Sahin E.

CFD result in RotCFD of LCTR in helicopter mode [1].
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel

Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD
Master of Science Thesis

Aerodynamics, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering
Delft University of Technology
Safiye Esma Sahin

Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin ii
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel
Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD
Master’s Thesis
By
Safiye Esma Sahin
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
in Aerospace Engineering
at the Delft University of Technology,

to be defended publicly on November 15, 2016.
Supervisor:
Dr. ir. A.H. van Zuijlen, Aerodynamics and Wind Energy,

Faculty of Aerospace Engineering at Delft University of Technology.
Thesis Committee:
Dr. ir. B.W. van Oudheusden, Aerodynamics and Wind Energy,

Dr. ir. R. Vos, Flight Performance and Propulsion,

An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/.
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin iii
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin iv
Abstract
Ground based experiments are used to understand and measure rotor and airframe aerodynamic
performance. However, these experiments have certain limitations. The effect of these limitations
are evaluated using computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling techniques.
Through this study, the 7- by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel experiments of the Large Civil Tilt Rotor
(LCTR) at NASA Ames Research Center will be validated using CFD. The CFD tool, RotCFD,
that will be used for this study is developed in corporation with The Aeromechanics Branch at
NASA Ames Research Center. RotCFD is a RANS solver wherein the fluid flow is governed by
the incompressible, laminar Navier-Stokes equations, and a k-ɛ turbulence model.
The current blockage study investigates the effect of the blockage generated by the test hardware
on the walls by comparing CFD predictions of the LCTR2 model with and without wind tunnel
walls to the wind tunnel test data. Furthermore, attention is paid to the side wall pressure
distributions due to a large blockage in the tunnel (particularly at yaw angles approaching 20
deg.). Also, a comparison is made between the pressures measured at the pressure ring locations
in the settling chamber upstream of the test section for blockage effects.
To investigate this problem, a simplified geometry is analyzed for blockage effects in order to see
if these different geometries can represent the LCTR as a simplified case to reduce computational
time and obtain a quick understanding of tunnel blockage effects. The focus of this research will
be to understand the limitations and accuracy of the recent small-scale Large Civil Tilt Rotor
(LCTR) wind tunnel test campaigns.
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin v
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin vi
Acknowledgments
This Master’s thesis work is carried out at the Aeromechanics Branch at NASA Ames Research
Center in Moffett Field, California. I was really fortunate to get the opportunity to perform my
thesis at NASA Ames during a nine month function as a research associate, and to finish up my
work at the Delft University of Technology.
At the Delft University of Technology, I would like to thank my thesis advisor Sander van
Zuijlen for his guidance and support throughout this thesis process. Despite the time zone
difference we managed to schedule the meetings thanks to your flexibility. I would also like to
thank Bas van Oudheusden en Roelof Vos for taking the time to be part of my thesis committee.
My time at NASA Ames is certainly one I will never forgot. I cannot describe my gratitude for
Dr. William Warmbrodt, chief of the Aeromecahnics Branch, who made this whole experience
indescribable. Thank you for your never ending positivity and support. There are so many other
names at the Aeromechanics Branch who I would like to thank for their support and life time
friendship.
From Sukra Helitek I would like to thank Ganesh Rajagopalan and the help desk for all the
information needed when working with RotCFD. From Science and Technology Corporation,
Amar Choudry, Stephen Lesh and Ravi Deepak, thank you for making this joint thesis work
between NASA Ames and TU Delft possible and for the support during my stay in California.
Most important of all, my family, thank you for your endless support and always believing in me.
Delft, 15 November 2016

S.E. Sahin
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin vii
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. v
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... vii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xv
Nomenclature ................................................................................................................. xvi
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Project Scope ................................................................................................................................... 1
Validation of Experimental Data Through Correlation ................................................................... 2
Simplified Bodies ............................................................................................................................ 3
Part I
2. Tiltrotor ..................................................................................................................... 6
2.1. Civil Tiltrotor (CTR) .......................................................................................................... 6
2.2. Large Civil Tilt Rotor (LCTR) ........................................................................................... 7
3. LCTR Wind Tunnel Experiment ............................................................................ 9
3.1. Wind Tunnel ....................................................................................................................... 9
3.2. Aircraft Model .................................................................................................................. 13
3.3. Experiment ....................................................................................................................... 15
3.4. Wind Tunnel Effects ........................................................................................................ 15
3.4.1. Blockage Types ................................................................................................................ 15
3.4.2. Wall Interference .............................................................................................................. 17
3.5. Results .............................................................................................................................. 18
4. RotCFD .................................................................................................................... 20
4.1. General ............................................................................................................................. 20
4.2. Flow Solver ...................................................................................................................... 20
4.3. Turbulence Model ............................................................................................................ 22
4.4. Geometry Representation and Grid Generation ............................................................... 23
4.5. RotCFD Interface ............................................................................................................. 23
4.5.1. Flow Properties ................................................................................................................. 24
4.5.2. Wall Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................... 25
4.5.3. Grid Specifications ........................................................................................................... 25
Part II
5. Test Cases ................................................................................................................ 28
5.1. LCTR................................................................................................................................ 28
5.2. Simplified Geometry ........................................................................................................ 30
6. RotCFD Analyses/Setup ......................................................................................... 31
6.1. RotCFD Assumptions....................................................................................................... 31
6.2. RotCFD Settings............................................................................................................... 31
6.2.1. Flow Properties ................................................................................................................. 31
6.2.2. Boundary Conditions ........................................................................................................ 31
6.3. Grid Study ........................................................................................................................ 32
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin ix
6.4. Convergence Study........................................................................................................... 32
6.5. Wall pressure study .......................................................................................................... 37
7. Results ...................................................................................................................... 38
7.1. Airplane mode in 0º yaw .................................................................................................. 38
7.1.1. Forces and Moments ......................................................................................................... 39
7.1.2. Pressure Distribution ........................................................................................................ 44
7.2. Helicopter mode in 0º yaw ............................................................................................... 47
7.3. Helicopter mode in 70º yaw ............................................................................................. 52
7.4. Helicopter mode in 90º yaw ............................................................................................. 55
7.5. Validation of Simplified Geometry .................................................................................. 58
7.6. Empty Wind Tunnel ......................................................................................................... 62
Part III
8. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 68
9. Recommendations ................................................................................................... 69
References ....................................................................................................................... 70
Appendix A Test Configurations ................................................................................... 72
Appendix B Wind Tunnel Data ..................................................................................... 73
Appendix C Grid Study .................................................................................................. 75
Appendix D Front and Side View .................................................................................. 77
Airplane mode in 0º yaw .............................................................................................................. 77
Helicopter mode in 0º yaw ............................................................................................................ 78
Helicopter mode in 70º yaw .......................................................................................................... 79
Appendix E Pressure Plots ............................................................................................. 80
Airplane mode in 0º yaw ............................................................................................................... 80
Appendix F Pressure and Turbulent Viscosity Field .................................................. 87
Airplane mode in 0º yaw ............................................................................................................... 87
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin x
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 V-22 Osprey in flight [5]. .............................................................................................. 6
Figure 2.2 XV-15 enroute to the Paris Air Show in 1981 [4]. ........................................................ 6
Figure 2.3 XV-3 in hover at Ames Research Center [4]. ....... 6Figure 2.4 Challenges of integrating
VTOL and STOL CTR aircraft operations at high-density airports [3]. ................................ 6
Figure 2.5 The NASA Large Civil Tiltrotor, LCTR2 baseline version (dimensions in feet) [9]. ... 7
Figure 3.1 7- by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel circuit [11]. ........................................................................ 9
Figure 3.3 Downstream view of the wind tunnel and pressure rings. ........................................... 10
Figure 3.2 Upstream view of the wind tunnel and pressure rings. ................................................ 10
Figure 3.4 Test section of 7- by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel, dimensions in ft. .................................... 11
Figure 3.5 Boundary layer thickness along test section floor centerline [11]. .............................. 11
Figure 3.6 Displacement thickness along test section floor centerline [11]. ................................. 11
Figure 3.7 Momentum thickness along test section floor centerline [11]. .................................... 12
Figure 3.8 Boundary layer displacement and momentum thickness (each scaled by a factor of 10)
around the test section for q = 20, 60, and 130 psf. [11]. ..................................................... 13
Figure 3.9 Wing only test configuration [3]. ................................................................................. 14
Figure 3.11 LCTR in helicopter mode [10]. .................................................................................. 14
Figure 3.10 LCTR in airplane mode [10]. ..................................................................................... 14
Figure 3.12 The three different wing configurations [10]. ............................................................ 15
Figure 3.13 Plot for velocity and pressure distributions in a wind tunnel test section
due to the effect of solid blockage [15]. ............................................................................... 16
Figure 3.14 Plot for velocity and pressure distributions in a wind tunnel test section due
to the effect of wake blockage [15]. ..................................................................................... 16
Figure 3.15 Plot for velocity and pressure distributions in a wind tunnel test section due to the
combined effect of solid and wake blockage components [15]. ........................................... 16
Figure 3.16 Flow Confinement Effects on Bluff-Body and Streamlined Bodies [18]. ................. 17
Figure 3.18 Effect of wing-tip configuration on Lift/Drag of LCTR airframe model for β = 0 deg.,
V = ~168 kt., and Re=1.2E6 [10]. ........................................................................................ 19
Figure 3.17 Effect of Reynolds number on lift and drag coefficient for LCTR model in airplane
mode with the nacelles and wing extensions installed for β = 0 deg. [10]. .......................... 19
Figure 3.19 Effect of wing-tip configuration on Lift/q of LCTR airframe model for β = 0 deg., V
= ~168 kt., and Re=1.2E6 [10]. ............................................................................................ 19
Figure 3.20 Effect of wing-tip configuration on Drag/q of LCTR airframe model for β = 0 deg., V
= ~168 kt., and Re=1.2E6 [10]. ............................................................................................ 19
Figure 4.2 Body-fitted grid [26]. ................................................................................................... 23
Figure 4.1 Non body-fitted grid [26]. ............................................................................................ 23
Figure 4.3 Graphical User Interface. ............................................................................................. 24
Figure 6.1 Total force against time steps for the turbulence relaxation study with turbulence
relaxation factor 0.3. ............................................................................................................. 33
Figure 6.2 Residual plot for the initial turbulence relaxation factor 0.9/0.7. ................................ 34
Figure 6.3 Residual plot for the turbulence relaxation factor 0.3. ................................................. 34
Figure 6.4 Total force against time steps for the time step size study with time step size
decrements. ........................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 6.5 Residual plot for the time step size study with time step size decrements. .................. 36
Figure 6.6 Total force against time steps for the time step size study without time step size
decrements. ........................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 6.7 Residual plot for the time step size study without time step size decrements.............. 37
Figure 7.1 Configuration of the LCTR in wall-bounded condition. .............................................. 38
Figure 7.2 Grid of the LCTR in wall-bounded condition. ............................................................. 38
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin xi
Figure 7.3 Configuration of the LCTR in wall-bounded condition without wing extensions. ...... 38
Figure 7.4 Grid of the LCTR in wall-bounded condition without wing extensions. ..................... 38
Figure 7.5 Configuration of the LCTR in freestream condition. ................................................... 39
Figure 7.6 Grid of the LCTR in freestream condition. .................................................................. 39
Figure 7.7 RotCFD moment point and definition of x-y-z-direction. ........................................... 39
Figure 7.8 Forces and moments plot for the LCTR in airplane mode in freestream (F) and with
wind tunnel walls (W). ......................................................................................................... 40
Figure 7.9 Residual plot for the LCTR in freestream (F) and with wind tunnel walls (W). ......... 41
Figure 7.10 Forces and moments histogram for the LCTR in airplane mode in freestream (F) and
with wind tunnel walls (W), and the experiment with (WC) and without (NC) correction. 41
42
Figure 7.11 Forces and moments plot for the LCTR in airplane mode with wind tunnel walls,
with (W) and without wing extensions (NE). ....................................................................... 42
43
Figure 7.12 Forces and moments histogram for the LCTR in airplane mode with wind tunnel
walls, with (W) and without wing extensions (NE). .................................................... 43
Figure 7.13 Residual plot for the LCTR with wind tunnel walls, with (WE) and without wing
extensions (NE). ................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 7.14 Pressure plot for the LCTR in freestream (F) and with wind tunnel walls (W). ........ 45
Figure 7.15 Pressure plot for the LCTR with wind tunnel walls, with (W) and without wing
extensions (NE). ................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 7.17 Grid of the LCTR in wall-bounded condition. ........................................................... 47
Figure 7.16 Configuration of the LCTR in wall-bounded condition. ............................................ 47
Figure 7.18 Configuration of the LCTR in wall-bounded condition without wing extensions. .... 47
Figure 7.19 Grid of the LCTR in wall-bounded condition without wing extensions. ................... 47
Figure 7.20 Configuration of the LCTR in freestream condition. ................................................. 47
Figure 7.21 Grid of the LCTR in freestream condition. ................................................................ 47
Figure 7.22 Forces and moments histogram for the LCTR in helicopter mode in freestream (F)
and with wind tunnel walls (W), and the experiment with (WC) and without (NC). ........... 48
Figure 7.23 Forces and moments histogram for the LCTR in helicopter mode with wind tunnel
walls, with (W) and without wing extensions (NE).............................................................. 49
50
Figure 7.25 Pressure plot for the LCTR with wind tunnel walls, with (W) and without wing
extensions (NE). ................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 7.38 Flat plate with 0º yaw airplane mode settings, isometric view. ................................. 58
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin xii
Figure 7.39 Flat plate with 0º yaw airplane mode settings, front view. ........................................ 58
Figure 7.40 Pressure plot for the flat plate in freestream (F) and with wind tunnel walls (W) with
the LCTR in 0º yaw AM conditions . ................................................................................... 58
Figure 7.41 Pressure plot comparison of the wall-bounded flat plate and the LCTR in 0º yaw AM.
.............................................................................................................................................. 59
Figure 7.42 Pressure plot comparison of the freestream flat plate and the LCTR in 0º yaw AM. 60
Figure 7.43 Flat plate with7 0º yaw helicopter mode settings, isometric view. ............................ 60
Figure 7.44 Flat plate with 70º yaw helicopter mode settings, front view. ................................... 60
Figure 7.45 Pressure plot for the flat plate in freestream (F) and with wind tunnel walls (W) with
the LCTR in 70º yaw HM conditions. .................................................................................. 60
Figure 7.46 Pressure plot comparison of the wall-bounded flat plate and the LCTR in 70º yaw
HM. ....................................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 7.47 Pressure plot comparison of the freestream flat plate and the LCTR in 70º yaw HM.
.............................................................................................................................................. 61
Figure 7.48 Pressure plot for the empty wind tunnel with the LCTR 0º yaw AM conditions. ..... 62
Figure 7.49 Pressure plot for the empty wind tunnel with the LCTR 0º yaw HM conditions. ..... 63
Figure 7.50 Pressure plot for the empty wind tunnel with the LCTR 70º yaw HM conditions. ... 63
Figure 7.51 Pressure plot for the empty wind tunnel with the LCTR 90º yaw HM conditions. ... 64
Figure D2 Configuration of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions, side view. ........................... 77
Figure D1 Configuration of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions, front view. .......................... 77
Figure D4 Configuration of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions without wing extensions, side
view. ..................................................................................................................................... 77
Figure D3 Configuration of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions without wing extensions, front
view. ..................................................................................................................................... 77
Figure D5 Configuration of the LCTR in freestream conditions, front view. ............................... 77
Figure D6 Configuration of the LCTR in freestream conditions, side view. ................................ 77
Figure D8 Configuration of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions, side view. ........................... 78
Figure D7 Configuration of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions, front view. .......................... 78
Figure D10 Configuration of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions without wing extensions, side
view. ..................................................................................................................................... 78
Figure D9 Configuration of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions without wing extensions, front
view. ..................................................................................................................................... 78
Figure D12 Configuration of the LCTR in freestream conditions, side view. .............................. 78
Figure D11 Configuration of the LCTR in freestream conditions, front view. ............................. 78
Figure D14 Configuration of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions, side view. ......................... 79
Figure D13 Configuration of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions, front view. ........................ 79
Figure E1 Pressure plot of the LCTR in airplane mode with wind tunnel walls at tend. ................ 80
Figure E2 Pressure plot of the LCTR in airplane mode with wind tunnel walls (W) and without
wing extensions at tend. .......................................................................................................... 80
Figure E3 Pressure plot of the LCTR in airplane mode in freestream at tend. ................................ 81
Figure E4 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 0º yaw helicopter mode with wind tunnel walls (W) at t end.
.............................................................................................................................................. 81
Figure E5 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 0º yaw helicopter mode with wind tunnel walls and
without wing extensions at tprior. ........................................................................................... 82
Figure E6 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 0º yaw helicopter mode with wind tunnel walls and
without wing extensions at tend. ............................................................................................. 82
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin xiii
Figure E7 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 0º yaw helicopter mode in freestream at tend. ................. 83
Figure E8 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 70º yaw helicopter mode with wind tunnel walls at tprior.
.............................................................................................................................................. 83
84
Figure E9 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 70º yaw helicopter mode with wind tunnel walls at tend. 84
Figure E10 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 70º yaw helicopter mode in freestream at tprior. ........... 84
85
Figure E11 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 70º yaw helicopter mode in freestream at tend. ............. 85
Figure E12 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 90º yaw helicopter mode with wind tunnel walls at tend.
.............................................................................................................................................. 85
Figure E13 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 90º yaw helicopter mode in freestream at tprior. ........... 86
86
Figure E14 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 90º yaw helicopter mode in freestream at tend. ............. 86
Figure F1 Pressure field of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions and without wing extensions at
tend and y=0, side view. .......................................................................................................... 87
tend and y=5, side view. .......................................................................................................... 87
Figure F4 Turbulence viscosity field of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions at tend and y=5, side
view. ..................................................................................................................................... 87
Figure F3 Turbulence viscosity field of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions at tend and y=0, side
view. ..................................................................................................................................... 87
Figure F6 Turbulence viscosity field of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions at tend and y=3.5,
side view. .............................................................................................................................. 87
side view. .............................................................................................................................. 87
side view. .............................................................................................................................. 87
Figure F8 Turbulence viscosity field of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions and without wing
extensions at tend, side view................................................................................................... 88
tend, side view. ....................................................................................................................... 88
Figure F10 Turbulence viscosity field of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions and without wing
extensions at tprior, side view. ................................................................................................ 88
tprior, side view. ...................................................................................................................... 88
Figure F11 Pressure field of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions at tend, side view. ................. 88
Figure F12 Turbulence viscosity field of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions at tend, side view.
.............................................................................................................................................. 88
Figure F14 Turbulence viscosity field of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions at tprior, side view.
.............................................................................................................................................. 88
Figure F13 Pressure field of the LCTR in wall-bounded conditions at tprior, side view. ............... 88
Figure F16 Turbulence viscosity field of the LCTR in freestream conditions at tend, side view. .. 89
Figure F15 Pressure field of the LCTR in freestream conditions at tend, side view. ...................... 89
Figure F18 Turbulence viscosity field of the LCTR in freestream conditions at tprior, side view. . 89
Figure F17 Pressure field of the LCTR in freestream conditions at tprior, side view...................... 89
Figure F19 Pressure field of the LCTR in freestream conditions at tend, side view. ...................... 89
Figure F20 Turbulence viscosity field of the LCTR in freestream conditions at tend, side view. .. 89
Figure F22 Turbulence viscosity field of the LCTR in freestream conditions at tprior, side view. . 89
Figure F21 Pressure field of the LCTR in freestream conditions at tprior, side view...................... 89
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin xiv
List of Tables
Table 2.1 LCTR2-02 mission requirements [9]............................................................................... 7
Table 2.2 Baseline design values for LCTR2-02 [9]. ...................................................................... 8
Table 3.1 LCTR and Wind tunnel model parameters [10] ............................................................ 13
Table 3.2 Flow properties in airplane mode. ................................................................................. 18
Table 5.1 Blockage ratios for the LCTR. ...................................................................................... 28
Table 6.1 LCTR RotCFD settings. ................................................................................................ 31
Table 6.2 LCTR boundary conditions. .......................................................................................... 31
Table 7.1 Streamwise locations of the LCTR and wind tunnel. .................................................... 44
Table 7.2 Vertical locations of the LCTR and wind tunnel........................................................... 44
Table 7.4 Vertical locations of the LCTR and wind...................................................................... 49
Table 7.5. Streamwise locations of the LCTR and wind tunnel. ................................................... 53
Table A1 LCTR2 Full Model Configurations: Baseline consists of the LCTR2 wing, fuselage and
tail [12]. ................................................................................................................................ 72
Table A2 Wing Only Configurations: Baseline consists of the LCTR2 wing [12]. ...................... 72
Table A3 High speed test matrix [12]. .......................................................................................... 72
Table A4 Low speed data test matrix [12]. ................................................................................... 72
Table B1 Configuration L00E Run R255 [27]. ............................................................................. 73
Table B2 Configuration L85 Run R334 [27]. ............................................................................... 73
Table C1 Initial grid study............................................................................................................. 75
Table C2 Second grid study. ......................................................................................................... 76
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin xv
Nomenclature
Cpw pressure coefficient
c constant for log law boundary layer fit
f body force per unit mass
h wall normal distance
i internal energy
k thermal conductivity
p pressure term
ps static pressure
pw wall pressure
q dynamic pressure
SM momentum source
Sϕ source term
T temperature
U mean streamwise velocity component
Ue local external mean velocity
u, v, w velocity component
V mean lateral velocity component
Vbr aircraft best-range speed
yn wall normal location
Γ diffusion coefficient
δ boundary layer thickness
δ* displacement thickness
θ momentum thickness
μ dynamic viscosity
τ stress tensor
ρ fluid density
ϕ general transport variable
Φ dissipation function
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin xvi
AM Airplane Mode
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CTR Civil Tiltrotor
HM Helicopter Mode
LCTR Large Civil Tiltrotor
NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation
RANS Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
RotCFD Rotorcraft Computational Fluid Dynamics
RotUNS Rotor Unstructured Solver
SIMPLER Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure-Linked Equations Revised
STOL Short Takeoff and Lift
VTOL Vertical Takeoff and Lift
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin xvii
1. Introduction
The Large Civil Tilt Rotor (LCTR) is a civil aircraft that can vertically takeoff and land. The
design is to carry 90 passengers for 1000 nm at 300 knots [2]. It was developed as part of the
NASA Heavy Lift Systems Investigation.
The concept of the LCTR is to free up the runways by moving short- and medium-range air
traffic off to helipads, which will allow the main runways to be used by a larger number of long
range aircraft. Using Vertical TakeOff and Landing (VTOL) aircraft will increase the capacity of
the airspace by only requiring existing helipads nearby the airport [3]. However, the transport
capacity could also depend on the noise regulations.
The objective of the LCTR design studies is to identify research requirements for future tilt
rotors. Areas of investigation to date are wind tunnel tests in the Ames 7- by 10-Foot Wind
Tunnel, water tunnel tests in the Ames Fluid Mechanics Lab, and CFD calculations using
RotCFD. This CFD tool is a software developed through a joint collaboration between The
NASA Aeromechanics Branch and Sukra Helitek Inc.
The main aim of this project is to investigate if the 7- by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel experiments of the
LCTR at NASA Ames Research Center can be validated using RotCFD. During the experiments,
the model was tested at large yaw angles causing high wind tunnel blockage (max. 14%). Due to
this high blockage the static pressures obtained from the pressure ring locations in the settling
chamber upstream of the test section could be inaccurate. By using CFD the blockage effect on
the pressure rings can be observed by modeling the pressure distribution along the wind tunnel
walls. The challenge of validating with CFD is that a complex geometry in combination with high
velocities and high blockage has not been simulated before.
The effect of the blockage generated by the test hardware, fairings and struts, on the walls will be
investigated by modeling the LCTR with wind tunnel walls and in freestream to compare the
forces and moments. Also the effect of wing extensions will be studied. Validating experimental
data through correlation with the CFD predictions will determine the extent of wind tunnel wall
effects on the measured data that might cause the measured tunnel results to not accurately reflect
free flight model aerodynamic performance. If necessary, the experimental data report could
possibly be corrected for blockage effects.
This thesis will first provide the objectives and goals of this project. After this, background
information about tiltrotor aircraft, the wind tunnel experiment, and RotCFD will be given. This
is followed by the approach and results that contains the test cases, RotCFD analyses and the final
results. Finally, the conclusions and recommendations will be presented.
Project Scope
Experimental techniques to measure rotor and airframe aerodynamic performance are widely
used but the need exists to understand the limitations of ground based testing by augmenting the
analysis of experimental test results with computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling. This
gives the following main research question:
Can limitations of ground based testing be identified by the analysis of experimental test results
with computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling.
Validation of Experimental Data Through Correlation
This main research question can be investigated by validating experimental data through
correlation with the wind tunnel data by using RotCFD. The key components of RotCFD are a
geometry module, a grid generation module, a Navier-Stokes flow-solver module, a blade
element rotor module, a flow visualization and analysis module. The tool has been subjected to
several cases with available data and the results were promising. The LCTR2 model will be
created in Rhinoceros, a 3D computer-aided design (CAD) software, instead of RotCFD.
Rhinoceros is specialized in making models, and it was determined to be more accurate than
RotCFD’s built-in geometry module. The research question can be split into sub-questions with
each sub-question having further questions, which all together answer the main research question:
How can the flow field of the LCTR be modeled?

What is the theory behind the CFD tool that has to be used?
What are the assumptions that are or need to be made?
What LCTR geometries need to be used?
What are the wind tunnel dimensions?
How can the wind tunnel wall effects, blockage and wall interference, be investigated?
How can you model with walls and in free field?
Are there differences in forces, moments and wall pressures for both cases?
What pressure ring should be used for correct pressure measurements?
The objective is to compare the CFD predictions with the wind tunnel data of the LCTR2 model,
with and without wind tunnel walls. This will determine the extent of wind tunnel wall effects on
the measured data that might cause the measured tunnel results to not accurately reflect free flight
model aerodynamic performance. This leads to the following goal:
To model the different Large Civil Tilt Rotor (LCTR2) configurations as tested and correlate a
CFD analysis with the wind tunnel test results using a recently developed Navier-Stokes
unstructured flow solver (RotCFD) to validate the CFD predictions with the experimental wind
tunnel data.
Through this study, RotCFD will be validated with the uncorrected experimental data that
represents the wall-bounded case. Also, the corrected experimental data for freefield will be
validated with RotCFD to study if wall corrections are needed due to blockage. The wall, fairings,
and struts will be investigated for blockage effects. If necessary, the experimental data report
could possibly be corrected for these effects. Different configurations have been tested during the
experiments, which are shown in Appendix A and B. Two configurations that are used for this
study are the LCTR with wing extension with zero nacelle angle for the airplane mode and 85
nacelle angle for the helicopter mode, since this one has the most data available. The main goal
can be divided in sub-goals as:
To predict the forces, moments and wall pressures for airflow over the LCTR in airplane mode
and helicopter mode under free stream conditions and various yaw angles and compare the
results with the experimental data.
To predict the forces, moments and wall pressures for airflow over the LCTR in airplane mode
and helicopter mode with wind tunnel walls and various yaw angles and compare the results with
the experimental data.
Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel Blockage and Validation Using RotCFD, S. E. Sahin 2
To compare the results of the case with the free stream conditions to the results of the case with
wind tunnel walls and determine the effect of the wind tunnel wall effects and determine what
pressure ring should be used for correct pressure measurements.
Simplified Bodies
A different geometry, that have the same blockage as the LCTR, will be simulated in RotCFD to
study blockage effects of a simplified body. Specifically, to investigate if a simplified body will
cause the same blockage effect as the LCTR. The geometry that is evaluated is chosen to be the
square flat plate. To model this geometry, the blockage of the LCTR at different configurations
and yaw angles is calculated. The LCTR at a yaw angle that gives the minimum and maximum
blockage is used for this blockage study.
The blockage study of different geometries gives the following sub-goals:
To predict the forces, moments and wall pressures for airflow over the simplified geometry under
free stream conditions and various blockage ratios and compare the results with the numerical
LCTR results.
To predict the forces, moments and wall pressures for airflow over the simplified geometry with
wind tunnel walls and various blockage ratios and compare the results with the numerical LCTR
data.
To compare the results of the case with the free stream conditions to the results of the case with
wind tunnel walls and determine the effect of the wind tunnel wall effects, also compare this
difference with the LCTR results.
Part I
Background Information
2. Tiltrotor
Tilt rotor aircraft have the benefits of both an airplane and a helicopter. The maneuverability of a
helicopter – take off, hover and landing – combined with the speed and range of an airplane opens
a lot of new possibilities for the civil, commercial and military aircraft. NASA’s tiltrotor research
started in the fifties with the XV-3 and continued with the XV-15 program in the seventies, and
later developed to the V-22 [4], as seen in Fig. 2.1-2.3. This is a good example of a tiltrotor that is
well known and still used by the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force. The program originated from a
partnership between the U.S. Department of and Bell Helicopter and Boeing Helicopters in the
eighties. Due to the complexity of being the first tiltrotor intended for the military, the V-22 was
not introduced till 2007 [5].
Figure 2.1 V-22 Osprey in flight Figure 2.2 XV-15 enroute to the Figure 2.3 XV-3 in hover at
[5]. Paris Air Show in 1981 [4]. Ames Research Center [4].
2.1. Civil Tiltrotor (CTR)

Due to the growing use of air transportation, runway congestion is becoming a serious problem
for airport efficiency. Small- to medium- range aircraft use the same runways as long- range,
large aircraft. A short- range passenger aircraft requires the same amount of time on the runway
as a long- range passenger aircraft, even though the number of passengers is significantly less for
the short- range passenger aircraft. To solve this problem there is a high interest in Civil Tilt
Rotor [6].
The CTR studies go back to the late eighties. During 2001-2004, NASA sponsored several studies
of the Runway Independent Aircraft (RIA) model [7]. These studies investigated operations that
could use existing stub runways by Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) in Short Takeoff and
Landing (STOL) mode in addition to operating in VTOL mode from vertiports. By using these
kind of operations, the capacity of the air transportation system that in turn will reduce delay
throughout the system. Figure 2.4 shows an example where VTOL and STOL are considered on
the same airport, together with CTR vertiports. In 2005, the NASA Heavy Lift Rotorcraft
Systems Investigation studied different rotorcraft configurations for large civil transport [8]. The
LCTR was chosen as the configuration with the most potential for the mission. Also, it should be
note that advanced civil tiltrotors must be considered in the Next Generation Air Transportation
(NextGen) [3].
Figure 2.4 Challenges of integrating VTOL and STOL CTR aircraft operations at high-density airports
[3].
2.2. Large Civil Tilt Rotor (LCTR)
The LCTR concept has evolved in the LCTR2 during the years. The LCTR2 is designed to carry
90 passengers at a cruise speed of 300 knots over a short to medium- stage length of 1000 nm.
The purpose of this aircraft is to relocate the short- to medium- range aircraft away from the
runway to helipads, to smaller runways, or to vertiports. By tilting the aircraft nacelles, the thrust
vector is rotated and pointed upwards, allowing the aircraft to takeoff vertically or to significantly
decrease the takeoff length. The LCTR design and dimensions are shown in Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5 The NASA Large Civil Tiltrotor, LCTR2 baseline version (dimensions in feet) [9].
The mission specifications and design requirements are given in Tables 2.1 and 2.2, respectively.
Table 2.1 LCTR2-02 mission requirements [9].
Mission summary
Takeoff + 2 min hover OGE 5k ISA+20°C
Climb at Vbr (credit distance to cruise segment)
Cruise at Vbr for at least 1000 nm range, 28k ISA
Descend at Vbr (no range credit)
1 min hover OGE + landing, 5k ISA+20°C
Reserve (diversion): 100 nm Vbr, 28k ISA
Reserve (emergency): 30 min Vbr, 5k ISA+20°C
Operational requirements
One engine inoperative: Category A at 5k ISA+20°C
All-weather operations: CAT IIIC SNI, Free Flight
45-deg banked turn at 80 knots, 5k ISA+20°C, 90% MCP
Table 2.2 Baseline design values for LCTR2-02 [9].
Design Constraint Value Units

Payload (90 pax) 19,800 [lb]
Cruise speed (90% MCP) 300 [knots]
Length 108.9 [ft]
Wing span 107.0 [ft]
Wing sweep -5.0 [deg]
Rotor radius 32.5 [ft]
Rotor separation 77.0 [ft]
Number of blades 4 [-]
Precone 6.0 [deg]
Tip speed, hover 650 [ft/sec]
Tip speed, cruise 350 [ft/sec]
Baseline Design Result
Gross weight 103,600 [lb]
Rotor weight (both rotors) 8113 [lb]
Wing weight (zero fuel) 7441 [lb]
Engines and drive train 14,174 [lb]
Fuselage empty weight 12,875 [lb]
Mission fuel 16,092 [lb]
Engine power 4x7489 [hp]
Rotor solidity 0.128 [-]
Rotor taper (tip/root chord) 0.70 [-]
Hover CT /σ 0.163 [-]
Cruise CT/σ 0.0784 [-]
Wing area 965 [ft2]
Drag D /q 34.6 [ft2]
More information about the LCTR rotor aerodynamic performance and sizing criteria can be
found in Ref. 9.
3. LCTR Wind Tunnel Experiment
NASA’s Large Civil Tilt Rotor (LCTR) and the Army’s High Efficiency Tilt Rotor (HETR) were
tested by NASA and the U.S. Army during the wind tunnel program in April 2012 and October
2013 [10]. Both of the tilt rotors were a 6% scale and had no rotors on throughout the tests in the
7- by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel at NASA Ames Research Center. The similarity between the two
models is that the HETR wing and nacelle geometries were incorporated into the LCTR scale
model.
3.1. Wind Tunnel

The wind tunnel test was performed in the U.S. Army 7- by 10- Foot closed return wind tunnel at
NASA Ames Research Center. Figure 3.1 shows a schematic of the wind tunnel [11]. The test
section is rectangular in shape with a constant height of 7ft. The width increases linearly from an
initial value of 10.01 ft. to a final value of 10.1335 ft. over the test section length of 15 ft. to allow
for boundary layer displacement thickness growth on the walls [11]. The turntable is located 5 ft.
from the beginning of the test section.
Figure 3.1 7- by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel circuit [11].
Downstream, 16.5 ft. of the test section, four pairs of vortex generators are located in each corner
of the diffuser. A series of pressure orifices are located in the walls of the contraction cone a short
distance upstream from the test section. The tunnel consists of 3 static pressure rings, with each
ring consisting of 4 static-pressure orifices, two on each side wall. The pressure rings differ in
upstream location. Usually, the first pressure ring upstream from the test section is used, but this
can be replaced by the second or third, depending on the blockage of the model. The location
upstream from the test section of pressure ring 1, 2 and 3 is respectively: 12.38, 81.31, and 99.31
inch. The height from above the ground and/or below the ceiling of pressure ring 1, 2 and 3 is
respectively: 22.25, 23.31, and 24.25 inch. The figures 3.2 and 3.3 demonstrate the pressure rings
from an upstream and downstream perspective, respectively.
Figure 3.2 Upstream view of the wind tunnel Figure 3.3 Downstream view of the wind
and pressure rings. tunnel and pressure rings.
Upstream of the second vane set, a first screen with mesh size of 2 inches is located. Two finer
mesh screens are located within the air exchange. The last two finer mesh screens are located in
the settling chamber between turns three and four. The maximum flow speed of the wind tunnel is
200 knots equivalent to 0.3 Mach. The tunnel has a contraction ratio of 14:1 and is driven by an
1800- horsepower electric motor encased within a nacelle in the center of a six- bladed fan with a
diameter of 28 feet.
Boundary layer measurements around the test section were done using a total pressure rake. The
probe was mounted on an arm that could be adjusted in different directions for each measurement
along the test section. The probe was traversed vertically and laterally by the survey apparatus to
measure the boundary layer profile. The measured velocity profiles were normalized by the
velocity measured at the rake tip. The boundary layer characteristics were calculated by using the
following calculations [12]. The 99% boundary layer thickness defined as:
  yn |u / U 0.99
e
(3.1)
where yn is the wall normal location at a velocity ratio of 0.99 interpolated between the different
data points. The power law was used to calculate the displacement and momentum thickness by
extrapolating along the wall:
1c
u  yn 
  (3.2)
Ue   
where Ue is the local external mean velocity. The value c is computed for each profile by
rewriting the previous formula:
y   u 
c  log  nx  log   (3.3)
    U e 1
where ynx is the wall normal location of measurement location x. Now the displacement and
momentum thickness, respectively, can be calculated as follows:
 u 
 *   1 
h
dyn
U e 
(3.4)
0

u 
h u 
  1  dyn (3.5)
e  Ue 
0 U
where the upper integration limit h is the wall normal distance at a velocity ratio of 1. The
calculation is done by numerical integration of the measured data and the extrapolated power law
data.
The boundary layer profiles on the floor of the test section were measured at several streamwise
locations forward and aft of the turntable center [11]. Figure 3.4 represents the test section with
the turntable position. As can be seen, the turntable axis is located at 5 ft. from the test section
inlet.
Figure 3.4 Test section of 7- by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel, dimensions in ft.
The growth of the boundary layer thickness along the floor centerline is given in Fig. 3.5-3.7. The
dynamic pressure is varied in value and it can be seen that the boundary layer is the largest for
q = 60 psf. Also, a change in the displacement thickness is noticed as a result of the spacing
between the test section floor and the start of the turntable that causes a separation bubble. The
Reynolds numbers for these tests are based on the momentum thickness and are between 18,000
and 72,000. Floor centerline
8
6
δ , in
2 q = 20 psf
q = 60 psf
q = 130 psf
0
-5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0
x , ft
Figure 3.5 Boundary layer thickness along test section floor centerline [11].
Floor centerline
1
0.8
0.6
δ* , in
0.4
q = 20 psf
0.2 q = 60 psf
q = 130 psf
0
-5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0
x , ft
Figure 3.6 Displacement thickness along test section floor centerline [11].
Floor centerline
0.8
0.6
θ , in
0.4
q = 20 psf
0.2
q = 60 psf
q = 130 psf
0
-5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0
x , ft
Figure 3.7 Momentum thickness along test section floor centerline [11].
The boundary profiles were tested on the floor, ceiling, side walls, and each corner at cross
sectional planes forward and aft of the turntable. The boundary layer displacement and the
momentum thickness for the floor, left and right side wall, and ceiling is given in Fig. 3.8 as the
bottom, left, right, and upper part of the graph respectively.
CEILING CEILING
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
x = -4.25 ft x = -4.25 ft
δ* x 10 (ft) x = 0 ft θ x 10 (ft) x = 0 ft
0.5 0.5
q = 20 (psf) x = 5 ft x = 5 ft
q = 20 (psf)
z , ft
Profile Locations
z , ft
SOUTH NORTH
SOUTH Profile Locations NORTH
WALL WALLWALL WALL
-0.5 -0.5
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5
-2.5
-3.5
-3.5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
y , ft
y , ft
FLOOR
FLOOR
CEILING CEILING
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
x = -4.25 ft x = -4.25 ft
δ* x 10 (ft) x = 0 ft θ x 10 (ft) x = 0 ft
0.5 0.5
x = 5 ft q = 60 (psf) x = 5 ft
q = 60 (psf)
z , ft
z , ft
SOUTH Profile Locations SOUTH NORTH Profile Locations NORTH

WALL WALL WALL WALL
-0.5 -0.5
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
y , ft y , ft
FLOOR FLOOR
CEILING CEILING
3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
x = -4.25 ft x = -4.25 ft
δ* x 10 (ft) x = 0 ft θ x 10 (ft) x = 0 ft
0.5 0.5
q = 130 (psf) x = 5 ft q = 130 (psf) x = 5 ft
z , ft
z , ft
SOUTH Profile Locations SOUTH NORTH Profile Locations NORTH

WALL WALL WALL WALL
-0.5 -0.5
-1.5 -1.5
-2.5 -2.5
-3.5 -3.5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
y , ft y , ft
FLOOR FLOOR
Figure 3.8 Boundary layer displacement and momentum thickness (each scaled by a factor of 10)
around the test section for q = 20, 60, and 130 psf. [11].
3.2. Aircraft Model

The 6% full airframe model of the LCTR2 was constructed of multiple components [10]. In Table
3.1, the dimensions of the full-scale and wind tunnel model are given. The fuselage was built
using a strong back and skin panels to give the fuselage its shape. The strong back was used to
mount the tail to the fuselage and is made out of a 4-inch square aluminum tube running down the
centerline of the fuselage. The skin panels of the fuselage are produced using Selective Laser
Sintering (SLS) out of Nylon 12 GF. To attach the skin panels to the strong back of the fuselage,
a set of ribs was manufactured out of aluminum. The tail and the wing of the LCTR2 were also
manufactured out of aluminum.
Table 3.1 LCTR and Wind tunnel model parameters [10]
Parameter Full-Scale LCTR Wind Tunnel Model Units

Ratio to full-scale 1.0 0.06 [-]
Wing span 1284 77.04 [in]

Inner wing span 828 49.68 [in]
Inner wing sweep -5.0 -5.0 [deg]
Inner wing taper ratio 0.0 0.0 [-]
Inner wing incidence +3.3 +3.3 [deg]
Hub to hub 924 55.44 [in]
Inner wing chord 129 8.11 (1) [in]
Nacelle length 321 15.8 (2) [in]

Nacelle diameter (approx.) 88 4.8 (2) [in]
Wing extension length 180 10.8 [in]

Extension root incidence +3.3 +3.3 [deg]
Wing extension sweep 0.0 0.0 [deg]
Wing extension taper ratio 0.41 0.41 [-]
Fuselage length 1307 78.4 [in]

Fuselage diameter 108 6.48 [in]
The nacelles and wing tip additions were produced using the same SLS technique as the fuselage
skin panels. The nacelles were made out of two parts with an aluminum plate in the center of the
part. This plate was used to attach different wing tip additions to the model. The connection
between the wing and the nacelles allowed the nacelles to rotate around the centerline of the wing,
with angles varying from zero to 95 degrees.
The wing model is tested to gain insight in the aerodynamics of the wing on the aircraft alone and
to see what the effect of the nacelles and extensions is on the performance. Because the wing has
a small chord, only two support struts were required to maintain the model balance during the
testing, Fig 3.9. The mounting of the wing to the struts is a fixed connection and needed to be
manually loosened to change the pitch angle. Any adjustment to the turntable and the fairings
were made during the pitch angle change prior to the next run.
Figure 3.9 Wing only test configuration [3].
The models were attached to the wind tunnel external balance system by using support struts.
This allowed the measurements to be made using the wind tunnel scale system. The two forward
struts were placed just inboard of the nacelles at the wing [3]. The rear strut was placed at the tail
to control the pitch angle by extension and retraction. To minimize the effect of the presence of
the struts on the measured aerodynamic forces and moments, two sets of fairings were installed
about the struts. Aerodynamic shaped fairings were used for high-speed measurements (airplane
mode) and circular fairings were used for low-speed measurements where large yaw angles were
tested (helicopter mode). The circular fairings were fixed to the turntable and rotated together
with the change of the yaw angle. In case of the aerodynamic fairing, the fairing needed to be
rotated manually against the rotation of the turntable and only allowed a yaw angle range of +/-15
degrees. A larger range was required for the low speed testing, therefore circular fairings were
used for this case. The wind tunnel turntable has a range of 360 degrees to vary the yaw angle.
The LCTR in airplane mode with aerodynamic fairings and the LCTR in helicopter mode with
circular fairings can be seen in Fig 3.10 and 3.11 respectively.
Figure 3.10 LCTR in airplane mode Figure 3.11 LCTR in helicopter mode
[10]. [10].
3.3. Experiment
The LCTR model was tested in airplane mode at high speed with a Reynolds number range of 0.8
to 1.4 million and in helicopter mode at low speed with a Reynolds number range of 0.3 to 0.6
million, whereby the inner wing chord is used as reference length. This corresponds to Mach
number ranges of 0.17 to 0.31 and 0.06 to 0.13, respectively. During the tests in airplane mode,
the angle of attack ranged from -10 to +12 deg., and the sideslip angle from 0 to +10 deg. In
helicopter mode, the model was tested at yaw angles from -180 to 180 deg. The nacelles were at a
zero degree angle for the high speed measurements (airplane mode) and under a varying angle
from 60 to 95 degrees for the low speed testing (helicopter mode).
For the testing two test set-ups were used. The full LCTR airframe model testing included three
wing tip configurations; a wing cap (nacelle and extension removed), a nacelle only (wing
extension removed) and a wing extension with nacelle, see Fig. 3.12. The wing only model was
only tested in airplane mode for the range of velocities at Mach 0.06 to 0.30, again at different
wing tip configurations.
Figure 3.12 The three different wing configurations [10].

The objective of the wind tunnel test was to collect data for the validation of computational fluid
dynamics tools, the development of flight dynamics simulation models and the validation of the
performance predictions made during conceptual design [10]. The results also give insight into
the aerodynamic performance of the LCTR and its wing, with a focus on the wing extensions and
the nacelles.
This study focuses on how accurate and robust these wind tunnel tests are by comparing selected
wind tunnel data with the CFD computations. With this comparison the wind tunnel wall effects
can be determined.
3.4. Wind Tunnel Effects

Flow past a model bounded by walls does not move undisturbed. The model causes a blockage in
the wind tunnel that, depending on the blockage size, might need to be corrected for. Also, the
wall causes an interference problem. The foundation of research on wall interference was set by
Prandtl. His theory led to many experiments to verify the theory [13].
3.4.1. Blockage Types

The flow past an object is constraint by blockages because it is bounded by boundaries. During
wind tunnel testing, the airflow around the model is disturbed due to the wind tunnel walls. The
effect is an increase in the freestream velocity. This can be correlated to the volume distribution
of the model itself (solid blockage), and to the displacement effect of the wake (wake blockage)
[14]. The blockage effects in the wind tunnel also arise from the influence of model supports like
fairings and struts within the airstream. The LCTR has two types of fairings and struts that are
changed according to the configuration. This blockage study shows the influence of the fairings
and struts on the flow field. Furthermore, the LCTR in helicopter mode causes a large blockage,
13.5%, in the wind tunnel. A good understanding, therefore, is needed regarding different
blockage types.
A representation of solid blockage is shown in Fig. 3.13. It can be seen that when solid blockage
occurs the flow speed in the wind tunnel test section increases with respect to the freestream
velocity, while the pressure decreases with respect to the inlet pressure.
Figure 3.13 Plot for velocity and pressure distributions in a wind tunnel test
section due to the effect of solid blockage [15].
Wake blockage is caused by the developing viscous wake that is related to the boundary induced
flow acceleration. This blockage is not symmetrical around the model; it increases from nose to
tail. The model is subjected to a longitudinal velocity gradient. A drag force on the model is
imposed by this buoyancy effect that has to be corrected for since it will be absent in free air. In
Fig. 3.14 a representation of this wake blockage is given.
Figure 3.14 Plot for velocity and pressure distributions in a wind tunnel test
section due to the effect of wake blockage [15].
The solid and wake blockage both combined gives Fig. 3.15. The wake that acts on the model
produces a pressure gradient that increases the wake induced drag when both blockages are
combined [16].
Figure 3.15 Plot for velocity and pressure distributions in a wind tunnel test section
due to the combined effect of solid and wake blockage components [15].
Also, a comparison is made between the pressures measured at pressure ring location three with
and without model in the test section and with and without walls. The pressure rings are
positioned in the settling chamber upstream of the test section. By comparing these pressures, the
large blockage effect is observed on the pressure rings in the wind tunnel. If the pressure
measured at the pressure ring location is different than the pressure measured in free stream, it
can be concluded that the blockage is too large and has impact on the pressure rings. Corrections
may be implemented to account for this blockage, meaning that the experimental data report will
need to be adjusted. In this case, pressure ring 3, the pressure ring that is the most upstream, is
used since there is a higher chance that the pressure signature of the large model that is tested will
influence the first static ring [17]. Next to this, the velocity increment in absence of the model can
be measured for corrections to stream velocity [15].
3.4.2. Wall Interference

The wall interference is caused by the model lift. Another interference effect is due to the fact that
the model and its wake occupy a certain volume within the wind tunnel. Attention is paid to the
side wall pressure distributions, along the whole test section, when there is a large blockage in the
tunnel. This is done by comparing CFD predictions of the model with and without wind tunnel
walls to the experimental wind tunnel data. This will determine the extent of wind tunnel wall
effects on the measured data that might cause the measured tunnel results to not accurately reflect
free flight model aerodynamic performance. The differential equations of the flow are the same
for the case with and without walls, but the outer boundary conditions are different. The CFD
predictions that can be used for comparison are the aerodynamic moments and forces of the
model. Also, the pressure distribution along the tunnel walls is important to investigate, as this
will tell if the blockage of the model is too large such that the walls cause a constraint [17]. This
is visualized in Fig. 3.16. The walls of the wind tunnel cause a constraint on the flow around the
model. A large bluff body shows that the streamlines are curved in such an extent that it does not
fit within the wind tunnel walls. The streamlines around the model do not develop as in freefield
but are compressed together towards the wall, causing an increase in the local fluid velocities [13].
Figure 3.16 Flow Confinement Effects on Bluff-Body and Streamlined Bodies [18].
The interference flow field can be obtained by comparing the solution for the velocity potential
near the model with wind tunnel walls with the velocity field near the model without walls [13].
This correction has significant vertical and streamwise components. If the model has appreciable
span and length, the components involve a streamline curvature and a longitudinal pressure
gradient with corrections for pitching moment and drag. The correction in streamwise direction
and the streamline curvature are called lift interference. This is because they are associated with
vorticity around the model. The changes in longitudinal velocity are known as blockage
interference due to the model and wake. In Ref. 13 more information can be found on how to
apply corrections.
3.5. Results
The experimental results of the airplane mode will be treated here since only these are given in
Theodore’s paper [10]. These experiments are at an angle of attack of 0 and sideslip angle of 0,
+5, and +10 at the three different Reynolds numbers 0.8x106, 1.2x106, and 1.4x106. The
corresponding values for the dynamic pressure, velocity, and Mach number at these Reynolds
numbers can be found in Table 4.2. These values can slightly change due to the difference in air
density and temperature for a given Reynolds number.
Table 3.2 Flow properties in airplane mode.
2
Q [lbs/ft ] V [ft/s] Re x E6 [-] M [-]
40 183 0.80 0.18
94 284 1.20 0.26
130 340 1.40 0.30
From Fig. 3.17 it can be seen that the effect of the Reynolds number on the lift and drag is
insignificant, especially in the area of the experiments that is at an angle of attack of -5 to +5.
Therefore the Reynolds number of 1.2x106 was chosen.
The next figures shows the effects of the different wing tip configurations on the lift/drag ratio,
and the drag and lift normalized by the dynamic pressure to remove the effects caused by the
small difference in wind tunnel speeds between the different sets of the same Reynolds number
tests. Figure 3.18 shows that the addition of the nacelle results in a small decrease of L/D, while a
further wing extension increases the L/D significantly. The difference is a maximum L/D ratio of
16 for the case with wing extension against a L/D ratio of 12 for the case without wing extension.
The additional wing area of the extension causes the increase in lift. In Fig. 3.19 it can be seen
that the nacelle configuration increases the lift compared with the wing cap configuration. This is
due to the nacelle acting like a pseudo flat plate that results in a more 2D wing lift distribution.
The nacelle with the wing extension increases the lift significantly. The fuselage and tail angle of
attack for zero lift is around the -6.0 deg. and is equal for all three configurations. The wing is
inclined at +3.3 deg. relative to the fuselage and will be at -2.7 deg. incidence relative to the flow
at the zero lift point. At last, the drag does not change significantly as can be seen in Fig. 3.20.
The nacelle configuration shows a higher drag between -5 and 8 degrees of angle of attack. This
can be due to geometry of the nacelle that is more complex than the wing cap or wing extension.
However it should be noted that more drag would be expected with the wing extension due to the
added area.
The remaining results for the LCTR in airplane mode with a yaw angle of +5 and +10 and the
wing only configuration can be found in Ref. 10.
RotCFD is used for comparison of the experimental data. It has been used to simulate simple
models or complex models at low speed, which have shown good results. Complex models at
high speed have not been tested yet. The velocity limitation of RotCFD is at a Mach number of
0.3. The velocities that will be used during the simulations in this project are close to this number.
Therefore, new problems may be encountered.
Figure 3.17 Effect of Reynolds number on lift and drag coefficient for LCTR model in airplane
mode with the nacelles and wing extensions installed for β = 0 deg. [10].
Figure 3.18 Effect of wing-tip configuration on Figure 3.19 Effect of wing-tip configuration
Lift/Drag of LCTR airframe model for β = 0 on Lift/q of LCTR airframe model for β = 0
deg., V = ~168 kt., and Re=1.2E6 [10]. deg., V = ~168 kt., and Re=1.2E6 [10].
Figure 3.20 Effect of wing-tip configuration on

Drag/q of LCTR airframe model for β = 0 deg., V
= ~168 kt., and Re=1.2E6 [10].
4. RotCFD
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is widely used in industry. It is a cost and time efficient
way to predict the behavior of a flow past/around an object together with the forces and moments
on the object. The experimental data can be validated through correlation with these CFD
predictions. The present chapter covers the theory behind CFD and some aspects that are
important when setting up a CFD simulation. Some flow solvers that are applicable to rotor flows
are RotCFD, STAR-CCM, and OpenFOAM. The validation of the wind tunnel data is being
performed with Rotorcraft Computational Fluid Dynamics (RotCFD) [19]. The key components
of RotCFD are a geometry module, a grid generation module, a Navier-Stokes flow-solver
module, a blade element rotor module, and a flow visualization and analysis module.
4.1. General
RotCFD is a CFD tool developed by Sukra Helitek in cooperation with The Aeromechanics
Branch at NASA. Within RotCFD there are different modules that can be used to perform the
simulations. The modules that will be used during this project are [20]:
- RotUNS: 3D Unstructured solver for rotary
- ShapeGen: CAD-modeling application
RotUNS is an unstructured flow solver that is capable of performing rotorcraft simulation. With
ShapeGen, the simple geometries are modeled.
4.2. Flow Solver

The fluid flow is governed by the incompressible, unsteady, laminar Navier-Stokes equations.
The governing equations are modified in order to incorporate turbulence by time-averaging the
Navier-Stokes equations. This leads to the well-known Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
Equations (RANS) [21]. Well behaved wall-bounded flows have shown that reasonable accuracy
is obtained by using RANS. The accuracy decreases when flow separation occurs. Nevertheless,
the RANS method is often used for such flows since it reduces computational costs for complex
geometries that are wall-bounded. For incompressible flow, the conservation of mass and
momentum are sufficient to solve the flow; conservation of energy is not needed, but will be
given for completeness. Conservation of mass applied to a fluid passing through an infinitesimal
control volume gives the continuity equation [22,23]:

t
 
     V  0 (4.1)
where ρ is the fluid density and V is the flow velocity. The first term is zero for incompressible
flow, which gives the following expression:
 
 V 0 (4.2)
Conservation of momentum applied to a fluid passing through an infinitesimal control volume
gives the equation of momentum:

t
   
V   VV  p     f (4.3)
where f is the body force per unit mass, τ is the viscous stress tensor that can also be written as
 2u . The equation of energy obtained by the conservation of energy is:

t
 
 i    iV   pV    kT      fV (4.4)
where i is the internal energy, k is the thermal conductivity, T is the temperature, and Φ is the
dissipation function that describes all the effects due to viscous stresses.
The state equations for pressure and specific internal energy are:
p  p   , T  and i  i   , T  (4.5)
The equations of motions can be rewritten as:
    u     v     w u v w
Continuity     0   0 (4.6)
t x y z x y z
  u    2 u    u    u  p
X-mom.   u       uv       uw       S Mx (4.7)
t x  x  y  y  z  z  x
  v    v    v    v  p
Y-mom.    uv       v 2       vw       S My (4.8)
t x  x  y  y  z  z  y
   w   w    w    2 w  p
Z-mom.    uw       vw      w       S Mz (4.9)
t x  x  y  y  z  z  z
   i     ui     ui     wi  pu pv pw
Energy        Si (4.10)
t x y z x y z
where μ is the dynamic viscosity, SM is the momentum source formed by the body forces taken
together, and Si is the energy source. A more generic form of the momentum equation is given by
introducing the scalar ϕ. This equation is known as the transport equation:

t
 
     V        S (4.11)
where ϕ stands for any of the velocity components (u, v, w), Γ is the diffusion coefficient and Sϕ
is the source term. These four terms represent the unsteady, convection, diffusion and source
terms, respectively. The time derivative and the convection terms together represent the total rate
of change of a quantity following a fluid path line. Rewriting the transport equation in Cartesian
form gives:
                  
  u     v     w               S (4.12)
t x y z x  x  y  y  z  z 
The integral form of this transport equation over a three-dimensional control volume is solved by
finite volume based CFD programs to calculate the flow pattern and associated scalar fields:

 t    dV     V   dV       dV   S dV
CV CV CV CV
(4.13)
The numerical algorithm that is used is the Patankar’s SIMPLER method [24]. This algorithm is
used for handling pressure-velocity coupling. Time integration is done by fully implicit, explicit
or Crank Nicolson schemes. The process of this method is described as follows:
1. Guess initial values of the velocity component (u, v, w) and pressure (p).
2. Calculate the unsteady source terms.
3. Calculate the coefficients of the momentum equations.
4. Solve the momentum equations for the velocity components.
5. Compute the mass flow at all faces.
6. Calculate the coefficients and source of the pressure correction equation.
7. Solve for pressure correction term p′.
8. Correct the velocities, pressure and mass flow.
9. Return to Step 3 and repeat until convergence.
10. Advance to the next time level.
To account for the inherent turbulent nature of rotorcraft flows, the Realizable and Standard ‘k-ɛ’
turbulence models have been integrated to the RotUNS flow solver, where k is the turbulent
kinetic energy and ɛ, the turbulent dissipation. These models have a special treatment for wall
boundaries. The k-ɛ model has shown to be useful for free-shear layer, wall-bounded and internal
flows only when the pressure gradients are relatively small [25].
4.3. Turbulence Model

The transport equation for the turbulent kinetic energy (k) is given by :
        2 k  2 k  2 k 
  k     ku     kv     kw     t  2  2  2   Sk (4.14)
x x y z   k   x y z 
where , Sk = Pk − ρǫ , Pk = µt(SΩ) , S = p2SijSij , Ω = ∇ × v .
In Eq. 4.14, µt is the turbulent viscosity, µ is the molecular viscosity and Sk is the non-linear
turbulent kinetic source. The transport equation for turbulent dissipation (ǫ) is given by :
        2  2  2  C S
      u     v     w     t  2  2  2   C1 S  1  (4.15)
x x y z      x y z  k  
where; C1ǫ = 1.44 , C2ǫ = 1.92 .
The transport equations for ‘k’ and ‘ǫ’ are integrated over a control volume, δ∀. Using Gauss’s
divergence theorem, the integrated equation can be written as given below :
F 
f
f f   G f  S V (4.16)
where, Φ stands for ‘k’ and ‘ǫ’. The left hand side of Eq. 6.23 signifies the convective flux of the
turbulent quantity Φ, with the first term being the diffusive flux of Φ through all the faces of a
given control volume, and the second term the overall turbulent source in that control volume.
The discretized ‘k’ and ‘ǫ’ equations are solved using a converged flow field as the input. Gauss
Seidel point-by-point iterative process is employed for solving the non-linear equations till
convergence is achieved. The converged ‘k − ǫ’ field is then used to calculate the turbulent
viscosity according to the following relations :
 C k 2
t  (4.17)

where, Cµ is the realizable constant, which is also updated along with the ‘k − ǫ’ field. The
calculated turbulent viscosity µt is then used to find the coefficients of the momentum equations
for the next time step. An inherent requirement of the two-equation turbulence model is the
positivity of the turbulent quantities. In order to ensure this, a minimum limiter is applied on the
‘k − ǫ’ field that prevents it from becoming negative. This minimum criteria depends on the
molecular dynamic viscosity, ν, and the turbulent mixing length scale, tlen .
kmin  106 tlen 
2
(4.18)
0.104k 1.5
 (4.19)
tlen
4.4. Geometry Representation and Grid Generation
In RotUNS there are two options for grid generation. The first is the non-body-fitted grid, which
means that the grid only makes Cartesian unstructured grids near the body. Whereas, the body-
fitted grid makes tetrahedral grid cells near the geometry that transform into Cartesian
unstructured grids in the farfield. Both grid options are shown in Fig. 4.1 and 4.2. During this
project, the modeling will start with a non-body-fitted grid to get a quick impression of the results
and the settings. After this, the grid will be refined by starting with a coarse body-fitted grid.
Figure 4.1 Non body-fitted grid [26]. Figure 4.2 Body-fitted grid [26].
The Cartesian octree grid approaches the geometry by moving vertices that are close to the
surface geometry to nearby intersection of adjacent edges with the geometry. Where edge
intersections are not close enough to any adjacent vertices, the edge is split to avoid distorting the
cell too much. The steps for this technique are given below [24]:
- Starting with a Cartesian octree grid, all cells that intersect the geometry are sub-divided into
tetrahedra.
- The edges of the grid are then intersected with the geometry.
- The vertices of the grid that are close to an intersection on an adjacent edge are marked to be
moved to the closest intersection.
- Any edges that have intersections that are not near its adjacent vertices are split on the
intersection point.
- Any split edges may necessitate the creation of a surface edge that splits adjacent faces.
- Any split faces may necessitate the creation of surface faces that splits adjacent cells.
- Vertices marked to be moved are actually moved at this point.
- Interior cells are removed
The cells are cut into tetrahedral by first iterating through all the faces in the grid and then split
into triangle faces. After this, the triangular faces are used to construct the tetrahedral cells in
each cut cell.
The grid refinement sets the fidelity that the surface faces of the grid approximate the surface of
the input geometry. Increasing the refinement by one doubles the number of grid lines. A
limitation is that depending on the grid refinement, sharp edges get lost by being slightly rounded.
This is because only intersections with the grid edges are taken into account. Increasing the
refinement, which in turn will increase the simulation time, can solve this. A trade-off will have
to be made to check if the solution is worth the additional simulation time [24].
4.5. RotCFD Interface

RotCFD has an Integrated Design Environment (IDE) that makes the tool very user friendly. In
consists of a Graphical User Interface (GUI), Fig. 4.3, that makes it easy to import an object, set
the boundary settings, set the grid settings, and show the flow and body visualization. Simple
objects can be created in ShapeGen within RotCFD. More complex objects can be designed using
a CAD software and be imported in RotCFD. In the time grid settings the simulation time, time
steps, iterations, and the relaxation factors can be easily set. The boundary conditions together
with the flow properties can be defined before moving to the grid settings. Once this is all done,
the solver can be started. The grid generator can be also started separately if the grid has to be
tested first before starting the solver. Once the grid is generated, the flow information field will
show the grid information as the amount of cells. The object flow_surface_tester can be loaded as
a test to check how RotCFD “sees” the object. When the grid is coarse, the object that has been
created by RotCFD will most likely consists of cubical edges. While with a fine grid the created
object will approach the real imported object. Finally, the post-processing will show various plots
of the residual and forces and moments, and various flow fields.
The fact that RotCFD is a user friendly interface while being applicable to a broad aerodynamic
research field makes it a powerful tool. RotCFD is still under development and being improved.
Already many rotorcraft as non-rotorcraft configurations have been validated and shown good
results.
Though RotCFD is still under development, the results of several studies carried out with specific
rotorcraft configurations have validated its capabilities for studying rotor performance, flow fields,
and interference effects at the early stages of design using commodity hardware. However,
potential extensions to its current capabilities and limitations include: turbulence modeling, and
parallelization of the solver to take advantage of multi-processor computing.
Figure 4.3 Graphical User Interface.
4.5.1. Flow Properties

Knowing the right flow properties is essential, because if these are different than the experimental
data the validation will not be valid. The parameters that have to be set within RotCFD are the
velocity, density, temperature, pressure, gas constant, specific heat ratio, and viscosity. During
this study, these values can be looked up in the experimental data according to the case that is
being simulated. In case a value is not available, it would have to be computed. The Reynold’s
number was kept constant during the testing by adjusting the velocity of the airflow in order to
compensate for the change in temperature, density, and other factors that change during testing.
There was some uncertainty about the measured pressure during the tests; whether it was
measured at the pitot tube or the pressure rings. Time was spent looking for documents on the 7-
by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel schematics and diagram and an appointment was made to look at the
wind tunnel test section itself.
Extra attention is needed while setting the values in RotCFD. No units are given in the tool,
which makes is confusing sometimes. Both SI units and English units can be used but consistency
is very important.
4.5.2. Wall Boundary Conditions

The wall conditions are the next important set of settings. These settings depend on the test
environment of the model. If the testing is being done in the atmosphere with no airflow battling
against the model or the velocity of the flow is very minimal that it can be considered
insignificant, then the pressure conditions could be applied. However, testing in a wind tunnel is
completely different since the viscous walls act as a barrier and stops the fluid right at the walls
because of the no-slip condition. This condition assumes that the fluid has zero velocity relative
to the boundary. The boundary layer thickness should be taken into account to make sure that the
tested model is not in the area affected by the walls. The boundary layer cannot be solved in
RotCFD; the velocity goes to zero from the last available grid towards the wall. As last, the flight
condition should be set-up according in what direction the model is moving to specify the free-
stream velocity direction.
4.5.3. Grid Specifications

Grid generation is the trickiest part of CFD. It can take a long time to find a grid that is optimal
for the case that one is interested in. Therefore, the recommendation is to start with a non-body-
fitted grid to get a quick impression of the results and the settings. The correctness of the settings,
like the time grid settings, boundary conditions, and flow properties can be tested in this way.
After this step, the grid is refined by starting with a coarse body-fitted grid and build up to a finer
grid. Finer grids give more accurate results, but with accuracy comes longer solving time.
Part II
Approach & Results
5. Test Cases
In this chapter the test cases for the LCTR in airplane and helicopter mode are discussed, together
with the test cases for the simplified geometry.
5.1. LCTR
The LCTR was tested in airplane and helicopter mode with various settings. The wind tunnel data
has been studied carefully to choose the LCTR test configurations that will be validated with
RotCFD. Only one case has been tested in airplane mode with and without wing extensions, L00
and L00E, and therefore will be used for validation. The LCTR in helicopter mode is tested with
different nacelle angles. For validation purposes, the nacelle angle with respect to the camber line
is chosen to be 8 degrees, since this configuration, L85 and L85E, has the most data points. In
Appendix A, all the wind tunnel test configurations can be found. The LCTR setting with the
smallest and largest blockage in the wind tunnel is chosen to be validated since these are the two
extremes. Calculating the blockage at different yaw angles in Rhinoceros results in a minimum
blockage at 0º yaw in airplane mode and a maximum blockage at 70º yaw in helicopter mode.
The blockage ratios for both cases are shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 Blockage ratios for the LCTR.
Frontal area [in^2] Blockage [%]

Wind tunnel 10080 -
Airplane mode - Pitch: 0 deg., Yaw: 0 deg.
Model only 220.444 2.187

Model with aerodynamic struts and fairings 662.712 6.575
Helicopter mode - Pitch: 0 deg., Yaw: 70 deg.
Model only 665.770 6.605

Model with circular struts and fairings 1358.497 13.477
For completeness, the helicopter mode is also simulated in 0º and 90º yaw. The test runs for these
configurations are chosen such that it consists a wide angle of attack or yaw angle. This is
preferable in case different angles need to be solved in the future, the same test run with the
associated flow properties can be used. Table 5.2 shows the range of the chosen configurations,
while in Appendix A the range of all the configurations are covered. The test runs that are chosen
are R255 at 7 for the airplane mode and R334 at 15, 26, and 33 for the helicopter mode. The
wind tunnel data can be found in Appendix B.
Table 5.2 Test angle ranges.
Configuration Reynolds Number Pitch Angle [Deg.] Yaw Angle [Deg.]
L00/E 0.8 – 1.4 -10 – 12 0 – 10
L85/E 0.6 0 -180 – 180
The wind tunnel results of the helicopter mode in 0º, 70º and 90º yaw have been compared to note
the difference in forces and moments of the LCTR with and without wing extension. Only the
helicopter mode in 0º yaw showed a significant difference with and without wing extensions and
is therefore simulated with and without wing extensions. In Table 5.3 and 5.4 the test cases and
the comment for each case can be found. The numbers in Table 3 represent the test cases that are
computed, while the letters represent the cases that are not simulated.
Table 5.3 LCTR test cases.
Configuration Case LCTR with LCTR without No Flat plate With Without
wing extensions wing extensions model walls walls
Airplane mode – Pitch: 0 deg., Yaw: 0 deg.
1 x x
2 x x
3 x x
4 x x
5 x x
6 x x
Helicopter mode – Pitch: 0 deg., Yaw: 70 deg.
7 x x
8 x x
A x x
9 x x
10 x x
11 x x
12 x x
13 x x
14 x x
15 x x
B x x
C x x
16 x x
17 x x
D x x
18 x x
E x x
F x x
Table 5.4 Comments on the LCTR test cases.
Case Comment
1, 3, 7, 12, 14, 16 LCTR with fairings and struts.
2, 8, 13, 17 LCTR without fairings and struts
4, 9, 15, 18 Empty wind tunnel
5, 6, 10, 11 Flat plate with same frontal area as LCTR with fairings and struts
A, D Not modeled: Δ due to wing extension is small
B, C, E, F Not modeled: only modeled for maximum blockage, 70º yaw helicopter mode
5.2. Simplified Geometry
Different geometries that have the same blockage as the LCTR are interesting to simulate in
RotCFD to study if a simplified body has the same blockage effect. The different geometries that
could be evaluated are a square flat plate, rectangular flat plate, cube, rectangle, and cylinder.
Only the square flat plate will be treated in this research due to time constraints. The LCTR
configuration at minimum and maximum blockage is used to model to flat plate. The dimensions
of the flat plate are defined by taking the square root of the frontal area of the LCTR in airplane
mode at 0º yaw and helicopter mode at 70º yaw.
6. RotCFD Analyses/Setup
The test cases that are chosen can now be modeled in RotCFD. In this tool, the flow properties
are set first, followed by the time settings that composes of the time length, time steps, iterations,
and relaxation. To reach convergence the various settings that need to be adjusted are the
iterations, time step size, and turbulence relaxation factor. Once convergence is reached, the
extent of wind tunnel walls on the measured data can be determined.
6.1. RotCFD Assumptions

To obtain LCTR data, isolated or in a wind tunnel, RotUNS is used. The flow is considered
incompressible, hence a Mach number in the whole flow field must be lower than M = 0.3 for the
flow to be considered low-subsonic or incompressible.
6.2. RotCFD Settings

6.2.1. Flow Properties
The simulations are performed with US Custom units at sea level and International Standard
Atmosphere (ISA). The values of the flow properties for the airplane and helicopter mode as set
in RotCFD are summarized in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 LCTR RotCFD settings.
Flow properties Airplane Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Units

Mode 0º Mode 0º Mode 70º Mode 90º
yaw yaw yaw yaw
Static density 0.00232 0.00237 0.00237 0.00236 [slugs/ft3]
Static temperature 512.077 517.696 517.677 519.734 [Rankin]
Gas constant 1716.49 1716.49 1716.49 1716.49 [ft lbf/slug R]
Specific heat ratio 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 [-]
Dynamic viscosity 3.701E-7 3.727E-7 3.733E-7 3.739E-7 [ft2/s]
Static pressure 2044.1 2110.173 2110.63 2110.579 [lbf/ft2]
Freestream velocity x 284.21 140.952 140.45 140.997 [ft/s]
Freestream velocity y 0 0 0 0 [ft/s]
Freestream velocity z 0 0 0 0 [ft/s]
Reynolds number 1.20E6 0.60E6 0.60E6 0.60E6 [-]
Mach number 0.26 0.12 0.12 0.12 [-]
6.2.2. Boundary Conditions

The boundaries of the test section in RotCFD are the same as the wind tunnel dimensions;
15x10x7 ft. However, in x-direction 9 ft. is added to cover the pressure rings upstream of the test
section. Table 6.2 shows the boundary settings as set in RotCFD.
Table 6.2 LCTR boundary conditions.
Position Length [ft]

Lower corner x -14
y -5
z 0
Upper corner x 10
y 5
z 7
The boundary conditions are set to velocity boundaries with the minimum velocity in x-direction
representing the free stream velocity. The maximum velocity in x-direction depends on whether
the simulation is in wall-bounded or in freestream conditions. This boundary condition is set to
mass outflow correction when wall-bounded and equals the free stream velocity when in
freestream. A mass outflow correction is used at the end of the test section if the inflow
boundaries are defined by the velocity.
6.3. Grid Study

Grid generation is the trickiest part of CFD. Therefore, the recommendation is to start with a non-
body-fitted grid to get a quick impression of the results and the settings. After this step, the grid is
refined by starting with a coarse body-fitted grid. Finer grids give more accurate results, but with
accuracy comes longer solving time.
The wall-bounded airplane mode configuration was used as the model to find the proper grid
settings. The time settings function within RotCFD allows to set the time length (simulation
time), number of time steps, maximum iterations per time step, and relaxation.
As first, the (delta) time step size is calculated by dividing the smallest cell size by the velocity at
that point in the wind tunnel. This gives a time step size of (1/32)ft / 284.21ft/s = 0.0001s.
Dividing the time that a particle needs to flow from the inlet to the outlet by this time step size,
gives the amount of time steps needed. The flow pass time is calculated by dividing the length of
the wind tunnel by the free stream velocity; 15ft / 284.2ft/s = 0.05s. To calculate the time step this
flow pass time is multiplied by two to ensure that enough information is captured. The number of
time steps can now be calculated by 0.1s / 0.0001s = 1000. The simulation was started with 10
iterations and a relaxation of 0.1, but changed accordingly to 20 iterations and relaxation of 0.01
as a result of divergence of the solutions. Relaxations between 0.1 and 0.01 are not tested due to
time limitations. Also, the refinement box around the model was increased from 1 to 3, meaning
the number of grid lines are multiplied by three. A finer box increased the simulation time
significantly, therefore, a refinement of three is used.
Once the non-body-fitted setting functioned, the same settings were applied to the body-fitted
grid and improved. Again, the iterations, relaxation and refinement box were changed one at the
time until the right setting were found. The two time step sizes that were investigated hereby are
1·10-4s and 3·10-5s. The former is the calculated time step size and the latter is the calculated time
step size by using the time step of the non-body-fitted case as a constraint since this showed to be
sufficient to get solved. A recommendation is to take smaller steps and try time step sizes
between 1·10-4s and 3·10-5s and relaxation between 0.1 and 0.01. Table C1 of Appendix C
presents the initial grid study.
Spatial and temporal resolution independency was checked by observing the results to be
independent of the cell size and time step. The smallest mesh that gives a mesh independent
solution was used for all simulation to reduce simulation time. It is observed that convergence, a
steady result, is reached faster when the number of iterations is increased. Therefore, the best test
case, test case 8, is improved by varying the iteration and the time step size. The second table in
Appendix C shows the improved grid study where case 9 showed the best results.
6.4. Convergence Study

After running the second test set, the settings that showed the best results were used for all the
configurations: 2.5s time length, 5000 time steps, 0.0005s time step size, 50 iterations, and 0.01
relaxation. However, even this solution diverged at the time step where it almost reached
convergence. The divergence is probably caused by stability issues with the turbulence model
when it encounters poor quality body-fitted grid cells. The diverging turbulence values are
coupled back into the flow equations resulting in eventual flow field divergence. It is difficult to
improve the quality of the grid cells because grid refinement results in a significant increase in
simulation time. To solve this problem, the turbulence relaxation factors were varied for one test
case, the LCTR in airplane mode in freestream conditions, to investigate. The simulation was
restarted from the time step that shows no error yet. The error will typically manifest in the
turbulent dissipation (epsilon) residual starting to 'run-away', followed by the turbulent kinetic
energy (TKE) residual. Restarting the simulation before the solution diverges saves time but is
tricky, as the instability may already exist in the restart file. Attention is needed to ensure that the
restart time is as long as possible before any indication that the case is going bad, given one’s
run-time constraints. The initial turbulence relaxation factors, k relaxation factor and epsilon
relaxation factor, are set to 0.9 and 0.7, respectively. Three factors that were chosen to be tested
are 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5. The best results are obtained with the 0.3 factor, so 0.3 is applied to all the
configurations. The difference between the three turbulence relaxation factors is shown in Fig. 6.1
by marks at the divergence point of each relaxation factor. This figure presents the total force for
the four different turbulence relaxation factors against the time step.
Figure 6.1 Total force against time steps for the turbulence relaxation study with turbulence relaxation
factor 0.3.
The initial turbulence relaxation factor, 0.9-0.7, gives the worst results with a divergence at 840
time steps. The residual plot in Fig. 6.2 shows that at 500 time steps the error has not started yet,
so this point is a save choice to restart the simulation with the other factors. The second
divergence occurred at 850 time steps with a factor of 0.5. Using a factor of 0.1 gives a
divergence at 930. The best results are obtained with a factor of 0.3 since this delays the
divergence to 1510 time steps. The residual plot of this can be seen in Fig. 6.3.
Figure 6.2 Residual plot for the initial turbulence relaxation factor 0.9/0.7.
Figure 6.3 Residual plot for the turbulence relaxation factor 0.3.
Using this turbulence relaxation factor does delay the divergence point but does not solve it. To
further improve the results, or reach convergence, the time step size is varied every time an error
is observed. The initial time step size is 0.0005 and changed to 0.0001, 0.00005, 0.00001,
respectively. This process is different for each configuration; therefore, the time step sizes are
changed according to the configuration. A recommendation is to try smaller time step jumps,
which is not done due to time constraints. Using the process of changing the time step size, in
combination with the adjusted turbulence relaxation factor, solved the divergence problem. In
Fig. 6.4, the change in solution due to the decrement in time step size can be seen. Again, the total
force is plotted against the time step and the time step size decrements are marked.
Figure 6.4 Total force against time steps for the time step size study with time step size decrements.
After divergence of the results with the initial time step size, 0.0005, the simulation is restarted at
500 time steps with time step size 0.0001. The time step sizes 0.00005 and 0.00001 are restarted
at 650 and 750 time steps, respectively. The solution reaches an asymptotic behavior after the last
time step size decrement, and therefore, is converged since no more computer time could be
afforded. This can be also seen by the diminishing residuals of the solution in the residual plot
that have reduced to an acceptable value, Fig. 6.5.
Figure 6.5 Residual plot for the time step size study with time step size decrements.
As last, the same configuration is also simulated with the smallest time step size that is needed to
reach convergence. Figure 6.6 and 6.7, the total force and residual plot, respectively, show that
the same results are approached as using the time step size decrements process. It is
recommended to use the decrement process since this reduces the time significantly.
Figure 6.6 Total force against time steps for the time step size study without time step size decrements.
Figure 6.7 Residual plot for the time step size study without time step size decrements.
6.5. Wall pressure study

The wind tunnel blockage and wall effects can also be investigated by plotting the pressure field
along the wind tunnel walls. As known, the location upstream from the test section of pressure
ring 1, 2 and 3 is respectively 12.38, 81.31, and 99.31 inch (1.032, 6.776, 8.276 ft.). The height
from above the ground and/or below the ceiling of pressure ring 1, 2 and 3 is respectively 22.25,
23.31, and 24.25 inch (1.854, 1.943, 2.021 ft.). In RotCFD, pressure lines on the right (R) and left
(L) wall, pilot view, close to these heights are exported. Since pressure lines can be only exported
every feet, three heights are chosen on the ground, middle, and ceiling. These heights are 2, 3 and
5 ft., respectively, above the ground. The first pressure line corresponds to the pressure ring
above the ground and the third pressure line to the pressure ring below the ceiling. Once these
pressures are obtained the pressure coefficient can be calculated by subtracting the static pressure
from the wall pressure and dividing by the dynamic pressure.
C pw 
 pw  ps  (8.1)
q
7. Results
The results of the RotCFD computations of the LCTR in airplane at 0º and in helicopter mode at
0º, 70º and 90º yaw angle will be presented in this chapter. The forces and moments, and the
pressure coefficients will be compared for the wall-bounded and freestream case. Also, the cases
with and without wing extension will be compared. After this, the pressure coefficient of the
LCTR will be compared to the simplified geometry. Finally, the pressure coefficients of the
empty wind tunnel will be shown for complicity.
7.1. Airplane mode in 0º yaw

The wind tunnel blockage and wall effects are given by the force, moments and pressure
coefficient plots of the LCTR. The configuration, in isometric view, and the developed grid, in
top view, of the wall-bounded LCTR in airplane mode in the 7- by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel at
NASA Ames Research Center is given in Fig. 7.1 and 7.2. By comparing the LCTR with and
without wing extension in the wind tunnel, the effect of the wing extension can be studied. The
configuration and grid of the LCTR without wing extension is illustrated in Fig. 7.3 and 7.4. The
effect of the wind tunnel walls on the forces and moments can be investigated by comparing the
LCTR in airplane mode with wind tunnel walls and in freestream. In Fig. 7.5 and 7.6, the
freestream configuration and corresponding grid can be found. Additionally, the front and side
view of all configurations are presented in Appendix D.
Figure 7.1 Configuration of the LCTR in wall- Figure 7.2 Grid of the LCTR in wall-bounded
bounded condition. condition.
bounded condition without wing extensions. condition without wing extensions.
Figure 7.5 Configuration of the LCTR in Figure 7.6 Grid of the LCTR in freestream
freestream condition. condition.
7.1.1. Forces and Moments

The cases, as given in Table 7.3, are solved by using the 0.3 turbulence relaxation factor and the
time step size decrement method. The calculated forces are the drag (Fx), side (Fy) and lift force
(Fz). The calculated moments are the rolling (Mx), pitching (My), and yawing moment (Mz). The
RotCFD moment point, the location about which moments are computed, and a definition of the
x, y, and z-direction are given in Fig 7.7.
Figure 7.7 RotCFD moment point and

definition of x-y-z-direction.
Comparison of the forces and moments for the LCTR in airplane mode in freestream (F) and with
wind tunnel walls (W) is given in Fig. 7.8, with the experimental results marked as a star. From
this figure, it can be noted that convergence is reached. However, the residual plot in Fig. 7.9
shows that divergence will occur for the wall-bounded case (W) if the simulation will run longer.
Restarting the simulation with a smaller time step size around the 1000 time steps, a time step
where no error occurs yet, could solve this. But, this is not necessary since the forces and
moments are already converged.
The forces and moments are presented in histogram format in Fig. 7.10. Comparison of the CFD
results with walls (W) and in freestream (F) show that both the lift (Fz) and drag (Fx) are higher
for the wall-bounded case. The increase in lift force can be explained by the ground effect. The
ground effect enhances the force performance compared to the freestream result. When an aircraft
flies close to the ground surface, within approximately a distance of one wingspan, the induced
drag reduces because the airflow around the wing tip and the trailing wing tip vortices are
disrupted by the ground. The downwash is therefore reduced leading to an increase in lift and
reduction in drag. If the aircraft is flying even closer to the ground, the airflow between the wing
and the ground gets compressed to form an cushion. This increases the pressure on the lower
surface of the wing creating additional lift. While this explains the increase in lift, it does not
explain the increase in drag. The drag increase is caused by the fairings and struts that are present
in the wall-bounded case and not in the freestream. The LCTR is also simulated with walls but
without the supports to exclude the forces and moments of the supports that are exerting on the
LCTR. This gives a better understanding of the wall effects, while it is again seen that compared
to the freestream the lift is higher and the drag is almost the same.
These results can also be compared to the experiment with corrections (WC) and without
corrections (NC), where with corrections means that the test data is corrected for weight and aero
tare and therefore reflects freeflight, while without corrections equals the raw data. The weight
tare correction is needed because of the shift in center of gravity due to the pitch and yaw angle of
the model that affects the pitching and rolling moment. The aero tare corrections removes the
aerodynamic effect of the support struts [27]. In the wall-bounded case, the lift does not show a
large discrepancy with the uncorrected experimental result that is not corrected for the supports,
while the drag does. However, the drag force of the wall-bounded case without supports shows a
similar force as the experiment without corrections. In the freestream case, the lift and drag show
a large discrepancy with the corrected experimental results, probably caused by the ground effect,
wind tunnel wall effect, during the experiment which is not corrected for. Another observation is
made about the pitching moment (My) in the wall-bounded case, which is highly negative while
positive in freestream and during the experiment. This negative moment is caused by the fairings
that causes a large negative moment around the moment point. In freestream there are no fairings
and therefore this negative term is not present.
Figure 7.8 Forces and moments plot for the LCTR in airplane mode in freestream (F) and with
wind tunnel walls (W).
Figure 7.9 Residual plot for the LCTR in freestream (F) and with wind tunnel walls (W).
Figure 7.10 Forces and moments histogram for the LCTR in airplane mode in freestream (F) and with
wind tunnel walls (W), and the experiment with (WC) and without (NC) correction.
Figures 7.11 and 7.12 present the difference of the LCTR with wind tunnel walls, with (W) and
without wing extension (NE). Note that the CFD results for both cases are almost the same,
except the lift is significant higher with wing extensions, caused by the increased area of the wing
due to the wing extensions. Comparing the CFD results with the experiments show that the results
are more in line when comparing the wall-bounded case without supports to the experiment with
corrections. The lift force is higher and the drag force lower in the experiment, which is a result
of the wall effects. The lift and drag is higher with support by taking the forces and moments of
the supports into account. The same as for the previous residual plot holds for the residual plot in
Fig. 7.13; the turbulence kinetic energy and epsilon residual start ‘running-away’, but
convergence is already reached before this leads to divergence of the solutions.
Figure 7.11 Forces and moments plot for the LCTR in airplane mode with wind tunnel walls,
with (W) and without wing extensions (NE).
Figure 7.12 Forces and moments histogram for the LCTR in airplane mode with wind tunnel walls,
with (W) and without wing extensions (NE).
Figure 7.13 Residual plot for the LCTR with wind tunnel walls, with (WE) and without wing extensions
(NE).
7.1.2. Pressure Distribution
After examining the integral forces and moments over the object, the pressure along the wind
tunnel walls and the effect of blockage at different pressure ring locations is investigated. The
following tables, Table 7.1 and 7.2, give an overview of the streamwise and vertical locations of
the LCTR to read the pressure plots.
Table 7.1 Streamwise locations of the LCTR and wind tunnel.
Streamwise location [ft.]

Inlet settling chamber -15
1st, 2nd, 3rd Pressure ring -6.032, -11.776, -13.276
Inlet test section -5
Nose -3
Wings 0
Fairings, Struts -0.7 to 0.8
Tail 3.5
Tail strut 2.8 to 3.7 to 4.7
Outlet 10
Table 7.2 Vertical locations of the LCTR and wind tunnel.
Height [ft.] Pressure line

Fairings or freestream 2 Ground
Fuselage 3 Middle
Freestream 5 Ceiling
Figure 7.14 depicts the pressure coefficient distribution at the wall for the wall-bounded and in
freestream LCTR. Since the configuration is symmetric in 0º yaw, the results for only the right
wind tunnel wall, R, are given. From Fig. 7.14 it can be seen that the pressure coefficient is the
lowest for both the freestream and the wall-bounded case at the wings, which is also the turntable
center point, because of suction. Both cases tend to stabilize approaching the inlet and outlet,
upstream of the nose and downstream of the tail. The wall-bounded case has a lower pressure
coefficient, caused by the ground effect (wall interference effects). The ground and ceiling
pressure at the first pressure ring location has not converged yet. But, the second and third
pressure ring does show a steady result. In Appendix E the individual pressure plots are given for
a better overview.
Figure 7.14 Pressure plot for the LCTR in freestream (F) and with wind tunnel walls (W).
In Fig. 7.15 the difference in pressure coefficient between the LCTR with and without wing
extension is shown. The pressure line at the ground is the same for both cases until the wing,
which shows that the wing extension does not have an upstream effect at the ground. The
pressure line in the middle starts deviating at the wings since this is on the fuselage/wing level,
while the pressure line at the ceilings starts at the nose showing an upstream effect. With
extensions, a lower pressure coefficient is reached because of the higher velocity that is created
near the wall. The pressure at the pressure ring three location looks more converged compared
with pressure ring one and two.
Figure 7.15 Pressure plot for the LCTR with wind tunnel walls, with (W) and without wing extensions
(NE).
The pressure and turbulent viscosity field of the test section for this configuration can be found in
Appendix F. The turbulent viscosity field is zero at the wall due to the no-slip configuration. A
strange observation is made when inspecting that the turbulent viscosity field towards the
centerline, y=0, is zero in the wake where the largest turbulence is expected. Different
simulations times have been reviewed, but the same error is seen. This means that a problem
occurs in the turbulence model.
7.2. Helicopter mode in 0º yaw
The configuration and the developed grid of the LCTR in 0º yaw helicopter mode in the 7- by 10-
Foot Wind Tunnel at NASA Ames Research Center is given in Fig. 7.16 and 7.17. The
configuration and grid of the LCTR without wing extension is illustrated in 7.18 and 7.19, while
the freestream configuration is illustrated in Fig. 7.20 and 7.21.
bounded condition without wing extensions. condition without wing extensions.

The forces and moments computed with CFD, Fig. 7.22, are much higher when the simulation is
run with walls compared to in freestream. Again, the increase in lift (Fz) can be related to the
ground effect and the additional drag (Fx) to the fairings and struts. Excluding the supports from
the CFD results show almost similar values for both the lift and drag force, meaning that there is
no blockage effect. Compared to the airplane mode, the lift is lower due to the loss in wing area.
The comparison of the lift and drag force between the corrected (WC) and uncorrected (NC)
experimental data, show a large discrepancy in order of 150% in the wall-bounded case. By
excluding the supports, the results are close to the freestream results, which means no wall effects
occur with this blockage. The freestream case shows a smaller discrepancy with the corrected
experimental results, the difference can be related to the wall interference effects during the
experiment.
Figure 7.22 Forces and moments histogram for the LCTR in helicopter mode in freestream (F) and with
wind tunnel walls (W), and the experiment with (WC) and without (NC).
Figures 7.23 depicts the difference of the LCTR with wind tunnel walls, with (W) and without
wing extension (NE). The lift and drag force are both higher with wing extensions because of the
increased area of the wing due to the wing extensions. The difference between these two cases is
in line with the difference between the two experiments.
Figure 7.23 Forces and moments histogram for the LCTR in helicopter mode with wind tunnel walls, with
(W) and without wing extensions (NE).

The wind tunnel blockage and wall effects can also be investigated by plotting the pressure field
along the wind tunnel walls. The Tables 7.3 and 7.4, are again given as an overview of the
streamwise and vertical locations to read the pressure plots.
Location [ft.]
Nose -3
Wings 0
Fairings, Struts -0.7 to 0.8
Tail 3.5
Tail strut 2.8 to 3.7 to 4.7
Outlet 10
Table 7.4 Vertical locations of the LCTR and wind.

Fuselage 3 Middle
The pressure coefficient distribution in Fig. 7.24 shows that around 1 ft. after the wings, the
pressure coefficient is the lowest for both the freestream and the wall-bounded case due to suction.
The wall-bounded case has larger extreme because of wall interference effects. The pressure
coefficient before the wing, especially at the ground, is larger compared to the airplane mode that
relates to the position of the wing extensions in helicopter mode. At the second and third pressure
ring the results seem to be stabilized.
After plotting the pressure coefficient distribution of the wall-bounded case without wing
extensions, it was noticed that the pressure line at the ground exceeds one, see Fig. E6 of
Appendix E for this pressure plot. Viewing the pressure field at the wall it was observed that near
the fairing the grid cell locally explodes causing divergence of the solution. This problem could
be solved by reducing the time step size even more. However, the pressure coefficients can be
also computed at a time prior to this error where the results are already converged. Obtaining the
pressures at this point gives Fig. 7.25. The turbulence viscosity field is also viewed to get an
understanding of the flow behavior at the wall. At both simulation times, tend and tprior, the
turbulence viscosity is zero at the wall because no-slip conditions are imposed on the wall. The
pressure and turbulent viscosity field are presented in Appendix F.
The difference in pressure coefficient between the LCTR with and without wing extension is
shown in Fig. 7.25. With extensions, a lower pressure coefficient is reached because of the higher
velocity that is created near the wall. The pressures at pressure ring locations 2 and 3 are
converged for both cases.
Figure 7.25 Pressure plot for the LCTR with wind tunnel walls, with (W) and without wing extensions
(NE).
In the Fig. 7.26 and 7.27, 7.28 and 7.29 the LCTR configuration and grid in wall-bounded and
freestream conditions, respectively, is given.

From the CFD results for the 70º yaw helicopter mode, Fig. 7.30, some differences can be noted
compared to the 0º yaw mode. Both configuration have similar drag force (Fx). The lift (Fz),
however, is lower for both cases, with the lift in freestream condition even negative. Less lift is
generated when there is a yaw angle because the wings are not frontally orientated to the
incoming airflow. The effective chord of the wing reduces, decreasing the overall pressure and
the lift. The wall-bounded case still has a positive lift due to the additional lift generated by the
ground effect.

An overview of the streamwise and vertical locations is given in Table 7.5 and 7.6.
Table 7.5. Streamwise locations of the LCTR and wind tunnel.
Location [ft.]
Nose -1
Wings left to right -3 to 3
Fairings, struts -2 to 1, 1 to 2
Tail left to right 0 to 2.5
Tail strut 1 to 1.6
Outlet 10

Fuselage 3 Middle
The pressure coefficient distribution of the wall-bounded and the freestream case, both resulted in
coefficients exceeding one as can be seen in Fig. E9 and E11 of Appendix E. Viewing the
pressure field at the wall it was observed that both cases show extremely high pressures on
different sides of the tunnel. Since this pressure increase is not on the same side, it is not expected
that this is due to a specific grid cell but rather due to the divergence at the last simulation time.
The turbulence viscosity is again zero for the wall-bounded case, while it shows expected values
in freestream. The pressure coefficients are again computed at a time prior to the last simulation
time where the error occurs. The pressure and turbulence viscosity field are depicted in Appendix
F.
Figure 7.31 represents the pressures along the wall for the helicopter in 70º yaw. The pressure
coefficient is the lowest at the tail on the left wall for the wall-bounded case, because the
configuration is the closest to the wall and therefore has the highest velocity near the wall. The
pressure shows convergence at pressure ring three. Another extreme can be noted near the nose.
In the Fig. 7.32 and 7.33, 7.34 and 7.35 the LCTR configuration and grid in wall-bounded and
freestream conditions, respectively, is given.

The 90º yaw helicopter mode, has again a similar drag (Fx) and lower lift (Fz) force compared to
the 70º yaw mode and 0º yaw mode, as can be seen in Fig. 7.36. Lower lift is generated because
the effective chord of the wing reduces, decreasing the overall pressure and the lift. The CFD
results of the wall-bounded case and the experiment without corrections show a small deviation in
drag, just as the freestream case for the lift force. The lift is also reduced by the orientation of the
wing extension exposed to the freestream.

An overview of the streamwise and vertical locations is given in Table 7.7 and 7.8.
Location [ft.]
1st, 2nd, 3rd Pressure ring -6.032, -11.776, -13.276 ft.
Nose 0
Wings -3.3 to -3.3
Fairings, Struts 0
Tail -1.3 to 1.3
Tail strut 0
Outlet 10

Fuselage 3 Middle
The pressure coefficient distribution of the freestream case, resulted in coefficients exceeding one,
as can be seen in Fig. E14 of Appendix E. Viewing the pressure field it was observed that
extremely high pressures are reached at the nose position, and therefore the pressure coefficients
at tprior are evaluated. The pressure and turbulence viscosity field are depicted in Appendix F.
The pressure coefficients are again computed at a time prior to the last simulation time where the
error occurs. Figure 7.37 represents the pressures along the wall for the helicopter in 90º yaw. The
results show a similar distribution as the 70º yaw case, but with a decrement in pressure. Higher
velocities are reached near the wall because of the orientation of the LCTR. Both pressure rings
two and three show convergence of the results.
7.5. Validation of Simplified Geometry
The Fig. 7.38 and 7.39 illustrate the simplified geometry, flat plate, with the airplane mode in
0ºyaw conditions in the 7-by10-Foot Wind Tunnel.
Figure 7.38 Flat plate with 0º yaw airplane mode Figure 7.39 Flat plate with 0º yaw airplane mode
settings, isometric view. settings, front view.
The pressure coefficients of the flat plate in 0º yaw airplane mode conditions are shown in Fig.
7.40. The flat plate in freestream and wall-bounded conditions show a very small deviation. The
velocity around the flat plate increases towards the flat plate, leading to a lower pressure. Past the
flat plate, the airflow decelerates again, leading to a higher pressure.
Compared to the LCTR in wall-bounded and freestream conditions, Fig. 7.41 and 7.42,
respectively, the flat plate shows a significant smaller pressure. From these figures it can be seen
that the pressure at pressure ring 3 is the same for both configurations. Meaning that the pressure
at pressure ring 3 is the same for two different geometries with the same blockage.
Figure 7.40 Pressure plot for the flat plate in freestream (F) and with wind tunnel walls (W) with the LCTR
in 0º yaw AM conditions .
Figure 7.41 Pressure plot comparison of the wall-bounded flat plate and the LCTR in 0º yaw AM.
Figure 7.42 Pressure plot comparison of the freestream flat plate and the LCTR in 0º yaw AM.
The Fig. 7.43 and 7.44 illustrate the simplified geometry, flat plate, with the helicopter mode in
70ºyaw conditions in the 7-by10-Foot Wind Tunnel.
Figure 7.43 Flat plate with7 0º yaw Figure 7.44 Flat plate with 70º yaw
helicopter mode settings, isometric view. helicopter mode settings, front view.
In Fig. 7.45, the CFD results of the flat plate in 70º yaw helicopter mode conditions with wind
tunnel walls and in freestream are shown. Again, there is a very small deviation between the two
cases. A lower pressure coefficient is reached compared to the previous flat plate with a smaller
blockage. This is related to the higher velocity near the walls when there is a larger blockage.
Compared to the LCTR in wall-bounded and freestream conditions, Fig. 7.46 and 7.47,
respectively, the flat plate shows a significant smaller pressure. Again, the pressure at pressure
rind 3 is converged and the same for both configurations.
Figure 7.45 Pressure plot for the flat plate in freestream (F) and with wind tunnel walls (W) with the LCTR
in 70º yaw HM conditions.
Figure 7.46 Pressure plot comparison of the wall-bounded flat plate and the LCTR in 70º yaw HM.
Figure 7.47 Pressure plot comparison of the freestream flat plate and the LCTR in 70º yaw HM.
7.6. Empty Wind Tunnel
The wind tunnel is also simulated while it is empty, meaning the LCTR configuration is not
present in the wind tunnel, to study the pressure distribution in an empty wind tunnel. The
pressure coefficient distributions of the empty wind tunnel for the airplane mode and helicopter
mode in 0º, 70º and 90º yaw are depict in the Figs. 7.48-7.51 respectively.
None of the plots start at zero meaning that the pressure at the wall is not equal to the static
pressure when the tunnel starts to run. The wall pressure is slightly higher than the static pressure
for the first 5ft. of the wind tunnel. Around x = -10, 5ft. upstream of the test section, these
pressures are equal, and after this point the wall pressure decreases because the no slip condition
at the walls results in velocity gradients over the adjacent cells. This also means that the measured
pressure at the first pressure ring is the closest to the static pressure, since at the second and third
pressure rings a larger pressure than the actual static pressure is found. However, it should be
noted that the settling chamber, x = -15 till -5ft., is simulated as part of the test section, meaning
that the freestream velocity should have been set at the inlet of the test section, x = -5, instead of
the settling chamber, x = -15. The difference in pressure coefficients of the helicopter mode in 0º,
70º and 90º yaw is very small and can be related to the difference in freestream velocity which is
140.952, 140.45 and 140.997 ft/s. respectively; higher velocity results in a lower pressure.
Figure 7.48 Pressure plot for the empty wind tunnel with the LCTR 0º yaw AM conditions.
Figure 7.49 Pressure plot for the empty wind tunnel with the LCTR 0º yaw HM conditions.
Part III
Conclusions & Recommendations
8. Conclusions
Wind tunnel effects can occur due to the blockage of the model or wall interference. A validation
study is needed in order to investigate if the computed wind tunnel data is correct or that a
correction is needed to account for wind tunnel effects.
The CFD tool that is used for the validation study is RotCFD. Previous studies showed that this
tool is capable of accurately visualizing the flow field of a rotorcraft and other geometries.
RotCFD is a RANS solver where the fluid flow is governed by the incompressible, laminar
Navier-Stokes equations. A k-ɛ turbulence model is used, with a turbulence relaxation factor that
is adjusted to 0.3 to obtain a more converged solution. This factor has been found by testing
different factors and restarting the simulation from the time step where an error is observed in the
residual plot to save time. The error can be observed from the turbulent dissipation. epsilon, and
the turbulent kinetic energ, k, residual at the time step where the graph starts to ‘run-away’. To
further improve the results the time step size is reduced every time an error is observed in the
residual plot. The time step reduction approach is time efficient compared with using the smallest
time step for the whole simulation.
Different configurations of the LCTR that are modeled are the airplane and helicopter mode at
yaw angles such that minimum and maximum blockage occurs in the wind tunnel. By modeling
the LCTR with wind tunnel walls and in freestream, the effect of the blockage generated by the
test hardware on the walls is investigated. By comparing these two cases it is observed that with
walls a larger drag force is obtained due the fairings and struts that are present in the wall-
bounded configuration, a larger lift force is obtained due to the ground effect. The wall-bounded
case is also presented without supports for a better comparison. Comparison of the wall-bounded
and freestream case show a small discrepancy, which means that the measured forces and
moments are not influenced by the blockage effect in CFD. However, in some configurations
there is a large discrepancy between the CFD results and the experiment, which means that wall
corrections are needed to correct for the blockage. During the experiments, pressure ring 3 is used
to measure the static pressure at the wall. The pressure coefficient distributions show that indeed
pressure ring 3 should be used for correct pressure measurements, since at pressure ring locations
1 and 2 the pressure is not always converged yet.
Next to this, the LCTR is modeled without wing extension to see the influence of the extension
on the wall pressures. With extensions, a lower pressure coefficient is reached because of the
higher velocity that is created near the wall. The simplified body, the flat plate, with the same
blockage ratio as the LCTR has a significant smaller pressure coefficient distribution compared to
the LCTR in wall-bounded and freestream conditions but both configurations show the same
converged pressure at pressure ring 3 location.
While computing the pressure coefficients, some configurations had pressure coefficients
exceeding one. By viewing the pressure field of the test section it is seen that a grid cell
“explodes” because of local mesh refinement. This is a time step related stability restriction,
where the turbulent residuals diverge over time, as they are coupled back into the RANS
equations, which causes flow field divergence. However, another error is noticed in the turbulent
viscosity field for all configurations. This field is zero at the wall due to the no-slip configuration
but a strange observation is made when plotting the turbulent viscosity field towards the
centerline. In the wake where the largest turbulence is expected the turbulent viscosity is zero.
Different simulations times have been reviewed, but the same error is seen. This means that a
problem occurs in the turbulence model.
9. Recommendations
The goal of analyzing the wind tunnel model using RotCFD is to validate the aerodynamic
predictions of the model with the experimental data. When the full airframe model in CFD has
been validated, future work is to add rotors to the model to perform an analysis. RotCFD will be
used to model the two rotors. In the unsteady rotor modeling technique, the rotor is assumed to be
made up of discrete rotor blades, which change location with time. An analysis with a rotor
configuration will be performed to predict the aerodynamic interactions between the rotor wake
and the airframe to enable performance and loads predictions with rotor interactions. This will
lead to the following research task:
Add rotors to the model in RotCFD and perform an analysis to predict the aerodynamic
interactions between the rotor wake and the airframe.
Also, future work will be a NASA wind tunnel test of the LCTR with rotors, in addition to further
CFD predictions. Important aspects of this measurement are the effectiveness of the wing laminar
airfoil used, and in particular the aerodynamic interaction between the nacelle and wing extension
in the presence of a rotor wake. The work described in this thesis will define the appropriate wind
tunnel test conditions likely to provide accurate aerodynamic measurements.
The simplified geometry chosen in this study, the square flat plate, showed a large discrepancy in
pressure compared to the LCTR. Therefore, it is recommended that other geometries, such as a
rectangular flat plate, cube, rectangle, and cylinder are studied.
RotUNS is capable of adaptive grids. For this research it was chosen to keep the gridding and
flow field cell sizes nearly identical over the cases for consistent results and comparison. A
tailored adaptive grid, however, could improve the wake propagation through the domain and due
to the specified high cell density could yield a more efficient simulation or a more accurate result
in equal computation time. It is highly interesting if an adaptive grid can yield improved
computed forces and moments. At the moment adaptive gridding still contains stability problems.
A substantial issue found with the use of RotUNS and body fitted grids was the stability related
time step restriction. Because of the need to reduce the time step considerably the computational
time per case increased significantly. A finer grid does not necessarily solve the problem because
the effective cell shape at the body fit remains similar. An investigation into the use of RotVIS,
which can handle body-fitted viscous grids, and therefore should simulate boundary layers more
accurately as well, might present useful as the body fitted cells are much more organized. The use
of RotVIS for this research was highly discouraged before being familiar with RotUNS.
References
1. Sukra Helitek, Inc.,“RotUNS Rotor UNStructured Solver Application”, User Manual, Ames,
Iowa, August, 2014.
2. Acree, C.W., “Aerodynamic Limits on Large Civil Tiltrotor Sizing and Efficiency”, 5th
Decennial AHS Aeromechanics Specialists' Conference, San Francisco, CA, January 22-24,
2014.
3. Young, L., “Civil Tiltrotor Aircraft Operations”, 11th AIAA Aviation Technology,
Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference, Virginia beach, VA, Sept, 2011.
4. Maisel, M.D., Giulianetti, D.J., Dugan, D.C., “The History of The XV-15 Tilt Rotor
Research Aircraft From Concept to Flight”, NASA SP-2000-4517, The NASA History
Series, Washington D.C., 2000.
5. Bolcom, C., “V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft”, CRS Report for Congress, January, 2005.
6. Acree, C. W. Jr., Yeo, H., Sinsay, J.D., “Performance Optimization of the NASA Large
Tiltrotor”, NASA/TM-2008-215359, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA,
June, 2008.
7. Smith, D. E., Wilkerson, J., Montoro, G. J., Coy, J., and Zuk, J., “Technology Development
for Runway Independent Aircraft”, American Helicopter Society 39th Annual Forum,
Phoenix, AZ, May, 2003.
8. Johnson, W., Yamauchi, G. K., and Watts, M. E., “NASA Heavy Lift Rotorcraft Systems
Studies”, NASA/TP-2005-213467, December 2005.
9. Acree, C. W. Jr., "Integration of Rotor Aerodynamic Optimization with the Conceptual
Design of a Large Civil Tiltrotor", No. 562061, AHS Aeromechanics Conference, San
Francisco, CA, January, 2010.
10. Theodore, C.R., Willink, G.C., Russell, C.R., Pete, A.E., Amy, A.R., “Wind Tunnel Testing
of a 6%- scale Large Civil Tilt Rotor Model in Airplane and Helicopter Modes”, Fifth
Decennial AHS Aeromechanics Specialists' Conference, San Francisco, CA, January 22-24,
2014.
11. “Army 7 ft x 10 ft Wind Tunnel Survey and Calibration”, NASA Ames Research Center,
Moffett Field, CA, June 2012
12. Anon.,“Calibration of Subsonic and Transonic Wind Tunnels”, Recommended Practice
AIAA R-093-2003, 2003.
13. Garner, H. C., Rogers, E.W.E., Acum, W.E.A., Maskell, E. C., “Subsonic Wind Tunnel
Correctons”, October 1966.
14. Maskell, E.C., “Theory of the Blockage Effects on Bluff Bodies and Stalled Wings in a
Closed Wind Tunnel”, Reports and Memoranda No. 3400, November, 1963.
15. "Closed-Tesi-Section Wind Tunnel Blockage Corrections for Road Vehicles", SAE
International, SP-1176.
16. Sahini, D., “Wind Tunnel blockage corrections: a computational study”, 2004.
17. Wadcock, A.J., “The NASA Ames 7ft. x 10ft. Wind Tunnel – Present Flow Quality and
Recommendations for Improvement”, Analytical Methods Report 8705, NASA Ames
Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, July, 1987.
18. “Blockage corrections for bluff bodies in confined flows”, ESDU Data Memorandum 80024,
Royal Aeronautical Society, November 1980/March 1998.
19. Rajagopalan, R. G., Baskaran, V., Hollingsworth, A., Lestari, A., Garrick, D., Solis, E.,
Hagerty, B., “RotCFD - A Tool for Aerodynamic Interference of Rotors: Validation and
Capabilities”, Future Vertical Lift Aircraft Design Conference, San Francisco, CA, January
18-20, 2012.
20. Sukra Helitek, Inc.,“RotCFD Rotor Computational Fluid Dynamics Integrated Design
Environment”, User Manual, Ames, Iowa, August, 2014.
21. Sukra Helitek, Inc. Ames., “RotUNS Rotor UNStructured Solver Application RotCFD”,
Iowa, August 7, 2014.
22. Versteeg, H.K., Malalasekera, W., “An introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics: The
Finite Volume Method”, Longman Scientific & Technical, 1995.
23. Anderson Jr., J.D., “Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Basics with Applications”,
McGraw-Hill series in aeronautical and aerospace engineering, 1995.
24. Sukra Helitek, Inc.,“RotUNS Rotor UNStructured Solver Application”, Theory, Ames, Iowa,
August, 2014.
25. Bardina, J.E., Huang, P.G., Coakley, T.J., "Turbulence Modeling Validation, Testing, and
Development", NASA Technical Memorandum 110446, 1997.
26. Sukra Helitek, Inc.,“RotUNS Rotor UNStructured Solver Application”, Tutorials, Ames,
Iowa, August, 2014.
27. Theuns,L., “LCTR Data Report”.
Appendix A Test Configurations
Table A1 LCTR2 Full Model Configurations: Baseline consists of the LCTR2 wing, fuselage and tail [12].
Nacelle Angle w.r.t to the Wing Tip Additions

camber line [deg.]
L00 0 No Extensions
L00E 0 Extensions
L95 95 Extensions
L95E 95 No Extensions
L85 85 Extensions
L75 75 Extensions
L60 60 Extensions
LNNC No nacelles Wing caps
Table A2 Wing Only Configurations: Baseline consists of the LCTR2 wing [12].
With Nacelles Wing Tip Additions

WC No Wing caps
WN Yes No Extensions
WNE2L Yes LCTR 2 Wing Extensions
WNE2 - -
WE1 No Wing Extensions
Table A3 High speed test matrix [12].

L00E 0.8 – 1.4 -10 – 12 0 – 10
L00 0.8 – 1.4 -10 – 12 0 – 10
LNNC 0.8 – 1.4 -10 – 12 -5 – 10
Table A4 Low speed data test matrix [12].

L85 0.3 – 0.6 -10 – 10 0 – 180
0.6 0 -180 – 180
L95 0.6 0 0 – 180
L75 0.6 0 0 – 180
L60 0.6 0 0 – 180
L85E 0.3 – 0.6 -10 – 10 0 – 180
0.6 0 -180 – 180
L95E 0.6 0 0 – 180
L75E 0.6 0 0 – 180
L60E 0.6 0 0 – 180
LNNC 0.3 – 0.6 -10 – 10 -180 – 180
Appendix B Wind Tunnel Data
Table B1 Configuration L00E Run R255 [27].
Alpha Beta Q V Re M L D SF PM RM YM
1 -9,90 0,00 92,29 281,56 1,20 0,25 -137,68 37,79 -1,29 138,31 -3,54 5,82
2 -7,93 0,00 93,34 283,58 1,20 0,26 -71,12 28,50 0,89 149,31 1,74 -0,84
3 -5,92 0,00 94,10 284,98 1,21 0,26 11,84 23,16 1,17 136,50 2,64 -1,03
4 -5,92 0,00 94,08 285,02 1,21 0,26 12,15 23,09 1,17 136,38 3,93 -0,76
5 -3,95 0,00 94,97 286,40 1,21 0,26 96,27 20,12 0,86 117,69 2,02 1,25
6 -1,98 0,00 93,59 284,24 1,20 0,26 171,88 17,97 0,38 99,44 -1,12 5,36
7 0,00 0,00 93,50 284,21 1,20 0,26 249,83 17,91 0,76 79,03 -8,64 3,24
8 2,03 0,00 92,79 283,24 1,20 0,25 316,96 19,39 0,84 59,46 -12,90 0,03
9 4,07 0,00 94,17 285,39 1,20 0,26 356,18 23,64 1,35 33,93 -11,18 -2,45
10 6,04 0,00 93,45 284,26 1,20 0,26 405,01 28,59 0,71 6,61 -12,11 -0,87
11 8,07 -0,01 94,41 285,76 1,21 0,26 467,58 36,06 0,93 -21,48 -9,51 -1,83
12 10,06 0,00 93,54 284,41 1,20 0,26 513,75 46,66 2,72 -50,22 -8,79 -6,99
13 12,06 0,00 94,37 286,01 1,20 0,26 571,27 61,37 4,18 -86,13 -18,11 -10,35
14 0,04 0,00 95,02 287,01 1,21 0,26 262,74 18,18 0,41 80,16 -0,69 2,77
Table B2 Configuration L85 Run R334 [27].
Alpha Beta Q V Re M L D SF PM RM YM
1 0,05 -0,01 0,00 0,74 0,00 0,00 -0,09 -0,15 -0,12 -9,96 -0,06 1,23
2 0,06 -179,97 0,00 1,29 0,01 0,00 -1,89 0,32 -10,80 -24,02 18,50 -9,22
3 0,03 -179,97 22,82 138,22 0,60 0,12 14,81 29,90 -8,08 13,64 18,54 -23,96
4 0,06 -165,08 23,33 139,98 0,61 0,13 -0,20 32,23 6,57 -17,06 8,10 28,88
5 -0,02 -150,05 22,67 137,97 0,60 0,12 -0,51 37,24 13,64 -15,18 10,46 37,28
6 0,03 -135,06 22,61 137,92 0,60 0,12 12,93 53,09 23,00 -3,36 130,05 64,49
7 0,01 -120,06 22,91 138,84 0,60 0,12 8,85 64,99 20,59 9,42 -34,77 70,70
8 0,02 -105,02 23,12 139,48 0,60 0,13 6,77 74,26 12,38 -22,73 -39,83 77,79
9 0,07 -89,98 23,22 139,77 0,60 0,13 -14,10 79,32 -4,04 -33,22 25,75 54,38
10 0,05 -75,04 23,68 141,16 0,61 0,13 -13,98 72,21 -16,92 -33,29 -21,37 28,54
11 0,04 -60,00 23,46 140,49 0,61 0,13 -12,57 61,32 -26,82 -46,96 -19,70 14,78
12 0,05 -44,95 23,17 139,60 0,60 0,13 8,97 51,57 -31,59 -36,68 -17,79 15,40
13 0,09 -30,01 23,55 140,90 0,61 0,13 23,99 35,42 -22,05 2,49 4,08 15,50
14 0,06 -14,97 22,94 139,05 0,60 0,12 32,13 29,92 -10,03 14,66 5,38 10,58
15 0,05 -0,01 23,57 140,95 0,61 0,13 42,91 29,14 0,35 10,93 6,96 2,90
16 0,05 3,06 23,39 140,43 0,60 0,13 42,34 29,37 2,08 10,88 7,80 1,81
17 0,05 6,04 23,40 140,44 0,60 0,13 41,24 29,45 4,33 11,52 8,93 -0,79
18 0,05 9,03 23,36 140,31 0,60 0,13 38,76 29,63 6,14 14,11 8,16 -2,56
19 0,04 12,03 23,19 139,81 0,60 0,13 34,64 29,85 7,47 18,32 6,89 -2,61
20 0,05 15,01 22,84 138,73 0,60 0,12 29,99 30,27 8,86 21,85 4,22 -3,73
21 0,04 18,00 23,10 139,54 0,60 0,13 27,12 30,94 10,84 23,24 3,49 -5,42
22 0,04 20,99 23,05 139,37 0,60 0,12 25,05 30,77 13,27 26,06 2,75 -7,02
23 0,01 30,05 22,87 138,83 0,60 0,12 18,48 33,95 19,29 10,20 8,31 -9,76
24 0,04 45,01 23,40 140,56 0,60 0,13 -1,46 51,38 29,66 -15,36 14,99 -13,16
25 0,03 60,04 22,98 139,30 0,60 0,12 -16,41 61,11 27,27 -35,78 18,32 -16,84
26 0,04 69,07 23,36 140,45 0,60 0,13 -19,41 68,63 20,69 -31,25 32,20 -22,22
27 0,04 72,10 23,09 139,64 0,60 0,13 -18,36 69,73 15,71 -30,21 27,74 -26,79
28 0,04 75,08 22,93 139,15 0,60 0,12 -15,80 70,03 12,16 -31,20 24,39 -31,54
29 0,04 78,07 22,89 139,01 0,60 0,12 -14,30 71,93 10,28 -32,55 19,25 -35,73
30 0,05 81,07 22,98 139,31 0,60 0,12 -12,92 74,32 8,85 -32,94 10,47 -39,40
31 0,04 84,06 23,29 140,25 0,60 0,13 -12,02 78,96 7,55 -36,13 -4,32 -46,23
32 0,04 87,04 22,96 139,35 0,60 0,12 -12,85 81,08 3,93 -37,50 -15,08 -55,46
33 0,04 90,04 23,49 141,00 0,60 0,13 -10,50 83,96 0,56 -39,24 -15,92 -63,51
34 0,03 93,12 23,54 141,14 0,60 0,13 -6,65 83,67 -3,17 -39,76 -7,78 -70,93
35 0,04 96,10 24,01 142,55 0,61 0,13 -4,96 82,68 -8,86 -37,91 10,77 -76,39
36 0,03 99,09 23,60 141,33 0,60 0,13 -4,33 78,32 -10,55 -29,60 19,94 -72,81
37 0,05 102,09 23,32 140,53 0,60 0,13 -2,19 76,59 -13,51 -25,86 31,65 -75,22
38 0,05 105,07 23,20 140,25 0,60 0,13 -2,68 73,66 -14,06 -19,07 33,04 -72,57
39 0,04 108,06 23,03 139,74 0,59 0,12 -1,63 71,91 -15,62 -15,52 37,90 -74,73
40 0,03 111,05 22,87 139,24 0,59 0,12 0,41 69,61 -18,22 -13,88 43,80 -74,47
41 0,04 120,11 23,49 141,12 0,60 0,13 3,61 66,89 -24,77 -4,41 39,56 -70,35
42 0,06 135,07 23,87 142,27 0,61 0,13 -8,52 55,33 -28,91 2,90 13,23 -65,80
43 0,06 150,10 24,88 145,28 0,62 0,13 -0,45 41,41 -20,01 -9,13 6,07 -52,18
44 0,06 150,10 23,43 140,96 0,60 0,13 -0,99 39,00 -18,66 -10,84 4,21 -49,38
45 0,05 159,10 23,22 140,47 0,60 0,13 -1,32 33,94 -13,95 -10,12 5,02 -42,92
46 0,05 162,15 23,39 140,99 0,60 0,13 1,60 33,53 -13,02 -5,65 7,99 -43,06
47 0,05 165,14 23,58 141,54 0,60 0,13 4,49 32,52 -13,49 0,30 10,66 -41,79
48 0,04 168,13 23,52 141,44 0,60 0,13 7,58 31,00 -13,13 6,53 11,95 -40,55
49 0,04 171,12 23,63 141,85 0,60 0,13 9,48 30,81 -11,78 9,65 13,77 -41,27
50 0,03 174,11 23,68 142,00 0,60 0,13 14,17 30,35 -8,54 22,21 17,15 -33,38
51 0,03 177,19 23,90 142,65 0,60 0,13 16,44 30,53 -7,91 24,25 16,85 -29,09
52 0,04 178,84 23,95 142,82 0,60 0,13 17,04 29,90 -4,99 24,64 11,13 -18,62
53 0,04 -0,01 6,08 71,68 0,31 0,06 9,99 8,29 0,22 -7,08 3,16 0,01
54 0,04 0,03 0,01 3,18 0,01 0,00 0,32 -0,04 0,13 -11,15 -2,63 0,46
Appendix C Grid Study
Table C1 Initial grid study.
Case Time- Time Iterations Relaxation Time step Body fit Body Refinement
length steps size Refinement Box
1 0.3 3000 20 0.01 0.0001 No 6 2

2 0.3 3000 20 0.01 0.0001 No 6 3
3 0.3 3000 10 0.1 0.0001 Yes 6 No

4 0.3 3000 20 0.1 0.0001 Yes 6 No
5 0.3 3000 10 0.01 0.0001 Yes 6 2
6 0.3 3000 20 0.01 0.0001 Yes 6 2
7 0.3 3000 20 0.1 0.0001 Yes 6 3
8 0.3 3000 20 0.01 0.0001 Yes 6 3
9 0.3 3000 20 0.1 0.0001 Yes 6 4
10 0.3 3000 20 0.01 0.0001 Yes 6 4
11 0.3 3000 20 0.1 0.0001 Yes 7 0

12 0.3 3000 20 0.01 0.0001 Yes 7 0
13 0.09 3000 10 0.1 0.00003 Yes 6 No
14 0.09 3000 10 0.01 0.00003 Yes 6 No
15 0.09 3000 20 0.1 0.00003 Yes 6 No
16 0.09 3000 20 0.01 0.00003 Yes 6 No
17 0.09 3000 10 0.1 0.00003 Yes 6 2
18 0.09 3000 10 0.01 0.00003 Yes 6 2
19 0.3 3000 10 0.01 0.0001 Yes 6 3
20 0.3 3000 10 0.01 0.0001 Yes 6 4
21 0.09 3000 10 0.01 0.00003 Yes 6 3
22 0.09 3000 10 0.01 0.00003 Yes 6 2 and3
23 0.09 3000 10 0.01 0.00003 Yes 6 2 and 4
Table C2 Second grid study.
Case Time- Time Iterations Relaxation Time step Body fit Body Refinement
length steps size Refinement Box
1 0.3 3000 20 0.01 0,0001 Yes 6 3

2 0.5 5000 30 0.01 0,0001 Yes 6 3
3 0.5 5000 50 0.01 0,0001 Yes 6 3
4 1.5 5000 20 0.01 0,0003 Yes 6 3
5 1.5 5000 30 0.01 0,0003 Yes 6 3
6 1.5 5000 50 0.01 0,0003 Yes 6 3
7 2.5 5000 20 0.01 0,0005 Yes 6 3
8 2.5 5000 30 0.01 0,0005 Yes 6 3
9 2.5 5000 50 0.01 0,0005 Yes 6 3
10 5 5000 20 0.01 0,001 Yes 6 3
11 5 5000 30 0.01 0,001 Yes 6 3
12 0.09 3000 30 0.01 0,00003 Yes 6 No
13 0.09 3000 20 0.01 0,00003 Yes 6 No
Appendix D Front and Side View
Airplane mode in 0º yaw
Figure D1 Configuration of the LCTR in wall- Figure D2 Configuration of the LCTR in wall-
bounded conditions, front view. bounded conditions, side view.
bounded conditions without wing extensions, bounded conditions without wing extensions,
front view. side view.
Figure D5 Configuration of the LCTR in Figure D6 Configuration of the LCTR in

freestream conditions, front view. freestream conditions, side view.
Helicopter mode in 0º yaw
bounded conditions without wing extensions, bounded conditions without wing extensions,
front view. side view.
Appendix E Pressure Plots
Figure E1 Pressure plot of the LCTR in airplane mode with wind tunnel walls at tend.
Figure E2 Pressure plot of the LCTR in airplane mode with wind tunnel walls (W) and without wing
extensions at tend.
Figure E3 Pressure plot of the LCTR in airplane mode in freestream at tend.
Figure E4 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 0º yaw helicopter mode with wind tunnel walls (W) at tend.
Figure E5 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 0º yaw helicopter mode with wind tunnel walls and without wing
extensions at tprior.
Figure E6 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 0º yaw helicopter mode with wind tunnel walls and without wing
extensions at tend.
Figure E7 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 0º yaw helicopter mode in freestream at tend.
Figure E8 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 70º yaw helicopter mode with wind tunnel walls at tprior.
Figure E10 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 70º yaw helicopter mode in freestream at tprior.
Figure E13 Pressure plot of the LCTR in 90º yaw helicopter mode in freestream at tprior.
Appendix F Pressure and Turbulent Viscosity Field
Figure F1 Pressure field of the LCTR in wall- Figure F2 Pressure field of the LCTR in wall-
bounded conditions and without wing extensions bounded conditions and without wing extensions
at tend and y=0, side view. at tend and y=5, side view.
Figure F3 Turbulence viscosity field of the Figure F4 Turbulence viscosity field of the
LCTR in wall-bounded conditions at tend and LCTR in wall-bounded conditions at tend and
y=0, side view. y=5, side view.
Figure F5 Turbulence viscosity field of the Figure F6 Turbulence viscosity field of the
LCTR in wall-bounded conditions at tend and LCTR in wall-bounded conditions at tend and
y=2.5, side view. y=3.5, side view.
Figure F1 Turbulence viscosity field of the

LCTR in wall-bounded conditions at tend and
y=4.5, side view.
Figure F7 Pressure field of the LCTR in wall- Figure F8 Turbulence viscosity field of the
bounded conditions and without wing extensions LCTR in wall-bounded conditions and without
at tend, side view. wing extensions at tend, side view.
bounded conditions and without wing extensions LCTR in wall-bounded conditions and without
at tprior, side view. wing extensions at tprior, side view.
bounded conditions at tend, side view. LCTR in wall-bounded conditions at tend, side
view.
bounded conditions at tprior, side view. LCTR in wall-bounded conditions at tprior, side
view.
Figure F15 Pressure field of the LCTR in Figure F16 Turbulence viscosity field of the
freestream conditions at tend, side view. LCTR in freestream conditions at tend, side view.
freestream conditions at tprior, side view. LCTR in freestream conditions at tprior, side view.
freestream conditions at tend, side view. LCTR in freestream conditions at tend, side view.
Figure F21 Pressure field of the LCTR in Figure F22 Turbulence viscosity field of the LCTR
freestream conditions at tprior, side view. in freestream conditions at tprior, side view.

Sahin E.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Sahin E.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sahin E.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CFD result in RotCFD of LCTR in helicopter mode [1].

Analysis of Large Civil Tilt Rotor Wind Tunnel

Master of Science Thesis

Safiye Esma Sahin

Safiye Esma Sahin

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

at the Delft University of Technology,

Dr. ir. A.H. van Zuijlen, Aerodynamics and Wind Energy,

Dr. ir. B.W. van Oudheusden, Aerodynamics and Wind Energy,

Dr. ir. R. Vos, Flight Performance and Propulsion,

An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/.

Delft, 15 November 2016

How can the flow field of the LCTR be modeled?

The blockage study of different geometries gives the following sub-goals:

2.1. Civil Tiltrotor (CTR)

Table 2.1 LCTR2-02 mission requirements [9].

Design Constraint Value Units

3.1. Wind Tunnel

Figure 3.1 7- by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel circuit [11].

Figure 3.4 Test section of 7- by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel, dimensions in ft.

SOUTH Profile Locations SOUTH NORTH Profile Locations NORTH

SOUTH Profile Locations SOUTH NORTH Profile Locations NORTH

3.2. Aircraft Model

Table 3.1 LCTR and Wind tunnel model parameters [10]

Parameter Full-Scale LCTR Wind Tunnel Model Units

Wing span 1284 77.04 [in]

Nacelle length 321 15.8 (2) [in]

Wing extension length 180 10.8 [in]

Fuselage length 1307 78.4 [in]

Figure 3.9 Wing only test configuration [3].

Figure 3.12 The three different wing configurations [10].

3.4. Wind Tunnel Effects

3.4.1. Blockage Types

3.4.2. Wall Interference

Figure 3.20 Effect of wing-tip configuration on

4.2. Flow Solver

4.3. Turbulence Model

4.5. RotCFD Interface

Figure 4.3 Graphical User Interface.

4.5.1. Flow Properties

4.5.2. Wall Boundary Conditions

4.5.3. Grid Specifications

Approach & Results

Table 5.1 Blockage ratios for the LCTR.

Frontal area [in^2] Blockage [%]

Model only 220.444 2.187

Model only 665.770 6.605

Airplane mode – Pitch: 0 deg., Yaw: 0 deg.

6.1. RotCFD Assumptions

6.2. RotCFD Settings

Table 6.1 LCTR RotCFD settings.

Flow properties Airplane Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Units

6.2.2. Boundary Conditions

Position Length [ft]

6.3. Grid Study

6.4. Convergence Study

6.5. Wall pressure study