accuracy for boundary layers value ω , which is defined as follows:

4
M. Rostami and A.h. Farajollahi Aerospace Science and Technology 108 (2021) 106399

Fig. 8. Duct geometry.

Fig. 7. The geometry and dimensions of UAV.

 
∂ ∂   ∂ ∂k
(ρ k) + ρ U j k = ρ P k − β ∗ ρωk + (μ + σk μt )
∂t ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj
(6)
Fig. 9. The propeller meshing.
∂ ∂   γω
(ρω) + ρU jω = P k − β ρω2 +
∂t ∂xj k Q
  CQ = (10)
∂ ∂ω ρ n2 d 5
(μ + σk μt ) . (7)
∂xj ∂xj C P = 2π C Q (11)
In Equations (6) and (7), ω is the specific scattering value, Pk CT
is the turbulent kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradient
η= J . (12)
CP
and β , γ , σk and σw are fixed models.
The numerical solution presented in this study was performed
The axial advanced ratio can be described as the extent to
using commercial code. The Multiple Reference Frame (MRF)
which the propeller moves axially at a full rotation of its blades.
model approach was used numerically to predict the flow around
Progress ratio is a dimensionless term used to quantify the effects
the propeller.
of forward motion and angular velocity and is defined as follows
[30]:
3. Geometry
V
j= . (8)
n∗D The propeller used in UAV is generally less than 24 inches in
diameter. Therefore, in the present study, the Slow Flyer propeller
Thrust and power coefficients are dimensionless values that are
for advanced precision composites (APC) has been designated as
related to the thrust power and production power of a propellant
a standard design [17] APC 10 ∗ 7 propeller which is one of the
at its rotational speed and diameter.
common types of propellers for UAVs has been selected in this
From the dimensional analysis, the thrust coefficient is defined
study (Fig. 5).
as follows [30]: CFD simulation has both uncertainties and numerical errors in
T the aerodynamic analysis process which should be managed and
cT = . (9) minimized. Domain size should be designed to minimize the effect
ρ n2 D 4
of flow boundary conditions. When the domain is too small, the
Where T is thrust, ρ is the free current density. flow is not fully developed and the results deviate from reality,
Also, the torque coefficient, power factor and propeller effi- however, a large domain uses more working memory and time So
ciency are defined as follows: It is essential to find the right domain size.

5
M. Rostami and A.h. Farajollahi Aerospace Science and Technology 108 (2021) 106399

Fig. 10. Twin propeller meshing.

Table 2
Boundary conditions.

Boundary condition
(inlet) Velocity inlet
(outlet) Pressure outlet
(tank) Wall (no slip condition)
(UAV_wall) Wall (no slip condition)
(front blade) Wall (no slip condition-moving wall)
(back blade) Wall (no slip condition-moving wall)

Input: At the input, the speed boundary condition is applied

uniformly and in one direction.
Output: At the output of the boundary condition, the output
pressure is selected with zero gauge pressure.
Fig. 11. The grid independence in the propeller APC 10 ∗ 7. Walls: Walls are a non-slip condition. The blade wall in order
for the rotation domain to rotate, the boundary condition is
selected as the rotating wall and its rotational speed relative
Table 1
The duct dimensions. to the rotation domain is considered zero.

V H deg Area
Table 2 shows the boundary conditions applied in each section.
Duct1 0.32 0.2 2.25 0.4095
Duct2 0.36 0.14 2.05 0.3233
5. Meshing
Duct3 0.37 0.12 2.39 0.2862
Duct4 0.366 0.11 1.56 0.2574
Duct5 0.29 0.1 2.87 0.1878 The quality of the computational network directly affects the
Duct6 0.38 0.12 2.39 0.3018 amount of convergence, the performance obtained from the nu-
merical analysis and the computational time to perform the anal-
ysis. In the present study, for more accurate modeling, a computa-
The domain is defined and shown in Fig. 6a. Which is divided tional gridding in the propeller area and close to the UAV has been
into a fixed domain and a rotating domain. The Rotating domain is produced in a smaller size; the dimensions of the gridding gradu-
completely enclosed by a smaller cylinder that encloses the blades, ally move towards larger cells in areas farther away from the UAV.
as shown in Fig. 6. Along the blade in the rotating area the grid size is smaller and
The geometry and dimensions of the UAV studied in this re- gradually increases as it moves towards a fixed area.
search are shown in the Fig. 7. Improving the mesh quality in the interface area increases the
As mentioned, if the proper dimensions are not used for the accuracy of the results. The grid is unstructured in both the fixed
duct, it may even reduce the performance of the UAV. Therefore, and rotating second quadrants. This choice is based on the fact that
the UAV model without duct was examined with 6 different duct unstructured quadrilateral grids have the ability to detect complex
models, in the Fig. 8, the duct parameters are introduced and its geometries with minimal user and rapid intervention.
information is entered in the Table 1. Table 3 shows the details of meshing. Grid adaptation and un-
structured grid fragmentation are easier than a structured grid.
4. Boundary conditions Here, in order to improve the grid in the contact region, the con-
tact meshing option has been used so that the meshing in this area
Several different types of boundary conditions were applied is the same in both fixed and moving areas, so that data transfer
during the CFD simulation, which are described below: from one area to another can take place properly.

6
M. Rostami and A.h. Farajollahi Aerospace Science and Technology 108 (2021) 106399

Fig. 13. The pressure contour on the blades at different velocities. (For interpreta-
tion of the colors in the figure(s), the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)

Table 3
Details of the meshing grid.
Fig. 12. Comparison of numerical with experimental.
Parameter Value
Relevance Center fine
Curvature Normal Angle 18
Fig. 9 shows the propeller meshing. In the section view, the Min Size 0.5 ∗ 10−3
quality and the small size of the grid in the interface area is shown. Max Size 0.21
To ensure accurate estimation of the near-wall flow, 7 boundary Growth Rate 1.2
Minimum Edge Length 1.288 ∗ 10−3 m
layers have been created for all levels in the grid, and approx-
imately 5 million elements have been generated for simulation
(Fig. 10). One of the main factors considered was the optimization of the
The grid independence test reduces computational time by us- computational power of the number of grid elements to obtain the
ing the best mesh. This study includes four meshing types (large, grid that achieved the best result with the least number of el-
medium, fine and very fine) with increasing meshing resolution ements. For areas where flow was expected to be complex, the
on the wall surface and the area of a propeller. Here, to improve number of mesh elements increased. Another evaluated factor was
meshing in the contact region, contact meshing option is used to orthogonal quality, which varies between 0.0 (weak grid) and 1.0
have the same grid in both fixed and moving areas so that data (fine grid) for numerical models, in which the higher the value, the
transfer from one area to another can occur properly. better the accuracy and stability of the solution. The minimum ac-

7
M. Rostami and A.h. Farajollahi Aerospace Science and Technology 108 (2021) 106399

Fig. 14. Streamline on UAV.

Table 4 Table 5
Comparing the numerical solution and the experimental Duct results.
solution.
back front Dragduct χ%
j TNum Texp CT(exp) CT(num) error%
duct 1 29.8 38.8 0.32 −3.02
0.19 1.58 1.61 0.13 0.12 1.74 no duct 30.4 39.2 — 0.00
0.24 1.53 1.51 0.12 0.12 −1.18 duct 2 31.4 39.2 1.80 −2.64
0.28 1.39 1.42 0.11 0.11 2.32 duct 3 33.1 39.6 1.52 3.88
0.43 1.03 1.11 0.09 0.08 4.78 duct 4 32.9 39.6 0.93 5.16
0.57 0.74 0.78 0.06 0.06 4.88 duct 5 30.8 39.5 1.87 −4.83
duct 6 33.6 39.6 1.46 5.73

ceptable orthogonal quality value is 0.15. Good orthogonal quality Table 6

is one of the factors in achieving satisfactory convergence. Thrust comparison due to different engine posi-
Fig. 11 shows the grid independence in the propeller. In this tions.
figure, the horizontal axis shows the number of elements and the Thrust Thrust
vertical axis shows the trust value. As can be seen from the num- (back) (N) (front) (N)
ber of more than 1.5 million elements, the amount of trust value Two propeller 33.6 39.6
has been fixed, which means that reducing the grid size will not Front propeller 0 39.5
change the results and will only increase the computational time. Rear propeller 30.7 0

6. Computation cases and results 6.2. Duct

6.1. Validation
In the validation, CFD simulations were performed under flow
conditions with the specifications of Table 4 and the propeller with
a constant rotation speed of 3008 rpm. At the inlet boundary, a
free flow velocity with a turbulence intensity of 0.1% is applied.
Turbulence intensity is adjusted based on wind tunnel intensity
measured by [29].
In this section, the results of the present numerical solution are
compared with selig experimental solution in UIUC [30]. Table 4 is
comparing the different coefficients of the thrust coefficients and
the results of the numerical solution correspond well with the lab-
oratory results, at higher speeds the error increases slightly. The
rotational speed of this experiment was 3008 rpm. Fig. 12 also
shows the accuracy of this solution.
C T (exp) − C T (num)
error% = ∗ 100.
C T (exp)
Fig. 13 shows the pressure contour on the propeller at different
advance ratios. Due to this figure, the pressure on the back of the
propeller is slightly more than the pressure on the front of the pro-
peller. Just as in airplanes, which the pressure difference between
the upper and lower wings produces the lift and flight of the air-
craft, here the pressure difference between the back and front of
the propeller produces thrust.
To investigate the effect of the duct on the efficiency, the χ%
equation is defined as follows. The higher this parameter, the bet-
ter the duct performance (Table 5).
T back (duct ) − T back (noduct ) − Drag(duct )
χ% = ∗ 100. (14)
T back (noduct )
The input speed is for numerical solution 10 m/s and the rota-
tional speed is 15000 RPM. As mentioned, if the UAV is not prop-
erly designed, the performance of the UAV will decrease, which
can be seen in duct1. It is observed that duct 6 has the highest χ%
which is why This duct is used in the continuation of the design
process.
Table 6 compares the three types of UAVs with different en-
gine positions. As can be seen, the use of two engines in the
front and back has increased the amount of thrust produced. The
back-engine UAV is less productive than the other two due to its
turbulent flow behind the propulsion blade. Also, the thrust of the
(13)
back engine in the twin-engine-duct UAV has improved by about
10% compared to the back engine UAV, which is due to the in-
crease in the speed of entering the propeller and the production
of more kinetic energy. Fig. 14 shows the flow stream lines of the
front engine, the back engine and on the body.
Fig. 15(a) examines the thrust at different attack angles. It is
observed that the thrust produced by the front propeller is al-
most constant in different attack angles, but the back propeller
has about 5% difference in thrust in different attack angles due

8
M. Rostami and A.h. Farajollahi
Fig. 15. UAV on force in different angle of attack.
to being in the flow resulting from the movement front pro-
peller.
Fig. 15(b) shows the lift in terms of angle of attack. It is
observed that at the angle of attack of 12 degrees onwards,
9
Aerospace Science and Technology 108 (2021) 106399
Fig. 16. Pressure contour on front and back of the wing.
the amount of lift is constant, which causes the stall phe-
nomenon.
According to Bernoulli’s Principle, the air passing over the top
of an airfoil or wing must travel further and hence faster that
air the traveling the shorter distance under the wing in the same
period but the energy associated with the air must remain the con-
stant at all times. The consequence of this is that the air above the
wing has a lower pressure than the air below the wing and this
pressure difference creates the lift. This is shown in Fig. 16, which
is located at 50% of the front and back wings.
Fig. 17 shows the effect of rotational speed on the thrust. It is
observed that the thrust production increases with increasing the
rotational speed.
7. Conclusion
In the present study, to improve the performance of the UAV,
two engines were used in front and back with a duct. One of the
advantages of this engine arrangement compared to the two en-
gines on the wing arrangement is that if one engine fails, it does
not affect the flight much and it is possible to fly with one en-
gine. Another advantage is the balanced weight distribution, which
allows the UAV to carry more equipment. In this study, the MRF
method was used, which the results of numerical solution were
well matched with the experimental results and the results had
about 3% error in total. Using two engines increased the thrust of
the back engine by 10%. It was also shown that the use of Duct6
could provide a 6% improvement in UAV performance compared to
two engines without ducts.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
M. Rostami and A.h. Farajollahi
Fig. 17. The rotational speed effect on thrust.
References
[1] Pooneh Aref, Mehdi Ghoreyshi, Adam Jirasek, Matthew J. Satchell, Keith Berg-
eron, Computational study of propeller–wing aerodynamic interaction, Aerosp.
5 (3) (2018) 79.
[2] M. Figat, P. Piatkowska,
˛ Numerical investigation of mutual interaction between
a pusher propeller and a fuselage, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part G, J. Aerosp. Eng.
(2020), p.0954410020932796.
[3] N. Van Arnhem, Design and analysis of an installed pusher propeller with
boundary layer inflow. Delft, the Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
[4] T. Goetzendorf-Grabowski, M. Figat, Design of UAV for photogrammetric mis-
sion in Antarctic area, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part G, J. Aerosp. Eng. 231 (2016)
1660–1675, Aerodynamic and stability analysis of personal vehicle in tandem-
wing configuration.
[5] S. Morton, R. D’Sa, N. Papanikolopoulos, Solar powered UAV: design and exper-
iments, in: 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems (IROS), IEEE, 2015, pp. 2460–2466.
[6] V.P. Kharchenko, M.P. Matiychyk, Two-engine special purpose UAV, 2008,
patent for model No 33977 in Bulletin of Ukrainian State Patent Office (14).
[7] Mykola Kulyk, Volodymir Kharchenko, Mykhailo Matiychyk, Justification of
thrust vector deflection of twin-engine unmanned aerial vehicle power plants,
Aviat. 15 (1) (2011) 25–29.
[8] Jaime Sada, David Alejandro Arrellano Escarpita, Unmanned aerial vehicle with
twin-engine fore/AFT configuration and associated systems and methods, 27
Dec. 2016, U.S. Patent No. 9,527,597.
[9] J.B. Brandt, M.S. Selig, Propeller performance data at low Reynolds numbers,
in: Proceedings of the 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Grapevine, TX,
USA, 7–10 January, 2013, pp. 1–18.
10
Aerospace Science and Technology 108 (2021) 106399
[10] R.W. Deters, G.K.A. Krishnan, M.S. Selig, Reynolds number effects on the per-
formance of small-scale propellers, in: Proceedings of the 32nd AIAA Applied
Aerodynamics Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 16–20 June, 2014, pp. 1–43.
[11] Song Xiang, Yuan-qiang Liu, Gang Tong, Wei-ping Zhao, Sheng-xi Tong, Ya-dong
Li, An improved propeller design method for the electric aircraft, Aerosp. Sci.
Technol. 78 (2018) 488–493.
[12] S. Subhas, CFD analysis of a propeller flow and cavitation, Int. J. Comput. Appl.
(2012), 55, 26 33.
[13] Ã. Ernesto Benini, Significance of blade element theory in performance predic-
tion of marine propellers, Ocean Eng. 31 (2004) 957–974.
[14] C. Zhang, S. Xie, T. Qin, Aerodynamic analysis of small propeller in wind field
using CFD, in: Proceedings of the 2015 4th International Conference on Sus-
tainable Energy and Environmental Engineering, 2016.
[15] H. Kutty, P. Rajendran, 3D CFD simulation and experimental validation of small
APC slow flyer propeller blade, Aerosp. 4 (1) (2017) 10.
[16] R.S. Turner, Design and Optimisation of a Propeller for a Micro Air Vehicle
Using Computational Fluid Dynamics, University of New South Wales at the
Australian Defence Force Academy, 2010.
[17] P. Martin, C. Tung, Performance and flowfield measurements on a 10-inch
ducted rotor vtol UAV, Army Research Development and Engineering Command
Moffett Field CA Aviation Aeroflight Dynamics Directorate, 2004.
[18] K. Regmi, Investigation of Perforated Ducted Propellers to use with a UAV,
2013.
[19] D.M. Black, H.S. Wainauski, C. Rohrbach, Shrouded propellers - A comprehen-
sive performance study, in: AIAA 5th Annual Meeting and Technical Display,
1968, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1968-994.
[20] K. Bogdański, W. Krusz, M. Rodzewicz, M. Rutkowski, Design and optimization
of low speed ducted fan for a new generation of joined wing aircraft, in: 29th
Congress of International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Saint Peters-
burg, 2014.
[21] M.H. Williams, J. Cho, W.N. Dalton, Unsteady aerodynamic analysis of ducted
fans, J. Propuls. Power 7 (5) (1991) 800–804, https://doi.org/10.2514/3.23394.
[22] J.L. Pereira, Hover and wind-tunnel testing of shrouded rotors for improved
micro-air vehicle design, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park,
2008.
[23] David Serrano, Wind Tunnel Investigation of the Effect of Duct and Cross-flow
on Small Propellers for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, 2018.
[24] Preston Martin, Chee Tung, Performance and Flowfield Measurements on a 10-
inch Ducted Rotor VTOL UAV, Army Research Development and Engineering
Command Moffett Field CA Aviation Aeroflight Dynamics Directorate, 2004.
[25] W. Graf, J. Fleming, N. Wing, Improving ducted fan UAV aerodynamics in for-
ward flight, in: 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV,
7–10 January, 2008.
[26] Shuanghou Deng, Siwei Wang, Zheng Zhang, Aerodynamic performance assess-
ment of a ducted fan UAV for VTOL applications, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. (2020)
105895.
[27] Hugo F. Bento, Reynard de Vries, Leo L. Veldhuis, Aerodynamic performance
and interaction effects of circular and square ducted propellers, in: AIAA
Scitech 2020 Forum, 2020, p. 1029.
[28] Xue Chen, Zhou Zhou, Inverse aerodynamic design for DEP propeller based on
desired propeller slipstream, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. (2020) 105820.
[29] Shia-Hui Peng, Olof Grundestam, Lars Tysell, Implementation and verification
of computational aerodynamics for manoeuvring air vehicles, in: AIAA Aviation
2019 Forum, 2019, p. 3607.
[30] M.S. Selig, Eppler 63 low Reynolds number airfoil, UIUC airfoil Coordinates-
Database, http://mselig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/coord_database.html. (Accessed 1
September 2017).
[31] Krishna Regmi, Investigation of Perforated Ducted Propellers to use with a UAV,
2013.
[32] Preston Martin, Chee Tung, Performance and Flowfield Measurements on a 10-
inch Ducted Rotor VTOL UAV, pdf document, NASA Rotorcraft Division, CA,
2004.
[33] C.D. Argyropoulos, N.C. Markatos, Recent advances on the numerical modelling
of turbulent flows, Appl. Math. Model. 39 (2) (2015) 693–732.
[34] Maxime Alex Kuitche Junior, Ruxandra Mihaela Botez, Modeling novel method-
ologies for unmanned aerial systems–applications to the UAS-S4 Ehecatl and
the UAS-S45 Bálaam, Chin. J. Aeronaut. 32 (1) (2019) 58–77.