NASA

/ TM--1998-20663

Design and Performance Calculations of a Propeller for Very High Altitude Flight
L. Danielle Lewis Koch Center, Cleveland, Ohio Research

National Space

Aeronautics Administration

and

Lewis

Research

Center

February

1998

::ii!ili!i_ ....
:iii!iiiiii_._

Available NASA Center for Aerospace Information 800 Elkridge Landing Road 'Lin_icum Heights, MD 21090-2934. Price Code: A07

from. National Technical Information Service

5287 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 221!2_) Price Code: A07

DESIGN

AND

PERFORMANCE FOR VERY HIGH

CALCULATIONS ALTITUDE

OF A PROPELLER

FLIGHT

by L. DANIELLE KOCH

Submitted

in partial

fulfillment

of the requirements in Engineering

for the degree

of Masters

of Science

Thesis

Advisor:

Dr. Eli Reshotko

Department CASE

of Mechanical WESTERN

and Aerospace

Engineering

RESERVE

UNIVERSITY

DESIGN

AND

PERFORMANCE FOR VERH HIGH

CALCULATIONS ALTITUDE

OF A PROPELLER FLIGHT

:,ii!_
:_iiii!il

by L. DANIELLE KOCH

'iiiii_

ABSTRACT

Reported flight kW Mach theories in Earth's (85 hp) 0.40. were

here is a design stratosphere. km (85,000 the with

study

of a propeller presented aircraft classic

for a vehicle were

capable

of subsonic 63.4 at

All propellers r) final while design,

required was and from

to absorb maintained

at 25.9 To

cruise

velocity

produce

momentum results

blade-element the Advanced

combined

two and

three-dimensional

Ducted

Propfan The

Analysis 387

Code airfoil

(ADPAC), was used data theory

a numerical for each from design the and

Navier-Stokes of the constant

analysis section

code. propeller Pressure The

Eppler

designs Tunnel

compared. was used

Experimental in the strip

Langley analysis

Low-Turbulence programs

written.

experimental and a Mach

data was also used to validate number are compared low used of 0.20. for a range number

ADPAC

at a Reynolds and calculated

numbers surface

of 60,000 pressure

Experimental of angles transonic

coefficients Since ADPAC Reynolds was

of attack. experimental section data was unavailable, for to

Reynolds to generate of 60,000

two-dimensional and 100,000

performance numbers ranging

predictions from 0.45

numbers

and Mach

vii

0.75.

Surfacepressurecoefficientsare presentedfor selectedanglesof attack, in

lift and drag model coefficients at each flow condition. was made which ADPAC used were
_iiiiii!

additionto the variation of

A three-dimensional to calculated with propeller strip-theory was

of the final design ADPAC at design

performance. calculations within 1.5% of

performance point. by torque

predictions Propeller strip theory coefficients assumptions

compared predicted although approximately

efficiency methods, were made

by ADPAC ADPAC

of that calculated power, results. seen. and

predictions

thrust,

5% lower account

than the strip theory for the differences

Simplifying

in the strip theory

iiiil

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
How
!ii:_:

fortunate

I am to have

so many

blessings

to count!

For

their

patience

and guidance, takes special

I would

like to thank

Dr. Eli Reshotko and I am sincerely

and

Dr. Christopher to have

Miller. been able

It to

skill to be a teacher, examples. their unfailing

grateful

learn by your For Colozza.of

enthusiasm,

I would a long

like to thank and bumpy

Dave road,

Bents

and

Tony

the ERAST

team.

It has been

and your

optimism

has really For

made

a difference. financial support available, While I am I would slightly a better like to thank NASA, Jeff of

making Thomas, assigned gained

Haas, Wayne my normal experience

and Chuck duties,

Mehalie. that work.

beyond engineer

the boundaries because

I believe

of the

through

this thesis

ix

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

................................................................................................................. .......................................................................................... ...................................................................................................... ........................................................................................... of Airfoil and Airfoil Performance Data ..............................

vii ix xi 1 6 22 42 52

ACKNOWLEDGEMEI_S NOMENCLATURE CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER

1--Introduction 2---Selection 3---Grid Study

and ADPAC Design Using

Validataion Experimental

.................................................. Airfoil Data .......................... ....................

4---Propeller 5---ADPAC

Two-Dimensional

Aerodynamic

Predictions

6---Propeller Design Two-Dimensional 7---ADPAC 8--Conclusion

and Analysis Using ADPAC Predictions Performance

............................................ Calculations ...................

86 97 114 116

CHAPTER CHAPTER REFERENCES

Three-Dimensional

.......................................................................................

........................................................................................................

NOMENCLATURE
a = speed chord = = of sound

.... ii!!! !_'_

ii!iiii!!i:i

Cd CI

drag coefficient lift coefficient

= D/(qS) = L/(qS)

Cp

pressure

coefficient=

2 ,, 2+(r-OM
(y)M,o 2 2 +(y -1)M _

CP

power torque

coefficient coefficient coefficient

= P/(pn3d s) = Q/(pn2d s) = T/(pn2d 4)

CQ
CT d D = = =

thrust

diameter drag specific advance stored energy

ratio = V/(nd)

L M

= =

lift Mach number = V/a

n P

= =

rotational power dynamic torque

speed

._.

pressure

= 0.5pV

xi

r
Rtip

radius

= =

tip radius wing thrust x component y component freestream z component of velocity of velocity velocity of velocity distance from airfoil surface area
ii!ili!!i_'

chordwise distance

dimensionless t_ 13 = = angle twist of attack angle

distance

= (y/v)(XwJ9)

efficiency dynamic kinematic = density shear stress

= (CT*J)/CP viscosity viscosity

"l_wail

at the wall

ii, _i! _i

xii

CHAPTER

1-INTRODUCTION Background

Concern can make very

for the environment high altitude subsonic

and determination flight a remotely is being under program. between 24.4 of possible. piloted

to overcome Driven vehicle by

a new

challenge of the flying federal, Aircraft

by the needs capable of of

atmospheric subsonically industrial, and Sensor

research in the and

community, stratosphere partners (ERAST)

developed NASA's

a consortium Research

academic

Environmental

Technology

In-situ (100,000 of Earth's from from

measurements

at altitudes

km (80,000 the dynamics laboratory aircraft,

fi)and

30.5

km

ft) are needed atmosphere.

to further These

our understanding would

and chemistry research, data

measurements taken

augment

samples satellites

of the lower and balloons. more

stratosphere A better responsible

by the ER-2

and measurements of the atmosphere to live, ,,v_._,rk_

fundamental decisions

understanding in the way

can help and travel.

us to make

we choose

Undeniably, formidable meeting ultimate Leadership modified challenge. either the

development Currently, program's

of there near

suitable

propulsion propulsion of

system systems km

is

the

most of

are no existing altitude goal

capable

term ft).

25.3

(83,000

ft) or

goal of 30.5 km (100,000 Team ( Ref. 1) suggest plant

Studies

summarized goal

by the ERAST may

program's a

that

the near term

be met by either combustion engine.

gas turbine

power

or a turbocharged

reciprocating

-::

::

::.-

:::::,::

::::::

:::::

:::::

: ::::::::::::::::::::::::

:::

::

::

::

::

Non-airbreathing aircraft

or hybrid

systems goal.

are the most

likely

candidates

for propelling

an

to the ultimate For many to thrust to meet

altitude

of the

conceptual

aircraft Presented

being

considered,

power

produced study

is of

transferred a propeller available Strip-theory results numerical from

by a propeller.

here is an aerodynamic requirements methods, with two using

design the most

the near term ERAST tools, analysis Ducted analysis design

vehicle

readily data.

computational design the and

and analysis are used

and experimental and

methods Propfan code,

three-dimensional 7 (ADPAC), a

Advanced

Analysis

Code-Version design.

Navier-Stokes

to develop

a propeller

Propeller Design requirements studies done. is an iterative that are based The ERAST system propeller mission performance Table Altitude Power Maximum Relative Mach Mach Number Number process. on the best requirements

Requirements It begins results with a carefully chosen set of

of any conceptual 1 have in Table been 2

or experimental derived and the from the

in Table shown

Near-Term propulsion

requirements (Ref. 1).

expected

1. Propeller

Requirements 25.9 km (85,000 ft) 63.4 kW (85 hp) 0.80 0.40

Cruise

Table Mission Mission altitude

2. ERAST

Mission

Requirements Goal Long-Term (2000 +) 30.5 km ( 100,000 ft) 4000 km (2160 nmi) Goal

Near-Term (1998 25.3 km

- 2000)

Operational Payload Payload

Radius weight

(83,000 ft) 1000 km (539 nmi) 150 kg (330 lbm) Access to undisturbed in moderate

225 kg (496 lbm) free stream turbulence to -100 C crosswinds worldwide 0.40 < M < 0.85

accommodations range Constraints Capability Operation

Airspeed Operational Crosswind

Can operate in ambient Takeoff To remote

air temperatures in moderate 15 knots) at airfields

and landing (minimum base

Deployment

of operations

Overview of the
Having method thesis chapters to meet are briefly a firm them. set The

Design

and Analysis the

Methods must

Used then decide presented in depth upon a

of requirements, steps taken

designer

to arrive at the final Each step will be

design

in this in the

described

below.

discussed

to follow.

Step While

1.

The this

Eppler airfoil

387 airfoil was

was

chosen thicker

for the constant than those to have

section

propeller

blade.

considerably because

typically good

used

for propeller at low

sections, Reynolds theory validate

it was

selected

it was lift and surface

known drag static

perfomlance be used that could

numbers. programs, ADPAC

Experimental as well as the

data that could pressure data

in the stripbe used to

was available

for this airfoil.

;_;i:ep 2. density airfoil. calculated range

A grid

study

was

conducted

to determine

an acceptable calculations was

computational of the Eppler

mesh 387

for the two-dimensional Having identified pressure

ADPAC

performance mesh, ADPAC

an appropriate coefficients

validated

by comparing for a

surface

to experimental

pressure

coefficients

of angles

of attack.

Step 3. A strip-theory by Adkins and Liebeck

design (Ref.

program 2)

was written The low

based

on the procedures number, low Mach

described number

Reynolds

experimentaldata from the Eppler 387 were incorporatedinto the program and a seriesof propellersweredesigned.

Step 4.

The ADPAC codewas usedto calculatetwo-dimensionalairfoil section

performance for higherMachnumbers sinceno experimental datawerefoundfor this regime. The Reynoldsnumber-Machnumbercombinationswere identified by the resultsof Step3.

Step 5. The resultsfrom Step4 were incorporated into the strip-theorydesignand analysiscodes. Another setof propellerswas designed, examinedand comparedto arrive at the final geometry. Off designperformance calculationsweremadefor the final propellerdesignwith the strip-theoryanalysisprogram.

Step 6. A three-dimensional computational meshfor the final propeller designwas made,andADPAC was usedto make a three-dimensional performanceprediction. TheADPAC resultwascompared to the strip-theoryresultat the designpoint.

CHAPTER Selection of Airfoil and Airfoil

2 Performance Data

The airfoil analysis of airfoil account. programs, in good

propeller and

designer's airfoil using

most

critical data. methods number

decisions Accuracy

lie in the selection of a propeller

of blade design or

sections conducted

performance strip theory Reynolds

will be compromised and Mach number

if any variation is not taken design into

performance While results agreement

with

the designer cannot

may be aided

by modem

numerical until

and analysis is

be used with any confidence data. in high much and altitude research

calculated

perfomaance

with experimental renewed energy interest conversion,

With sailplanes, understanding subsonic flows

the

remotely has been two

piloted done

vehicles,

and wind of the

to gain a better dimensional below

behavior

of steady numbers.

unsteady, Reynolds

and

three

at low Reynolds by Mueller

Low 3, since

numbers

are those

10 6, as defined layer this

in Refe_:ence separation research and analyze

the unpredic:tiblity

of the boundary role of in

and the effects regime. Results tools

of laminar of this

and reattachment has led to the

play an important development Even

many

computational of the laminar modelling challenge

to design layer

airfoils

in this regime. understood

so, behavior and a

boundary

is still not completely over airfoils

and measurement numbers still presents

of the boundary (Ref. 3)

layer

at low Reynolds

For subsonic flows, the laminar boundary layer over an airfoil at low Reynoldsnumberhasbeenobserved to behavein threedifferent pattemsasreported in Reference3. The laminar boundarylayer may either transition naturally to a turbulentboundarylayer,may fully separate from the airfoil surface, or may separate andreattach to the airfoil surfaceforminga laminarseparation bubble. Performance is best if the laminar boundarylayer naturally transitionsto a turbulent boundary layer before reaching the adverse pressuregradient. With increasedenergy, the turbulent boundary layer is able to withstand the adverse pressure gradientandthe flow will be ableto stayattached to the airfoil surfacemuch longeryielding good lift anddragcharacteristics. Full separationresultsin a severeperformancedegradation. The airfoil will stall at high anglesof attackwhen the laminarboundarylayer completelyseparates from the airfoil surfacenearthe leadingedge. Full separation canalsooccurat lower anglesof attack if the laminar boundarylayer is unableto overcomean adverse pressure gradient. A separationbubbleis formed when the laminar boundarylayer, unableto overcomean adversepressuregradient,separates but then reattaches to the airfoil surfaceaftertransitioningto turbulent. Typically, the laminar shearlayerwill begin transitioning immediately downstreamof the separationpoint. The separated

turbulentshearlayerwill thengrow quickly entrainingflow from the free stream until it reattaches to the airfoil surface.Within the bubble is a region of slow moving

<

:NI

i::

::i:i .....

i i:::_!::!_

i!i

!_i

ii ...... :

'_:_i:!iii

Hi,!+ii?i,i !ii!?!?!i!:i :_;ii!!!?i:!i_!i,:!!_!i!ii!!i! _<i!i_iiii!:i!!iii-_: '!ii!?_i'ii!i!! ii!!iii!ii!!ii_i?ii!7!!!?i'i!i!i!ii!!iiiiiii+iii!!!i!!ill I_I!

reversed airfoil rapidly

flow surface

with the pressure

center remains

of the vortex nearly constant

lying

near

the reattachment the bubble region

point.

The

across

and increases

near the point The length is able number levels, have

where

the flow reattaches. separation bubble depends separation upon bubbles seen, how rapidly the laminar as chord free stream layer tripping and has time

of the

shear

layer

to transition. is decreased. airfoil been surface

Generally, While

will lengthen increasing

Reynolds turbulence devices improving also been

not always

clearly

roughness,

and employing the laminar

boundary separation pressure

usually

effective (Re length

in shortening 3). Increasing

bubble gradient the

airfoil seen

performance to reduce the

the adverse bubble

of the separation

by reducing

needed

for transition Preliminary

(Ref. 4). studies showed could could found found Pressure number range data, and angle good that at an altitude vary range for from 50,000 of 25.9 km (85,000 to 200,000 design Reynolds while limit fi) propeller relative of 0.80. freeNo

blade stream

Reynolds Mach

numbers numbers data results was were

ffc,r;_ 0.40 this transonic

to the low

experimental Experimental Langley 460,000 quality and other drag

number tested

regime. at the to high lift, over tile

for an Eppler Tunnel

387 airfoil

that had been numbers Because surface was

Low-Turbulence and a Mach

(LTPT)

at Reynolds (Ref. 5).

of 60,000 of the pressure, chosen for

of 0.03 .to 0.13 the availability

of the experimental coefficients with at each known

of airfoil

of attack, performance

the Eppler at low

387 airfoil Reynolds

airfoils

numbers

constantsectionpropeller. This sectionis much thicker than

normally entire chosen was for propellers made tip sections. The simplification only, simplifying

the transonic of one airfoil programming

airfoils for the and

blade

for academic

purposes

modelling. The the Langley in Figures always seen variation LTPT 1 and of the lift and drag for Reynolds 2. numbers coefficients of 60,000, for the Eppler 100,000 387 measured at

and 200,000 separation

are shown was not

At a Reynolds

number

of 60,000, reattachment.

laminar

observed in Figure until

to be followed 1, as the airfoil

by turbulent stalls around

This phenomenon layer separation of 4.00 . nature separation this.

can be did not with The

c_ = 3.00 and the boundary In fact, both at an angle phenomena, of attack

reattach and

an angle

of attack were

of 7.50 . observed

without

reattachment, techniques number. further

measurement

used were not able to resolve This behavior may would loops result

the unsteady from short

of the flow bubbles McGhee, LTPT

at this Reynolds bursting, Walker, although

experimentation no hysteresis to study

be needed

to prove

iand Millard

observed

for this airfoil effects

in the Langley for Reynolds

in a set of experiments from 60,000 to 300,000. 3 through

designed

hysteresis

numbers

Figures surface

5 show

the variation from

of pressure 60,000

coefficients

on the airfoil of attack pressure of the

for Reynolds From these and

numbers figures

ranging and

to 200,000 in Reference showed

for an angle 5, surface that the length

of 8.00 . measurements

others

reported techniques

oil flow

visualization

10

separationbubble decreasedas Reynolds number was increased. Oil flow visualizationindicatedthat the boundarylayer naturallytransitionedfor a Reynolds numberof 200,000anda = 8.O0 . TheEppler 387hasbeentestedin several otherfacilities andthe datafrom the Langley Low-TurbulencePressureTunnel have been used to validate numerous airfoil design and analysiscodes. Comparisons of theseresults shedlight on the many challenges still faced. Reference5 presents experimentalresultsfrom testsof two dimensionalmodelsof the Eppler 387 in the Low TurbulenceWind Tunnel at Delft andthe Model Wind Tunnel at Stuttgart. As reportedin Reference 5 andseen again in Figures6 through 11 , observations at Langley for a Reynoldsnumber of 60,000wereconfirmedin testsof an Eppler387sectionin the Low TurbulenceWind Tunnel at Delft, but not by testsin the:Model Wind Tunnel at Stuttgart. Reasons for thesediscrepancies are still unknownbut havebeenassociated with differencesin tunnel turbulencelevels, model quality, model mounting configurations,and force measurement methods. The Eppler-Somers code(Re 5) andDrela's XFOIL andISEScodes(Ref. 6, 7) areamongthe designandanalysiscodesthathavebeenvalidatedwith the Eppler 387 data taken at Langley. The XFOIL and ISES codesuse an inviscid/viscous interaction technique while the Eppler-Somerscode couples complex mapping, potential flow and boundary, layer techniquestogetherto solve for the flow field around an airfoil. General agreementbetweenthe calculatedand experimental

11

resultswas good for eachof thesecodes,althoughagreement degraded asReynolds number decreased.This degradationis inherent to the techniqueused since as Reynoldsnumberdecreases andthe boundarylayerthickensthe interactionbetween the inviscid andviscousregion getsstrongerandthe boundarylayer approximations becomelessaccurate (Ref. 8). At Reynoldsnumbersabove 100,000thesecodesare practicaldesigntoolsbecause theycansolvefor anairfoil's performance quickly.

l
r_

01

ol

==

(D

(1,)

O4 00_,D

=o"
II

o. c/c:/
o H H

k_
ooo ooo ooo H li fl

e_

ee

I3 'lu!oU23

_!'I
em

13

1.4

w=-,4

v==l

ol,--{

!
0.01 0.02

!
0.03

I
0.04 Drag Coefficient,

I
0.05 Cd

I
0.06

!
0.07 0.08

_-_ Figure 2" Variation

Re = 60,000 M = 0.05 Re = 100,000 M = 0_08 Re = 200,000 M ...._,.G6 of Drag Coefficient with Reynolds Pressure Number "Funnel as Measured at

the Langley

Low-Turbulence

14

-5

2, - l'-"

0 "0 ...... 0 ---0 ..... 0 ------0 ---0 __0___0 - 0

0..

-0-0

0 ...... 0 ..... 0 ...... 0---0-_-0

.... 0-----0 .... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... o-

0 ----0 .... o

2 0

I 0.1

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0.6

l 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

1 l

X/C
-oLangley Data, M = 0.05

Figure

3" Pressure

Coefficient

versus

Non-Dimensional and _ = 8.01

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 60,000

Laminar Separation Oil Flow Visualization

0

Turbulent Reattachment Oil Flow Visualization 0 .... 0 ...... 0 ....... _.... 0 ....... 0 ..

-I0--. 0 0 ........ 0 ...... 0 ......... 0----0----0...... 0---0 ...... 0 ...... 0---0 .... 0 -- O----0 ..... O 0 0 0 -0 .... 0 O0 o

: _>oooo
l 0.1 I 0.2 I 0.3 I 0.4 I 0.5 I 0.6 i 0.7 I 0.8 I 0.9 ,

X/C
-oLangley Data_ M = 0.08

Figure

4: Pressure

Coefficient

versus

Non-Dimensional and _ = 8.00

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 100,000

15

-5

-4

Natural Transition Oil Flow Visualization -2O -O ........O0_0 .... 0 -.

--1

""

O. 00 ..... 0 ........ 0 .... 0---0 .... O----O .... 0--0 .... 0 .... 0 ..... 0 .... 0 0 .... O-

0 0

I 0.1

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0.6

I 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

X/C
-OLangley Data, M = 0.06

Figure

5" Pressure

Coefficient

versus

Non-Dimensional and t_ = 8.00

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 200,000

16

1.3

I I

\ i _'

:/"

v=--4

//

v==t

_o / o ./

/"

O
/ _==l

,/ .

,/'

//'

/
/

_1'_,// I
/

i /
4I
-5 0

i
5

I
10

I
15 20

_, degrees
-o- Langley Dats_: Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.16% -+ Delft Data, Tuanei Turbulence Level = 0.03% ->< Stuttgart Data, TunnelTurbulence Level - 0.08%

Figure

6- Comparison of Measured Lift Coefficients from Tests at Langley, Delft, and Stuttgart

versus Angle of Attack at Re = 60,000

17

13

v==-4

o=q

L)
-I-,,,4

..

,,

--0.1

,?-.

<, I
O.O5

-0.2 0.02

I
0.03

!
0.04

I
0.O6

I
0.07 0.08

Drag Coefficient, Cd
-e-x:. --'_Langley Data, Tunnel Turbulence Intensity = 0.16% Dolt1 Data, Tunnel Turbul__::_=_ IntcrL_ity = 0.03% Stuttgart Data, Tunnel Tur_en_ Intensity = 0.08%

Figure

7- Comparison Tests

of Measured Delft,

Lift Coefficients and Stuttgart

versus

Drag Coefficients

at Langley,

at Re = 60,000

18

Io4

/_" ,

.-I- " 1--.._4. . .*I____.._ _. -I-" ._._q---_ "

.,, ./ /

/' / .. / /

I'

/.//I

..

p-
/

i / ._.

/ ;

/ //._.

.....
v,-
/'//

_(
/'/ //

....

02
/.'_

"

.;

/?
I_/"

:.,
//

.I.-.-4.

/ /

I
-5 0

I or, degrees
5

I
10 15

-o- Langley Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 006% Deltt Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.03% -_ Stuttgart Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.08% Figure 8: Comparison of Measured Lift Coefficients Tests at Langley, Delft, and Stuttgart versus Angle of Attack at Re = 100,000 from

19

1.4

1.2

"-

1-

0.8-

v-_

0.6-

v-q

0.4-

0.2--

0-

-0.: 0.01

I
0.025

!
Drag Coefficient,
4

I
0.055 0.07

Cd

-_-_

Langley Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level .... 9.06% DeLft Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.03% Stuttgart Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.08%

Figure

9: Comparison of Measured Tests at Langley, Delft,

Lift Coefficients versus Drag Coefficients and Stuttgart at Re = 100,000

20

_=,,I

O O O O

_,=1

J
/

+'! /
t

I
-5 0

I
5

I
10

!
15 2O

co, degrees -_-_ -_ Figure Langley Data.. Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.06% DclR Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0_03% Stuttgart Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.08% versus Angle of Attack at Re200,000

10: Comparison of Measured Lift Coefficients from Tests at Langley, Delft, and Stuttgart

21

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Drag Coefficient, Cd -o-_ Figure Langley Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.06% Delft Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level - 0.03% Stuttgart Data, Tunnel Turbulence Level = 0.08% Lift Coefficients versus Drag and Stuttgart at Re = 200,000 Coefficients

11- Comparison of Measured Tests at Langley, Delft,

CHAPTER
Grid ADPAC code that was Study and ADPAC

3 Validation Euler/Navier-Stokes to study code the analysis effects enough of to

is a three-dimensional originally developed

time-marching to enable (Ref. other

researchers 9). The

compressor allow much helpful a single to create provided

casing

and endwall for analysis

treatments applications

is flexible

it to be used of its flexibility when

than

compressors. grid system.

ADPAC

geins is

from the use of a multiple-block complicated geometries where

This feature

studying

it may not be possible grid system

to create allows one are

structured different to allow While the

grid of the flowfield. grids for different blocks been areas

The multiple-block of the flowfield.

Special

commands

the different code had

to communicate validated was for

with each other. several turbomachinery in the regime 387 experimental and of interest data from nonfor the

turbomachinery the ERAST I,angley

applications, propeller. were

ADPAC

unvalidated Eppler

The two-dimensional used for this validation. at hand was to conduct computational

LTPT The

first task

a grid study. mesh density

The purpose for which

of the grid a solution is

study

is to identify

the minimum

independent the grid must bubbles were

of the number be sufficiently Several Measured

of grid points. dense 'C' grids

For subsonic

low Reynolds '_layer

number

flow_:_

to resolve of the flow from

the boundaD field around

and any separation 387 geometry of the airfoil

formed. created.

the Eppler model

coordinates

the Langley

pressure

22

23

"Level 3" grid had23,409points,andthe "Level 2" grid had5,945points. Eachgrid extendedten chordlengths upstream,downstream, above,and below the blade. The minimum acceptablenumber of points is desiredto reduce computationaltime. Increasingthe numberof grid points past that of the Level 4 meshwas considered prohibitive. Views of the entirecomputational domainfor the threetwo-dimensional gridscanbe foundin Figures12through14. Figures15throl,gh 17 showthe portion of eachmeshcloseto the airfoil surfaceanddisplaythe packingof grid points in the boundarylayerregion. Two otherfiles arerequiredby ADPAC in orderto run a calculation,an input file and a boundarydatafile. The input file containsparameters that allow one to scalethe non-dimensional grid. In the boundarydatafile, one canspecify the angle of attackand how the boundariesof the grid are to be treated.A combination of parameters within the input andboundarydatafiles setthe flow conditions. For all the two-dimensionalairfoil performancecalculations,the freestreamMach num_?,.r _ was fixed on the horizontal straight sections of the outer boundary of the computationalgrid. Total temperature and total pressurewere fixed on the inlet curved sectionof the outer
vertical velocity Mach exit plane A no-slip at the blade number below boundary, condition and static pressure was fixed at the straight the

was imposed ADPAC

on the blade

surface, code,

forcing

to be zero. Because set.

is a compressible for the

a freestream data were

of 0.20 was 0.10.

The Mach

numbers

experimental

generally

24

Eachgrid was usedto calculatethe flow at Reynoldsnumbersof 60,000, 100,000and200,000while angleof attackwasnominally 8.00.
set to match airfoil chordwise that given by the experiment. coefficients Figures plotted 18 through against data. the Good Angle of attack was

20 show

the calculated

surface position

pressure

non-dimensionalized agreement seen between even at a of all

and compared

to the experimental

the computations Reynolds three cases. Figure number

with the Level. 4 grid and the experimental of 60,000 which would have the longest

data was separation

bubble

21 shows inverse

a comparison number more

of the calculated of mesh grid points lines layer. must

value

of the lift coefficient Reynolds number. the

as As

a function Reynolds surface

of the number

for each be

increases, the thinner

packed

towards distance 10 as:

airfoil

to resolve from

boundary

The dimensionless in Reference

of the grid

line away

the wall,

y+, is defined

by Schlichting

YI
+

"l_wallp

where is the

y is the dimensional shear stress The at the

distance wall,

of the grid line away fluid density,

from and

the airfoil

surface,

x,,.,,,

p is the

v is the 4 mesh

fluid

kinematic

viscosity. chord point

values

of y+ for the first grid line of the Level 0.0915, and 0.1537 for Reynolds numbers

at the quarter 100,000,

are 0.0624, respectively.

of 60,000,

and 200,000,

25

Accompanying each solution is a set of convergence plots. Figures 22 through 24 containtwo convergence plots for eachsolution: the Root Mean Square (RMS) Error, andthe Numberof Separated pointsat eachiteration. The RootMean Square Error was definedto be the sumof the squares of the residualsof all the cells in the mesh, the residualbeing the sum of the changesof the five conservative variables,p, pu, pv, pw, andpe. The ADPAC definition of a separated point was a cell whosevalue for Vxwasnegative.Generally,for the low Mach numbercases, the calculationwas run until the numberof separated points seemed to be constantand theresidualswerereduced by atleastthreeordersof magnitude. The Level 4 grid was then usedfor a seriesof calculationsat a Reynolds numberof 60,000 andanglesof attackrangingfrom -2.94 to 12.00 . The Level 4 grid was chosenbecauseof the good agreementbetween the surfacepressures calculatedby ADPAC andthe experimentaldataat a Reynoldsnumber of 60,000 (Fig. 18). Lift coefficientswerecalculatedfor eachangleof attackandcanbe seen comparedto the Langleyresultsin Figure25. Pressure coefficientdistributionsare presentedin Figures26 through 31 for eachof the colored points in Figure 25. Figures32 through 37 are the corresponding convergence histories for eachof the selectedADPAC calculations. Sincethe viscousdragresult was unavailablefrom ADPAC, it wasestimated by calculatingskin friction dragon both sidesof a flat plate drag(Ref. 10):

26

Cd=

1.328

The total Langley

of the viscous

plus pressure in Figure good

drag 38.

coefficients

were

then

plotted

against

the

data and are shown There was generally values. analysis

agreement

between

the ADPAC

calculated

values

and the experimental other numerical

Examination was

of the plots shows to predict the

that ADPAC, laminar stall

like many that increase was in For

codes,

unable

measured measured angles

at Langley drag of attack

at angles

of attack was

from 3.00 to 7.50 . The marked by this version agreement

in this region less than data than

also unpredicted is not good edge

of ADPAC.

8.01 there

between predicting LTPT results

the calculated recompression (Fig. 26 - 29).

and experimental farther upstream

near the trailing was seen

with ADPAC

in experiments prediction

in the Langley

Agreementbetween edge improves

the ADPAC at ar_gles of attack

and the experimental

at the trailing

of 8.01 o and greater

(Fig. 30 - 31).

27

=J=

/!!/
!!r/

,, ,.,_

Figure

12:

Entire

Level

2 Computational

Mesh

of the Eppler

387 Airfoil

Figure

13" Entire

Level

3 Computational

Mesh

for the Eppler

387 Airfoil

N omll

oml

mu_ oj_

_u
ollt

c_

m_

c_ 00 C_
oN

c_

E
C_ c_ c_

_N
onU

v_

c_

omU

c_

_O
omu

29

Figure

16" Portion

of Level

3 Mesh

Close

to the Airfoil

Surface

Figure

17"

Portion

of Level

4 Computational

Mesh

Close

to the Airfoil

Surface

30

-5

0 ,_

........

_..____,_.____._:_

__,_ .... ___-___,--__-_----__---=--_----"_

1 "_i 2 0

"_ "_'__ 0.1 I 0.2 I 0.3 I 0.4 I 0.5 I 0.6 I 0.7 ! 0.8 I 0.9

o ---

Langley

Data,

M = 0.05 M = 0.20 M = 0.20 M = 0.20

X/C

Lovol 4 Mosh, Lovol 3 Mesh, Lovol 2 Mesh,

Figure

18:

Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional Mesh Densities,

Chordwise

Position

and

Different

Computational

Re - 60,000

and _ = 8.01

-5

i
3

_
___ ___

-2!_::_.

1 2

IT_

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Langloy Lovel 4 -Lovel 3 - " Lovel 2

Data, Mesh, Mesh, Mesh,

M M M M

= = = =

0.08 0.20 0.20 0.20

X/C

Figure

19:

Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional Mesh Densities, Re-

Chordwise 100,000

Position

and

Different

Computational

and _ - 8.00

31

<>

Langley Level Level

Data, 4 Mesh, 3 Mesh, 2 Mesh,

M = 0.06 M = 0.20 M = 0.20 M = 0.20

X/C

Level

Figure

20:

Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional Mesh Densities,

Chordwise

Position

and

Different

Computational

Re = 200,000

and _= 8.00

1.5

1 --

rj

0.5

--

0.001

l/(Number of Mesh Points)

--o+-_ Re = 60,000 Re Re = 100,000 = 200,000

Figure

21-

Calculated

Lift Coefficient vs. Inverse of Number Mesh Points at ot - 8.01

of Computational

32

-2 I
tO

12:
rj3

-4

<
h ...... u _... -.

o _) Q ..J -8

i
-I0 0 500

I
1 000

I
! 500

I
2000 2500

I
3000

I
3500 4000

Level 4 Convergence .... ....

4000

Iteration

Number

Level 3 Convergence Level 2 Convergence

/ ........ Q O / / /

Z_

........
.

:S < .............................................................................

I 0 500 1000

I 1500

.! 2000 2500

I 3000

! 3500 4000

Level 4 Convergence .... Level 3 Convergence Level 2 Convergence

Iteration

Number

Figure

22- Comparison

of the Convergence

Histories,

Re = 60,000

M = 0.2

-2

t_ I

r,,r.l

0 e_ 0 .-I -8

I
-I0 500

I
1 000

I
1500

I
2000

I
2500

I
3000

I
3500 4000

--

Level 4 Convergence Level 3 Convergence Level 2 Convergence

Iteration

Number

4000

cI / / 2000

x 6.
0

I_&]<<--

..... ,-" I
50O 1000 1500

I
2000

I
2500

I
3000

I
3500 40O0

Level 4 Convergence '.... Level 3 Convergence Level 2 Convergence

Iteration

Number

Figure

23: Comparison

of the Convergence

Histories,

Re = 100,000

M = 0.2

33

-2

L--

r_t3
C/3 -'-,_. _,_ '-. i'!):),._.._.,_...._

O -I0 0

I
500

I
1000

I
1500

I 2000

I 2500

I 3000

I 3500

I 4000

I 4500 5000

Level 4 Convergence --3000

Iteration Number

Level 3 Convergence Level 2 Convergence

I I I I I I I I

r_q 2000 / _"_-

L. /yJ j_

r./3

......................... ........... _ ..................................

0IJ ......... i
0 500

I
1 000

,
1500

I
2000

_
2500

_
3000

I
3500

! 4O00 4500 5000

Level 4 Convergence -Level 3 Convergence Level 2 Convergence

Iteration Number

Figure

24: Comparison

of the Convergence

Histories,

Re = 200,000

M = 0.2

t__

r_

6Jl

_----,,,_

(Dr.,,_

tt

"::::t"

o .-,I

,::5
It

It ._

g3

+f

r_
!j_ ee

,q

IO 'lu0!__0o3

U!l

e_

35

-5

-4

-3

I O.1

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0.6

I 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

Langley ADPAC

Data,

M = 0.05 M = 0.20

X/C vs. Non-dimensional tx = 4.00 Chordwise Position,

Calculation,

Figure

26" Pressure

Coefficient

Re = 60,000

0-0 _

0---0 .... 0--_-0 ....... -0.... 0-'--0----0 ..... 0---0 .... 0

0 0 - .....

Goo._---o--o_o

-o_---o

---o--o---o---o -o::---:_ ---

I 0.1

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0_6

I 0.7

I ....... I 0.8 0.9

Langley ADPAC

Data,

M = 0.05 M = 0.20

X/C vs. Non-dimensional c_ = 4.99 Chordwise Position,

Calculation,

Figure

27: Pressure

Coefficient

Re = 60,000

36

-4-

-3_

-2-

-l

-_:00

0 o

o _0

o 0

o 0

0 _.0_

o 0

o 0-

o - 0-_--

<Z__. 0 ,-

___0___0

2 0

I O. 1

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0.6

I 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

Langley ADPAC

Data,

M = 0.05 M = 0.20

X/C

Calculation,

Figure

28: Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional a = 6.01

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 60,000

-2_O O-0 -0 .... _ ..... 0 .... 0 -0--00 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 -.$-__.:_ _O__O--O--_O----O_-_----O----O--O----O--O---O-----O----O----O

if
2
0

I
0.1

I
0.2

I
0.3

I
0.4

I
0.5

I
0.6

!
0.7

!
0.8

I
0.9

o Langley Data, M = 0.05 ADPAC Calculation, M = 0.20 Figure 29" Pressure Coefficient Re-

X/C

VSo Non-dimensional 60,000 tx = 7.00

Chordwise

Position,

37

-5

_2I%o<_.

_ o

__|,.m

--0

.... O_ 0 _ O 0

o--o..... o o ---_---

I
0 0.1

I
0.2

l
0.3

I
0.4

I
0.5

I
0.6

I
0.7

I
0.8

I
0.9

Langley ADPAC

Data,

M = 0.05 M = 0.20

X/C

Calculation,

Figure

30" Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional t_ = 8.01

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 60,000

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0.6

l 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

Langley ADPAC

Data,

M = 0.05 M -0.20

X/C vs. Non-dimensional c_ = 9.00 Chordwise Position,

Calculation,

Figure

31" Pressure

Coefficient

Re = 60,000

% ! g

'l

I .......

%
-' O

'

g
0

o'x O',,
o G",

II

o o

II

I
"l

g
O0

'q

.q

II
m

0 o

!i

.. l'

t-,

g
I
1

o
X,D
g..

,,O

E gz
o

,, E /
;;_ g., O -3
0 0 e_

-_-_

ob II
e,,

z .o
IN J "-'

z
0 ._ L.

oo

i
i

Z - =
c_

/
/

.o "_ "
...., O_..,

oN -\
m

I. o
'4_ om

(
\
\ \ eet ",.,\

,,
o
o

=
D e_ g:l I.
-._ .. \ o o o

=
12 I.... D = O
5 i o o o

It
t

o o o

=I o

" o
o

L) .<
gh

/
<

"-_ 0 o

L-

L) L) .,
gh

//

g
o eq

gl
I. =
om_

I ..-----7 i"

"_7.

.<
oo o

"=--:

g
o --,

o J0_t SI_ O[ i]0"I

o
0 eel

g
o ,-,I

D I.
olmal

J0_] SI_IOI l]0l

slu!0d p01_.1_d0 Sj0 J0qtunN

slu!0d p01_J_d0sj0 ._0qtunN

39

I
O

I:::
0'2

-4

-6
O

-I0 0

I I000

I 2000

I 3000

I 4000 Iteration Number

! 5000

I 6000

I 7000

8ooo

r._ ......

4000

C_ t... c_

2000
r./D o l..,, /. /

E Z 0 I 1000 I 2000 I 3000 ! 4000 Iteration Number I 5000 ! 6000 ! 7000

8000

Figure

34" ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re = 60,000

M = 0.20 c_ = 6.01

-4

o"2

-6
O O -8

-10

I 1000

I 2000

I 3000

I 4000 Iteration

I 5000 Number

I 6000

I 7000

I 8000

9ooo

4ooo
.. O

I ,- t-_---._.__._... __
.. .. . i /

2000
O"2 / O L. / / /

: /

E Z ! 1000

I 2000

I 3000

I 4000 Iteration

I 5000 Number

I 6000

I 7000

! 8000

9000

Figure

35" ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re = 60,000

M = 0.20 ct = 7.00

4O

2L
-4 -6 L_"_,..,,

C_O C)

I 0 500 1000

I 1500

l 2000 Iteration Number

I 2500

I 3000

I 3500 4ooo

4000
...,9 O

/
/

2000 /
O CL_ ./

!,: l.:lj\: <.

'

I 500

I i 000

I ! 500

! 2000 Iteration Number

I 2500

! 3000

I 3500 4000

Figure

36: ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re = 60,000

M = 0.20 _ = 8.01

-2

i.i

0
_2

-4

-6
_0 Q -8

-10

I 1000

I 2000

I 3000

I 4000 Iteration Number

I 5000

I 6000

I 7000

8000

60OO
0

4OOOm
I C/2 0 / / .. /

,/ ./

2000

./

E Z : 0 I 1000 I 2000 I 3000 I 4000 Iteration Number I 5000 I 6000 ! 7000

8000

Figure

37" ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re = 60,000

M = 0,,20 tx = 9.00

41

1.4

1.3

'4-

....

1.2

<>_----o-<>--_<>----

t
,, .4.4" / / t"

\
<> @ | --

t
/ 0.9--

"F /

0 /

L)

0.8-/ / 4" 0 0.7-' /' 0 /

v,-I

O
0.6-/

4
'

o'
o----_
//

"o

t O
0.5-_ / / / 0

/ ,o

L)
0.4 v=,,l '

0.3

I!,
,, It" -!_ B \

0.2

I
0.03

I
0.04

!
0.05

I
0.06

I
0.07

!
0.08

I
0.09

I
O. 1

!
O. ! I 0,12

Drag Coefficient,
-o-t-Langley ADPAC Data, M = 0.05 Calculation, M = 0.20

Cd

Figure

38:

Comparison

of Measured Lift Coefficient

and Calculated Drag for Re = 60,000

Coefficient

versus

CHAPTER

Propeller Fundamentals (Ref. analysis 11). Primarily theory could While removed

Design

Using

Experimental established

Airfoil

Data as early as 1926

of propeller because only the basic most

theory were of the absence

by Glauert

of computers, making

solutions of

of Glauert's simplifying and Liebeck design and or ::, -

be

obtained theory has

after

a number Adkins

assumptions. have recently

remained

the same, establishing can solve

of the

assumptions,

iterative

analysis

procedures

which,

with the aid of a computer, quickly. of momentum theory, the flow flow,

for the geometry

performance Glauert the propeller. propeller inviscid, number Glauert continuous, increases

of a propeller used

a combination

and blade upstream is, the

element

theory

to model of the to be a large Further, disc is it

In the momentum

and downstream fluid is assumed of to have disc.' actuator

is considered incompressible, of blades assumed and

to be a potential and irrotational.

that

The propeller

is thought

so that it could that the the axial over

be represented velocity the passing

as an 'actuator through disc the

pressure

surface through

of the the disc.

is constant

although

discontinuously Glauert used

after passing element blades.

a blade

theory

to get more

detailed

information airfoil

on the section from the and

performance is assumed circulation

of the propeller to be of flow

In this theory, and the lift

flow past any blade at each section

two-dimensional around the blade.

results from

Trailing

vortices

are shed

the blade

42

43

passdownstream in a helicalvortex sheet,andinterference from these

the rise in axial and radial velocities through the propeller. Forces

vortices on the

cause blade

elements yield

can be resolved, thrust,

and once

integrated

over the length

of the blade,

ultimately

propeller

power, other

and efficiency. than Glauert's momentum-blade velocities element are found theory exist, It was design were angle for

Strip-theories differing Adkins and

only in the way and Liebeck

in which

the induced

(Ref. 12). for iterative assumptions the small

(Ref. 2), however, in which

who published nlany of the

algorithms simplifying

analysis

procedures Specifically, and the

eliminated. assumption, momentum of the wake. condition viscous specify

Adkins lightly

and Liebeck's assumption Their

procedures in the

eliminated Prandtl

loaded flow.

approximation contraction

loss due to radial If the vortex

procedures to form

continue

to neglect

sheet

is assumed

a rigid helical

surface,

the Betz when should

for minimum as well

energy

loss will be met. losses are minimized.

A design

will be optimized

as momentum operate

To do this, the designer corresponding

that each section ratio. and

at an angle

of attack

to the maximum

lift-to-drag

Adkins procedure design blades, length are: number distribution

Liebeck 2.

give Briefly,

eleven

steps

describing specified speed, and either iterates flight

the at the

iterative beginning

design of a of

in Reference power, hub

the parameters rotational the blade,

and tip radii, stations along

velocity,

number

of radial along

a lift coefficient to find blade twist

or chord angles,

the blade.

The program

44

chord or
radial

lift coefficient

distributions factors,

(depending Reynolds

on which number,

was specified Mach

in the input), number. designs available program

and axial interference A Reynolds number

and relative for the initial

distribution

was specified

propeller data The

(Fig. to the used tests

39).

This

ensured

that the two-dimensional would be representative to apply

airfoil

experimental sections. data equal was from

design

program

of the blade the experimental

sim,91e conditional shown in Figures

statements 1 and

the Langley

2. For chord

Reynolds number

number of 100,000 was used

to or exceeding used, chord while the

100,000,

the experimental data

data for Reynolds number

experimental number

for Reynolds 100,000. were

of 60,000

if the

Reynolds

was below Several

designs The

produced and blade

using number did

the

specified

Reynolds were varied of the

number until the

distribution. maximum experimental lift

propeller

diameter along the

of blades exceed

coefficient lift coefficient the diameter and a

not

80%

maximum criteria

for the section. was increased 3.5 m (11.5 ft)

For a two-bladed to 6.8 m (22.3 four-bladed ft).

propeller,

these

were met when bladed propeller

A 4.6 m (15o 1 ft) threealso met these

propeller

requirements. While required bladed smaller there

Of the three are several

designs,

the three-bladed

propeller

was the most large

feasible. diameter threeeven of the

benefits

to a two-bladed

design,

the extremely

raises design.

manufacturing The

question, s that would design yielded

be avoided better

in the smaller than Efficiencies the

three-bladed because

efficiency

four-bladed

design

of the decreased

disk loading.

45

three-bladedpropeller and the four-bladed propeller were

85.3% and 81.5%,

respectively. Comparisons of the propeller geometries can be found in Figures40 _ough 42. Examinationof the blade twist distributionsfor all three designs(Fig. 40) showeda 'hook' in the curveas the bladewastwistedthroughthe stalledportion of the lift curve for
Since was viscous optimized the experimental were data at the Reynolds in these that number the of 60,000 three-bladed (Fig. 1).

losses

not minimized the requirement

designs,

design than to the Blade in

by relaxing

section

lift coefficient

be less

80% of the maximum maximum twist, Figures (Fig. chord, lift-to-drag

and specifying ratio point

a constant

lift coefficient data

corresponding 43 - 44).

in the experimental Reynolds eliminated coefficients number the

set (Fig.

lift coefficient, 47. clear

and chord While that the this lift

distributions in the hub

can be found twist distribution have

45 through 40), it was in order

'hook' the

near

would

to be

decreased of refining

to increase

the chordlengths

of the inboard

sections.

The exercise

the hub sections studies

was deferred using

to the next design experimental Reynolds

trials. data were useful in several did

The design ways. yield These

the Langley that the

studies

showed

specified With

number

distribution

a reasonable could

propeller be improved the help

geometry. and the

refinement, in the twist

chordlengths distribution Mach

of the inboard curve could distribution were so far be

sections eliminated. over the

hook number

Knowing blade would

Reynolds

and relative

number that

to account

for compressibility

effects

46

neglectedin the presentdesigns. As will be shown in the next chapter,ADPAC would be usedto makeperformance predictionsfor the Eppler387 airfoil operatingat thesetransoniclow Reynoldsnumberconditions. Finally, the design studieswere usefulin identifying feasiblevaluesfor thepropellerdiameterandnumberof blades.

47

1.6-10 5

1.4"10 5
-,...,.,,

"_ 1.2"I0 5 :::1

//

Z
/ ,/ ./

/ /

1"105
//

D
/ /" /' /: \,.

8" 104

.-.

// // / /

_
\

6.1o 4

/ / / , 0.I

I 0.2

I 0.3

I
0.4

l
0.5

l
n

I
0.7 0.8

I
0.9 1

r/Rtip Figure 39: Design Reynolds Number vs. Non-dimensional Radial Position

9O

<_L,

80

70--

60--

_,:-'-...._
50--

40--

3O 0

I 0.I

I 0.2

I 0.3 0.4

. 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

r/R.tip
-o_'+ Blade Blade Blade Twist Twist Twist Angle, Angle, Angle, 2 Bladed 3 Bladed 4 Bladed Propeller, Propeller, Propeller, Rtip Rtip Rtip = 3.4 m - 2.3 = 1.75 m m

Figure

40"

Blade

Twist

A_gle

(degrees)

vs. Non-dhnensional

Radial

Position,

Designed

Using

Langley

2-D Experimental

Data Only

48

0.8

t.,

0.6

0.4
.1[ --_" ._.

0.2 I 0.1 I 0.2 I 0.3 I 0.4 I 0.5 ! 0.6 I, 0.7 ! 0.8 ! 0.9 _-LJ 1

-e_ -+-

Chord, Chord, Chord,

2 Bladed 3 Bladed 4 Bladed

Propeller, Propeller, Propeller,

Rtip = 3.4 m Rtip = 2.3 m

r/Rtip

Rtip = 1.75 m

Figure

41- Chord Designed

(meters)

vs. Non-dimensional 2-D Experimental

Radial Data

Position, Only

Using

Langley

1.2

I ' '

O 0.8 /..-" z<.- _ //

/ .

O O

0.6

rj
0.4
_,,,I ._/ //.,// . ./ / ." " /al_..

0.2

I 0 0.1

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0.6

! 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

r/Rtip
-e'< + Lift Coefficient, LiR Coefficient, Lift Coefficient, 2 Bladed 3 Bladed 4 Bladed Propeller, Propeller, Propeller, Rtip = 3.4 m Rtip = 2.3 m Rtip = 1.75 m

Figure

42:

Lift Coefficient Using

vs. Non-dimensional 2-D Experimental

Radial Data

Position, Only

Designed

Langley

.......

-.

..

C_

/-"

".H":k4.... 4,.... _" _"

"4-

........

50

1.2

1.18

_D 0,.._ 1.16 0

1.14

1.12

1.1 0.1

I
0.2

!
0.3

!
0.4

I
0.5

!
0.6

!
0.7

!
0.8

!
0.9

r/Rtip Figure 44- Lift Coefficient Design, Tip Radius vs. Non-dimensional = 2.3 m, Langley Radial Position, Three Data Only Bladed

2-D Experimental

90

80

<> 70 <> <>

60

50

<> <> <>

40 0.1

!
0.2

!
0.3

I
0.4

!
0.5

..... !
0.6

!
0.7

I
0.8

I.
0.9

oc_

r/Rtip Figure 45- Blade Three Twist Angle (degrees) vs. Non-dimensional = 2.3 m, Langley Radial 2-D Data Position, Only

Bladed

Design,

Tip Radius

51

0.8

0.6 O

L)
0.4

O -O

I
0.1 0.2

!
0.3

!
0.4

!
0.5

I
0.6

!
0.7

!
0.8

! "o
0.9

r/Rtip Figure 46: Chord Design, (meters) vs. Non-dimensional = 2.3 m, Langley Radial Position, Three Data Only Bladed

Tip Radius

2-D Experimental

1.5' 105

1.10 5

loooo

r.,_

.<>

_, 1o 4

............................. ___o.,_:::i ............................................ .__.__... _ ._ooo,

./

.0

I
0.1 0.2

l
0.3

I
0.4

I
0.5

l
0.6

I
0.7

l
0.8

I
0.9

r/Rtip Figure 47: Reynolds Design, Number vs. Non-dimensional = 2.30 m, Langley Radial Position, Only Three Bladed

Tip Radius

2-D Data

CHAPTER 5
ADPAC ADPAC program the blade distribution average (Figure Two-Dimensional results Aerodynamic were combined effects Predictions with the strip theory design

two-dimensional to account

in an effort was divided

for compressibility

so far neglected. propeller were number Reynolds used for

To do so, number an

into four segments. Mach

The specified distribution the Mach

and the resulting value of the These Table Segment 1 2 3 4 Reynolds

number and 3.

to identify each

number

segment

48).

values

are listed in Table Number-Mach Reynolds

3. Reynolds

Number

Combinations Mach Number 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75

Number

60,000 100,000 100,000 60,000

The Level used each to generate of the

4 computational section performance number-Mach were elevated compared

mesh

of the Eppler

387 (Figures

14 and

15) was for

predictions number to Langley Mach

for a range combinations experimental using

of angles in Table data the

of attack 3. that

Reynolds

Surface had been

pressure corrected

coefficients for the

relative

number

Prandtl-Glauert

compressibility

correction

(Ref. 13)

Cpo (f_P corrected --"

52

53

where Cpo
stream

is the value number.

of the incompressible The pressure

pressure

coefficient with

and M_ is the ADPAC were

free in

Mach

coefficients drag

calculated The again 10"

turn was

integrated found

to yield

lift and pressure the viscous drag

coefficients. once

total drag estimated

coefficient by drag on

by adding

component

both sides of a flat plate given

by Schlichting

in Reference

Lift and drag curves coefficients

are found

in Figures ADPAC

49 through convergence for Segment

52.

Plots

of the surface for angles

pressure of attack 64, and

and corresponding

history

plots

of 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , and Segment Segment points 2 in Figures 4 in Figures at each iteration An examination that agreement is generally corrected validation, and 6.49 . between

9 are

given 76,

1 in Figures 77

53 through through 88,

65 through 89 through are included

Segment

3 in Figures

100. Where

appropriate,

the number plots.

of supersonic

in the convergence 1 results

history

of the Segment the ADPAC

at Re = 60,000 values

and M = 0.45 Langley

shows data

calculated

and the corrected recoveries

good. data

The calculated suggest

suction

side pressure of attack.

are sharper seen

than the

would

for low angles a laminar between shear

Just as was of attack

in the code 5.00 to be et. at an same

ADPAC For

did not predict angles of attack

stall at angles 7.51 and similar

between appears

12.00 , there to that reported over

periodic

shedding

of the separated 4. Figure

layer,

by Pauley, the airfoil for the

al. in Reference angle of attack

101 shows the

the pressure

distribution in Figure

at 8.01 and

streamlines

shown

102

54

conditionindicatemultiple separation andreattac_ent points nearthe trailing edge of the suctionside. Theseresults,aswell as all of the otherADPAC resultspresented here,arenot time-accurate, but represent the steadystateflow solutionachievedwith local time stepping. The local time steppingtechniqueadvances eachcell in time by an incrementequal to the maximum allowabletime step for that cell. Generally, largercellsawayfrom a boundary, layerwill havea largertime stepthansmallercells closerto a solid surface. Examinationof the resultsin Segment2 for a Reynoldsnumberof 100,000 anda Mach numberof 0.55showsthattherewas alsogenerallygood agreementfor anglesof attackrangingfrom -2.88 to 4.00. Shockwavesnearthe leadingedgeare seenin the ADPAC predictionsfor anglesof attackgreaterthan6.00. Full stall is not predictedat 14.04 .
and an experiment As Mach more differences The Prandtl-Glauert be needed is i_creased between are seen correction is inadequate for these conditions

would number are seen waves

to validate from

these predictions. 2 to 0.65 data above in Segment 3,

0.55 in Segment experimental of attack

the corrected for all angles

and the ADPAC 3.00 , and like in

predictions. Segment

Shock

2, full stall of the airfoil Representative of the tip number

at 1404 is not predicted sections, shows Segment gross as would conditions.

by ADPAC. a Reynolds between from solutions the number corrected of

4 with differences

60,000 Langley

and a Mach data

of 0.75

and the ADPAC correction

predictions at these

be expected ADPAC

the inaccuracy indicate that

of the Prandtl-Glauert

55

the airfoil is unableto producea strongleadingedgesuctionas a result of the shock wavesseenateveryangleof attack.

56

1.5 1.4-1.31.21ol-

' 0.25 :

i
..

i +

0._5

_.

I + -I-

0.89i

--

d-

.p -+ [Segment2 ] [Segment3 ] _

...........................................................................................................
0.9-0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
.......... 0 ..... n

+ .......... -_
^ _.00 -Ira

@
........ 0 .....

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.2

-Isegmet' i
I
0.3

!
0.4

I
0.5

I
0.6

I
0.7

!
0.8 0.9

-O+-

Relative Reynolds

Mach

Number

Number/100,000

Figure

48"

Segmented

Reynolds

Number

and Mach

Number

Distributions

::

.: :: :

:.:::_::.:i:i

.....

._: =============================

57

1.4

/ /
1.3 / /" 1.2 // o O/" .,.........

/ / l.l

-/'O00. " / _ /" :." ..

,/ o

l >{ / I 0.9 4,..t " Ol //.. / .. I" .0/" o.__.

//_< d"
/

_"" t-

_D
.vu{ 0.8 /_ ,

/
, .,," _%>

y,/ // ,,." ,_ .

+1-

0.7

(D
0.6

o_

0.5 //

0.4 /_//

0.3 t, '" L/

_i///

0.2 .//_ 0.1 / / / 0--" / ///'/

"-0.1 --4

I
--2

I
0

I
2

I
4

I
6

I
8

I
10

cz, angle of attack,

o Re = 60,000 M = 0.2 Least Squares Polynomial Fit ofRe = 60,000 M = 0.2 Re = 60,000M = 0.45 Least Squares Polynomial Fit ofRe = 60,000 M = 0.45 Re = 60,000 M = 0.75 Least Squares Polynomial Fit of Re = 60,000 M -- 0.75

degrees

_ * ....

Figure

49:

Comparison of ADPAC Predicted Lift Coefficients Re = 60,000 and M = 0.20, 0.45, 0.75

at

: :

::?-: _:

"::

Y:::

:_ : "

?::_::::: :- ....

:/":

:"/:Y ,, /:i_ i: ::i : :71:? !: I::I:::i:UZI_:I:L ::i:?:!?::: .... I"Y!:::!:: "_i:::::i:L U::III!:I:":i:::Y::Z_:::I_ _L:;: :?Z:i:iG::!!_ii_i_:_!:i/i:!::!!::i:!:!:!:::L:::!:i::ii:!_::?::iiii::!i!i;:: ::!:::ii:::Z:ii!:_:::::_:_::'::i::

58

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.08

t,m

0.06

0.04

0.02

I
-4 "2

I
0

I
2

I
4

I
6

I
8

I
I0 12

or, angle of attack,

degrees

I-

'

Re = 60,000 M = 0.2 Least Squares Polynomial Fit of Re = 60,000 M = 0.2 Re = 60,000 M = 0.45 Least Squares Polynomial Fit of Re = 60,000 M = 0.45 Re = 60,000 M = 0.75 Least Squares Polynomial Fit of Re = 60,000 M = 0.75

Figure

50: Comparison of ADPAC Predicted Drag Coefficients Attack at Re - 60,000 and M = 0.20, 0.45, 0.75

vs Angle

of

59

1.4

/ / //" /:/ ,,I/. ,,

,,,/

\ \

_I ,

/
/,{

//

//

)
-v.- 0.7

I /
) O N:'
0.6

//
/

_ 0.5

I
4

I
6

I
8

I
I0

o )<

Re=I00,000M=0.55 Least Squares Polynomial Fit of Re = 100,000 M = 0.55 Re = 100,000 M = 0.65 Least Squares Polynomial Fit of Re = 100,000 M =0.65

or, angle of attack,

degrees

Figure 51" Comparison of ADPAC Predicted Lift Coefficientsat Re = 100,000 and M = 0.55,0.65

60

0.2

I'

0.18

! I I I

0.16

I t /
/ /

0.14

/ / /
0.12
/" /' / .' /.

/
/

/ /
,/

/
O
//. ///

o/:

0.08
/// /. /

/:

o .,/o

/
0.06
X

./ /" / /. /,,

/
/
/ / /. ,/

..... (>

0.04

/L,. '
.._

0.02

!
-4 -2

I
0

I
2

I
4

!
6

I
8

I,
10

I
12

I
14 16

(z, angle of attack, degrees

o Re = 100,000 Least Squares Re = 100,000 -Least Squares M = 0.55 Polynomial M = 0.65 Polynomial Fit of Re = 100,000 Fit of Re = 100,000 M - 0.55 M = 0.65

Figure

52: Comparison Attack

of ADPAC Predicted Drag Coefficients at Re = 100,000 and M = 0.55, 0.65

vs Angle

of

61

! 0 0.1

! 0.2

! 0.3

I 0.4

! 0.5

I 0.6

! 0.7

! 0.8

! 0.9

' I

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.45

X/C

Figure

53- Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional t_ = 4.00

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 60,000

I 0.1

I 0.2

I 0.3

! 0.4

! 0.5

I 0.6

! 0.7

I 0.8

! 0.9

0 ....

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.45

X/C vs. Non-dimensional tx = 4.99 Chordwise Position,

Figure

54" Pressure

Coefficient

Re = 60,000

62

_0 >

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
__.

9_ .... 0

__0 .... O_

O:...... 0---

o_om

I O.1

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0.6

I 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

J 1

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.45

X/C vs. Non-dimensional _ = 6.01 Chordwise Position,

Figure

55" Pressure

Coefficient

Re = 60,000

--_.._

--0 ..... 0 .... 0 ...... 0 ...... 0 --0 ...0- 0

0 0 O_ 0 O_ 0 0 --0 "-_- :-_

_---^_-e_------_-_O-----O ----0--0_ V V V V --

-0---70-- 0----0---0---0

I 0 0. I

J........ I O._ 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0.6

I 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.45

X/C VSo Non-dimensional 60,000 ct = 7.00 Chordwise Position,

Figure

56: Pressure

Coefficient Re-

63

-5

0 ...... 0__ 0 -----0-----0-_0_._ 0- ',0

_| i-,\\

0
.

. _

0 "'' 0 o-

"

/ "/ o

,. ""

_o-o-----------

...... o...... o--o- --o--o -o--o-_o-'-o---o- - -u

2 0

I 0.1

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0.6

I 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.45

X/C

Figure

57 Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional _ = 8.01

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 60,000

-5

--4

--3 _

-2 --

----. ....
..... "'" 0

--

| --

.f"_"_"-

--

0-

o_ o \o /o_o_ o..8....
..--_ ...... O---0 .... 0---0 .... 0---0---0- ..... 0-- 0----0-----0-----0 ..... _ 0-- -0.... 0

2 0

I 0.I

! 0.2

I 0.3

! 0.4

! 0.5

I 0.6

! 0.7

! 0.8

I 0.9

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.45

X/C

Figure

58" Pressure

Coefficient Re-

vs. Non-dimensional 60,000 cx = 9.00

Chordwise

Position,

64

i
0

f._
r./2

.,.,,,,i

-6

I 500

I 1000

I 1500

! 2000 Iteration

I 2500 Number

I 3000

! 3500

! 4000 4500

3000

.....

, _.._

. .

-..._

2000

/ /

/
/

1000
/

-._

--

- -._,__Y

,; 0

J 500

I 1000

I 1500

I 2000 Iteration

I 2500 Number

I 3000

I 3500

I 4000 4500

Figure

59: ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re = 60,000

M = 0.45 c_ =4.00

t/-I r.,o

-4 i
t

_o
O

-6
.... __.._.. _ ,,---... __ ...... I _'_.. ....... , . _,' _ ..... ,--_, _,,..........................................

-8 0

I 500

I 1000

I 1500

I 2000 Iteration

I 2500 Number

I 3000

I 3500

I 4O00 4500

4OOO

t_

1.4

..t_

2000 ,/
,/ Or) /

,_ 0

I 500

! i 000

I 1500

! 2000 Iteration

I 2500 Number

! 3000

I 3500

! 4000 4500

Figure

60: ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re = 60,000

M = 0.45 a =4.99

65

gr-I o'2

\\

\
\-. O,

I
2OO

I
400

I
600

I
800

!
1000

I
1200 1400

Iteration Number
4000 I I I I I I

p.I-" ::I

-g_o
CCJ

2OO0
/ /: / / ..i: /t ....

/7 f

0 0 200 400 600 800 ! 000 1200 1400

Iteration Number

Figure

61" ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re = 60,000

M = 0.45 Gt =6.01

I
t-. O

I=:

-4
I .-_.o

-6
.",'. -.-..........................

I
0 500

!
1000

I
!500

!
2000

!
2500

!
3000

!
3500

!
4000 450O

Iteration Number
4000 I I I I I I I I

c_ ,, /. L_.

--.--.

_ ----- _....._.,_,_ ._

zg.
r._

2ooo
t /

t/ // ,/

f XA , :I
0

......

/ '

I
500

I
1000

I
1500

I
2000

!
2500

I
3000

I
3500

!
4000 4500

Iteration Number

Figure

62" ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re = 60,000

M = 0.45 tz =7.00

66

-2

I.r-1
r./2

O r-. _0 O _--

-8 0

I 500

I Io00

! 1500

I 2O00 Iteration Number

! 25000

I 3OOO

1 35OO

4ooo

4000

/ .-. I-,

2ooo
n .., / ,/ O_ i: ": ._''' " "-

500

I 1000

I 1500

I 2000 Iteration Number

! 2500

I 3000

1 3500

4000

Figure

63" ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re-

60,000

M = 0.45 c_ = 8.01

-3

m !.,.

I::
O'2

T
L

O t. O .....

-7 0

I 500

I 1000

I 1500

I 2000 Iteration

! 2500 Number I

I 3000

! 3500

!_ 4000 4500

6000

i ' _''.--, ......

, "-,.. --._..

4000
(,,,,,' I" L.. J /

_ ca,
r,t)

2000

I 500

I 1000

I ! 500

I 2000 Iteration

I 2500 Number

I 3000

I 3500

I 4000

45oo

Figure

64- ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re = 60,000

M = 0.45 tx = 9.00

67

-3

-2

I
0 0.1

I
0.2

I
0.3

I
0.4

I
0.5

I
0.6

I
0.7

I
0.8

I
0.9

X/C
O Corrected ADPAC Langley Calculation, Data M = 0.55

Figure

65" Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional tx = 4.00

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 100,000

-4-

-3

-2

t..-

L)
"1
/

-0---0 .... 0 ......... 0 ..... -0_-_0 .__

o o
.......... O__ 0 .... 0 0 --0 0 -0---0 --_0- ! i

00_-0---_0----0

0_0

0------0---0_-----0

---0

l 0.1

l 0.2

l 0.3

I 0.4

l 0.5

l 0.6

l 0.7

l 0.8

I 0.9

I I

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.55

X/C vs. Non-dimensional tx = 5.01 Chordwise Position,

Figure

66: Pressure

Coefficient

Re - 100,000

68

I 0.1

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0.6

I 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

X/C
o Corrected ADPAC Langley Calculation, Data M = 0.55

Figure

67: Pressure

Coefficient Re-

vs. Non-dimensional 100,000 ct = 6.00

Chordwise

Position,

_210%OOOo

--0

--o.... o.... o ...... o-_o

-- | _

,,

-..._

o - .o .... o- --o

-o

-o

. o -o -- -o- -o --o-

0o----------(r------_-----_-----: _-o----o-............ oO o----o---_ .... o-

2 .............. 0

i 0.1

.......

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0.6

I 0.7

I 0.8

! 0.9

X/C
o Corrected ADPAC Langley Data Calculation_ M = 0.55

Figure

68- Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional tx = 7.00

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 100,000

69

-,0

...... ___.o..... o o

o- __o____ . _o-.._o_o_
--) ..... o---O-----O..... 0----0---0-0---0-0 ..... 0.-__ 0----0 ---0 "-0---0-- --0-----0-0

I 0 0. !

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0.6

I 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.55

X/C

Figure

69" Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional cz = 8.00

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 100,000

-5

-2'-"
"0

..... o

--o o oo o ... o _. .o._ o. -o_ -o---o_ -o_ --o o-.._-^----^----,,.----o--o---o---o_ v vv--

0-o----o----o

-o ---

-o .---o--

I 0.1

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0.6

I 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.55

X/C vs. Non-dimensional t_ = 9.00 Chordwise Position,

Figure

70" Pressure

Coefficient

Re = 100,000

.......

:>

:::

::

:: .....

:::: ........

:'?

.... ....

Y!:/:;i,

Y: ....

?!Y

, :Y i::

.:: : :

......... ::!::::: ......... : ::::::yi ,A:>::Yi:i!?::,:i.>;

:::::/: :!:::::II:I::U ?i:::::::::!:?::!i::(i/::i:Y:::,!!:::i::i:::!::: !!i:::ili:::il/,!!/:!:i!Y:::!i!::!i!:iii::::::::i:::::!:h

7O

I 500

I 1000

I 1500

I 2000 Iteration

I 2500 Number I

I 3000

I 3500 4000

3000

2000

/
/ i

_ t_
r./2

lO00
/ /

,-?...... 0

I 500

I 1000

l 1500

I 2000 Iteration Number

I 2500

I 3000

i 3500 4000

Figure

71" ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re - 100,000

M - 0.55 _ - 4.00

I
I--4 O m r.P2 L] i o.,

_U2 O

-6
'_.,__ '-_ .,,.._ ../

......

----,- ........

! 500

I 1000

I 1500

I 2000 Iteration Number

! 2500

1 3000

I 3500

4000

3000

ta_

/
2000 /

/
1000
/

/ / _L 0 I 500 I 1000 I 1500 I 2000 Iteration Number I 2500 I 3000 _L..._ ."_ _,00

4000

Figure

72" ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re = 100,000

M = 0.55 c_ = 5.01

71

i.,,o

-21

u,.]

= O L.

-8 ,I. 400

I ,4000.

._'_ 200
0
.1.,

;_,,,
"" I I I I I I I
.4000.

400O

I
'

_._
_,.,

/_'-----.

.__
Z o'J

2000
,/

,,

.................................

0 0

I
500

!
1000

I
i 500

!
2000

I
2500

I
3000

I
3500 4000

Iteration Number

Figure

73" ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re = 100,000

M = 0.55 cz = 6.00

i.., O

-2 -4

,.--,

-6

_.

....

_ ..... _. _ jr--

-8
,.lj

! .400q

.,.., = ,.,

IO00/

500

k
,-L

/..__i

"_

r_

""I f

\r -/ .400(

_l _

4000]

I .......

I "- ...................

2000

//

'

0 0

i
500

!
1000

I
1500

I
2000

I
2500

!
3000

!
3500 4000

Iteration Number

Figure

74" ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re = 100,000

M = 0.55 _ = 7.00

o"
O O ......... i ........... O 0

.....

o o o 0

00
.._=

II
".
'h /

t
1' // .o o

lt

.,r ../"

i F 1

It
'k., ),, \, I 1 , O o t-) ('-4

]
e-, l,=. (1.)

/
r /i (I.)

'L t "-,..)

E Z

/
.=_ I

II ?

E /
m t-0._ t...

= [ -

II

._g
g.= (1.,) .....

("

"--

,q
o o

o
Im

\ -

o
.4,,,,,)

1 i
J
_<t

i
?

._-

/
f "1)

t o

e_

..

/
/
f'
)

o
._:

I
/. 1
(.

/ -

D ;;). O

t -

_.j
...... I
0 0

_
\.

L)
o w-)

.< <
.<

./
-0

.....q

_ i,,-"I
0 0 0 '_ o o o o

o o

oo

_-u_ISPf'd 01 i_q

s)u!od 0!uosaodns
jo aoqtun N slu!od pole.led:) S jo JoqtunN
om

a0aa/tSI,kr'dOI _0q

slu!od o!uos_adns jo aoqtun N

slu!od p01eaed0s 20 aoqtunN

0.0

73

-5

_CCO0 > , / / -

0 ....

_ _0=____

" " o o o 0 O --

o o

--o

o------o--o--o------o--o--o--o--o--o--o

- o

o --:--_--_

I 0.1

I 0.2

l 0.3

l 0.4

I 0.5

l 0.6

t 0.7

l 0.8

I 0.9

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.65

X/C

Figure

77: Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional ct = 4.00

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 100,000

-3-

-2

_oo o
-| / /

o---o
0 0 "\0 0 0
..

0
--. __ .-- _ ___

/
00 /6>0_0 1 > I 0.1 I 0.2 I 0.3 l 0.4 I 0.5 0 0 0 0 "---0 0 0 0 0

-0 .... 0 0 .... 0__-O-- -0-------0_ 0 .... 0-'--0-

l 0.6

I 0.7

t 0.8

I 0.9

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.65

X/C

Figure

78- Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional ot = 5.01

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 100,000

74

-4"-"

-_O_o
/ --/ >,/

O
. _- ...... --_ " ..\_

_0
\,_/':

O
0

.......... -- -0 . 0-- -0- -0 0 -_----0 0 0 0--0---0_0 ----0-_0-" 0

.... O0

0 .... 0

I 0.1

l 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

! 0.5

I 0.6

I 0.7

! 0.8

I 0.9

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.65

X/C

Figure

79- Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional o_ = 6.00

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 100,000

-5

-4

-3

-2

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

'"

.... 0

-0_

- o_ _ o_

--0

0 ...... 0--7_0 ..... 0--

0 ' 0--0-----0-----0_- 0

..---_-o---6_,__ o -0 o-- o
lr_O_" 2 0

o..... _._ :

_ 0.1

i 0.2 I 0.3 I 0.4 i 0.5 i 0.6

...... I 0.7 I 0.8 I 0.9

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.65

X/C

Figure

80- Pressure

Coefficient

VSo Non-dimensional tx = 7.00

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 100,000

.......

. :

.....

...... ::

....

: :::

::

::

:...

.....

.....

....

::: .....

, ......:

::

: _

::::

::

::::

.:

::

::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

75

-5

-4

.... -.......
i /

-----_____._O___O_

o
,......

0 0 0
.................. 0

o ---o _ o

0 (_<:_0 0 0 0

O----_---<S .... o--

o ...... o --o-

-o-

I 0.1

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

l 0.6

I 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.65

X/C vs. Non-dimensional _ = 8.00 Chordwise Position,

Figure

81" Pressure

Coefficient

Re = 100,000

I > 0

-%_o
o
m

o
0 -"'0"

o
'-" 0 0

o o o .... 0._o__o__ o----o- 0 -0 .... 0 0 0 - 0 ---_ 0

o ---o ..... -0-- o-_o o o o o o o o o

I 0.1

I 0.2

l 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0.6

I 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.65

X/C vs. Non-dimensional o_ = 9.00 Chordwise Position,

Figure

82- Pressure

Coefficient

Re = 100,000

76

,. r_

-2 -4 __ -6

-8 ,.1,

I 25OO

I 25oo

4000

i
_ -._..

t,.,

----..

_
') r/_

20oo
"'J' 0 "

s _---_
]

I
1000

!
1500

I
2000

500

2500

Iteration Number

Figure

83" ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re = 100,000

M = 0.65 x = 4.00

I,-4 O tzd

I=

! 4000,

2000

c,--.,,

"_o
t_ G,)

1000

....... ",___._j_.._j..-.. "-,-...._J" ....... ._ ........ .._ ,._-...._. _j. -_..__ ..... ..

........... --.

1,

4ooo.

4000

,,.._._ J'--

_,.._.,/_'".,..._.__ -......._

__..

....-,

_.) ra_

2000 0 0

.t" c -''" ';'(.... I 500 I 1000 I 1500

"..........

"--_'" ............. "-""........_ I 3000 I 3500 4000

! ! 2000 2500 Iteration Number

Figure

84: ADPAC

Convergence

History,

Re = 100,000

M = 0.65 ct = 5.01

.....

I ....

1......... g
'4

....

0 0 0

o"

0 0

I
I i

0 0

_D

r-:
II
_D
0 0

II
_D

il

II

t_ _D

'q

_D

E z

II

z
t_

II

o.=o
i g.

o
o_

i 3

D g_
0

:=

I
/

I !
r--" f

t-

0 0 ,<
!

i! ) ?

/
o
0 _J 1

0 0 ,< ,<
g0 1,1

,<
oe

g0

aoaa_tSI_ OI i_0l

s]u!od o!uosaodn S jo aoqmn N

slu!od po]_aedos jo aoqtun N

JoJJ] SIAr_0I go1

slu!o d o!uosa0dns 3o aaqtunN

s]u!od po]_a_dos jo aoqtunN

._

O'Q t_ OO OO
oo

Numberof
Separated Points

Number of
Supersonic Points

Log 10 RMS Error

Number of Separated Points

Number Supersonic

of Points

Log 10 RMS Error

f,o 0 0 0 o0 o 0

,-.. 0 0

_p

/
!

3 3

l-

,/ i
l I
m

"1

t_

et_

mmo

I/
_g 1

mm_ 0

o
,,B I _ o i

oo

'D

if
II
I
,.

xg

II

=z
C_"t,,} Q

i-

,.,,,...

II
ox LXa

II l
)

.,,.,

I
i.

II

II

....

........

.....

.... l ............. lm

79

-5

-4

-3

-2

-,_<>oo o_ ...... ?........ -_>-_ .... c--o--;_o--_.o___o ....

0 ;'_ ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0_0----'0----0_---0"-0_0

<>o
----O -O--0-- 0 --0

-0--0--0-

I 0.1

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

! 0.6

I 0.7

! 0.8

! 0.9

Corrected ADPAC

Langley Calculation,

Data M = 0.75

X/C

Figure

89" Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional tx = 4.00"

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 60,000

--0
7>
/

o
0 0 0 0 o. 0 0 0
_,

0
_.

"7 o 0 0 0

_-0---0---0--0-

--0--0--0---0

-0

--

, 0

I 0.1

I 0.2

i 0.3

I 0.4

I 0.5

I 0.6

l 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

X/C
O Corrected ADPAC Langley Calculation, Data M = 0.75

Figure

90: Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional t_ = 4.99

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 60,000

80

-2 _0 > .......... -.... "0--_-00

> [;

0 .... 0

o "-o-: -_ o---o-----6---o----o_o---o--o--o---o---o-o.... o .... o.-- o

l 0.1

I 0.2

I 0.3

I 0,4

I 0.5

I 0.6

I 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

X/C
o Corrected ADPAC Langley Calculation, Data M = 0.75

Figure

91" Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional t_ = 6.01

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 60,000

-2

-!i V

__--'-f 0

0 -0 ....

0 0 ........ 0 0 .... " ...._ - -0---0-_- ..... o-

I___oo

2L,. 0

! 0.1

! 0.2

! 0.3

I 0.4

I 0,5

1 0.6

! 0.7

! 0.8

! 0,9

X/C
o Corrected Langley Calculation, Data M = 0.75 _- ADPAC

Figure

92" Pressure

Coefficient

vs. Non-dimensional t_ = 7.00

Chordwise

Position,

Re = 60,000

-" _0o o o

"

I'

'I'

I .....

I ....

|.....

............

oo
o o

0
om o_

,<>o
Im

o 0
i

o o
0 0 o

?
!

o
0

o
oj og

O_ 0

o o
o_ 0 --" 0 0

0
0 o
/ o_ 0

E_

!
o oo o

/
0 0 (-,,.

II

>.,, .o o

o
J

Io
l
, I

o
0

o_ O_

oP^ _

_::::::::::, ........... -A'___o 0

o_

De
ml _D o_
eo o o o o

Number of Separated Points

Number Supersonic

of Points

De

Log 10 RMS Error

to

Number of Separated Points

Number Supersonic

of Points

Log 10 RMS Error

to

.1_

oo

d,

_D tJI
ee

...., o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

g
I
0

o o

i i

/
/ J

3
o g

o t_
o

l-

-/

/
t_
I _mle

t_
De

o o

g o

oo Ix9

_g
0

N ,-.,, '-.I __. 0

II

_go

II

z
i '-1

I l

II
o

II
t_

---I tji

--d LXl

gQ

-I
J

g_ II
_D _D
O _ I .........

II
t t
i

Imme

Number of Separated Points

Number Supersonic

of Points

Log 10 RMS Error

Number of Separated Points

Number Supersonic

of Points

Log 10 RMS Error

t_ kD O0
ee

l,d 0 Q

o
..,,-

oo

_,
f

ee oo

I 1

.....

i ....

oo

t..

I ,,

t
m

1_
,,

0"Q 'D t_
lame

(
I: L

(
_
i

_,

o ml

? 1

., .,

a"

oo L_

...

_m

t_

0 --t

J (
1

z
II

II

-'I O

._

II
...d L#I

..

II

g_ II
",,4

II

_______1______

............ I!

...........

,,

;.

| ..............

,.,

,'

_
O

o od II
It3

Ox

It
It%

.I

II
i

...

._

...

II
1-

g
L. J

o.,

_
t/% t"q

_D

x
L i J O eq -..., t0,2

_D

E
I

II
.2

II
I

ox
o I::::

_.o_
L '3 L.. J

1,1 O
ollm

-a'oo

o
ella

r I

i
n I

--

l i
]

_D 1,1 _D

_D _J0 1,1

f : I,

I' O

',

t
., t

L_ L_ <
........ I :: I
oo o O

,r

L_ L_ .< .<
i...... "--o ,,-,

../.

.......
,,,i

oe

(.,,

,,,p 0o
0 [ _0"I

0 0

0 0

0 0

_D

i0.I.I_[ S_

slu'td !us'tdns jo J0qmnN

slu!od poleaedos jo Joqtun N

o_ o_

_0LI;:[ S_[_[ 0[ _'I

slu!od o.tuosJodns jo aoqmn N

slu!od poleJedos jo Joqtun N

emll

t_J0
ellm

85

Figure

101- Pressure

Distribution

for Re = 60,000

M - 0.45

cx= 8.01

Figure

102" Streamlines

Over

the Suction M = 0.45,

Surface

of the Airfoil,

Re = 60,000

_= 8.01

CHAPTER

Propeller

Design

and Analysis in Chapter

Using

Two-Dimensional

ADPAC Langley

Predictions the are the

The designs effects

4 using

only the low speed

data neglected corrections effects,

of compressibility. for lift the tip drag

Even sections. curves theory

the Prandtl-Glauert To for account of the and for

compressibility the compressibility listed

inadequate resulting incorporated 52). along Again,

and

each

conditions

in Table

3 were

into the strip simple

design statements

analysis used

programs

(Figures

49 through values

conditional

were

to apply these

predicted

the length

of the blade. exercise designed diameter, new was to see what using effect elevated Mach numbers data. the same chord, would Keeping as was and lift

The first design have on the propellers of blades,

only the Langley number made.

experimental distribution The new 105.

the number used

and Reynolds designs were

for the initial

designs,

twist,

coefficient

distributions

can be found

in Figures

103 through

Examination designs, number low though, this

of the twist distribution 'hook' rather results than from from

still show

a 'hook'

near the tip.

In these as Mach data using at the

the degradation

in performance in the Langley propellers

is increased, of attack.

the laminar

stall found

angles

Efficiencies were 80.3%

of the three and 76.4%.

and four-bladed These values using

ADPAC

predictions

are roughly the low speed

5% less than Langley data

the efficiencies alone.

predicted

for the low speed

designs

86

87

To
the average

optimize maximum

the design, lift-to-drag

a lift coefficient ratio point along

distribution the blade

asymptotically was specified

reaching (Fig. 106). to be and 110. was

This was done necessary relative Efficiency considered The performance the propeller The program this

to increase 4.

the chordlengths The resulting distributions at

of the inboard twist, found was

sections,

as was seen number, through propeller

in Chapter Mach for number this

propeller can be point

chord,

Reynolds 107 This

in figures 85.1%.

propeller

design

to be the final design. strip-theory predictions geometry, iterates the power, tests analysis program was used Input angle, to generate to the analysis cruise Mach off-design program propeller includes

for the final design. advance ratio, pitch

number, angle

and altitude. From and

to find the induced lift coefficient and torque

velocities

and induced along the

of attack. be found

information, thrust, the

distribution coefficients

blade

can

propeller Among design

as well as efficiency performance

can be calculated. calculated by the

many

of programming and did exactly

integrity, match

program point.

should

that calculated

by the analysis

program

at design

The off-design and pitch and torque 114. angle

performance

maps Variations

were created

by changing

the advance thrust,

ratio power,

of the propeller.

of the propeller angles are shown

efficiency, in figures

coefficients point,

for a range the value

of pitch

111 through twist angle

At design

of the advance

ratio is 1.814 and the blade

at the 75%

radial

position

is 42.52 .

88

Examinationof the off-design

that there than may be some merit point.

performance

curves

for the propellers higher ratio

indicates pitch angle

to operating While

the propeller

at a slightly

that at the design the pitch in thrust

maintaining

the design

advance position

of 1.814,

increasing increase point setting

angle

so that the angle

at the 75% radial

is 45 , a 25% at this the pitch

can be realized if sufficient

for a penalty engine

of 5% in efficiency. is available. since the blade

Operating Increasing begins 115. may waves

may

be desirable

power

past this point

may not be recommended station reaches

to stall when To decrease not will yield affect point Actual twist in the the a

the angle the

at the 75% radial ratio while

50 as shown cruise increase,

in Figure velocity shock

advance

maintaining since degrading high

a constant as tip speeds perfo_ance. thrust case

predicted larger

increase

in thrust

portion and

of the blade those

A comparison can be found values

of the design in Table 4.

conditions performance operation. propeller's

for this cases

for both

will vary analysis

from the predicted need

as the blades

A structural performance

would

to be conducted

to understand

more

fully

89

Table4. Comparison of theDesignPointandMaximumThrustPoint DesignPoint PitchAngle at 75%R= 42.52 Efficiency

Thrust Power Torque Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Thrust Power 0.8509 0.1411 0.3007 0.0479 450.9 (101.3 N lbs) Maximum Pitch Thrust Point =

Angle at 75%R 45.00 0.8107 0.1780 0.3983 0.0634 569.0 N

63.4 kW (85 hp) 703.7 N-m Ratio (519.0 ft-lbs) 1.814

(127.9 lbs) 83.9 kW (112.6 hp) 932.1 N-m (687.5 ft-lbs) 1.814

Torque Advance

90

8O

7O

.-... -...\

6O

5O

4O

30'

I
0 0.1

I
0.2

I
0.3

I
0.4

I
0.'i

I
0.6

I
0.7

! 0.8

I 0.9

r/Rtip
-o- Blade _ -+ Blade Blade Twist Twist Angle, Angle, 2 Bladed 3 Bladed 4 Bladed Propeller, Propeller, Propeller, Rtip - 3.4 m Rtip = 2.3 m Rtip = 1.75 m Twis Angle,

Figure

103: Blade

Twist

Angle Using

(degrees) ADPAC

vs. Non-dimensional Predicted Values Only

Radial

Position,

Designed

0.8

I-i

0.6

r..)
0.4

0.2 ! 0.3 I 0.4 I 0.5 I 0.6

I
0.7

!
0.8 0.9

r/Rtip
-__ -+Chord, Chord, Chord, 2 Blade<_ Propeller, 3 Bladed 4 Bladed Propeller, Propeller, Rtip = 3.4 m Rtip = 2.3 m Rtip = 1.75 m

Figure

104: Chord Designed

(meters) Using

vs. Non-dimensional Predicted Values

Radial Only

Position,

ADPAC

II

f_

0
em em

o o
elm em

o
m OO O

O
m em

u.

om

:h _c,i,-; "._ II II d
\.\ ,, ,\

II
ellll

@ d
!.

-.,

em

.. ', ,

E
@
O O O

L_
em

888
_._-__
R', I

ellll

.q o

o J, u0!0K40OD _,2 !'1

,._t

Ii
em

o
O

em

92

80 <>

70

\O\

""O-

60

50

" O

L.,_.

40

30
0.1

I
0.2

!
0.3

!
0.4

!
0.5

I
0.6

!
0.7

I
0.8

!
0.9

r/Rtip Figure 107: Blade Twist Angle Using (degrees) ADPAC vs. Non-dimensional Predicted Values Only Radial Position,

Designed

0.8

0.6 O

L)
0.4 O ...........

O--

O ........

O .....

0.2 -

<>

I
0.1 0.2

.... !
0.3

!
0.4

!
0.5

I
0.6

I
0.7

!
0.8

I
0.9 I

r/Rtip Figure 108: Chord Designed (meters) Using vs. Non-dimensional Predicted Values Radial Only Position,

ADPAC

93

. \.

1.5105 0 ,.Q

\ \

1.10 5
o 0 _:_ 5.104 0

\ t>
10000 O 6000

I
0.|

!
0.3

I
0.4

!
0.5

I
0.6

!
0.7

!
0.8

I
0.9

0.2

r/Rtip Figure 109" Reynolds Designed Number Using vs. Non-dimensional Predicted Values Radial Only Position,

ADPAC

0.8

1 0

0o

0.7

2:
0.6 O
/

fJ

0.5 O rio
_O A _

0.4

,_I-O .... _J 0.l 0.2

I 0.3

I
0.4

I
0.5

I
0.6

I
0.7

!
0.8

!
0.9

r/Rtip Figure 110" Relative Designed Mach Using Number ADPAC vs. Non-dimensional Predicted Values Radial Only Position,

94

0.9

0.8

_<
"'" ''",.....,

0.7

0.6

\,

0.5 1.7

l
1.8

I
1.9

I
2

I
2.1

I
2.2

I
2.3

I
2.4 2.5

Advance
Beta _' -_ Beta Beta at 75% at 75% at 75% R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R = 40.00 degrees degrees--Design degrees

Ratio,
Point

Figure

111"

Propeller

Efficiency

versus Advance Angles

Ratio

for a Range

of Pitch

0.25

0.2

"_ _D

0.15

O
4--1 r_

0.!

d_

0.05

[.., I
2.2

I
2.3

I
2.4 2.5

-'< -_

Beta Beta Beta

at 75% at 75% at 75%

R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R = 4000

degrees degreesdegrees

Advance
Design Point

Ratio,

Figure

112: Thrust

Coefficient

versus

Advance

Ratio

for a Range

of Pitch

Ang es

95

0.5

04

L_
4_ .p,q

0.3

O O

L_
O

0.2

T:_L.

-.

0.1
-... "U

I
.7 1.8

I
19

I
2

I
2.1

I
2.2

!
2.3

1
2.4 2.5

Advance
--x+ -oBeta Beta Beta at 75% at75% at 75% R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R. = 40.00 degrees degrees-Design degrees Point

Ratio,

Figure

113: Power

Coefficient

versus

Advance

Ratio

for a Range

of Pitch

Angles

0.08

0 /

0.06

o_

0.04
0

rj

0
-_ 'B--.. "4-. -....
"'0_.

tD
"B

"-x... -...g...

0.02
--.... "'._

"13

I
1.7 1.8

I
1.9

I
2

I
2.1

I
2.2

I
2.3

I
2.4 2.5

Beta -_ Beta Beta

at 75% at 75% at 75%

R. = 45.00 R = 42,52 R = 40.00

degrees degrees degrees

Advance
- Design Point

Ratio,

Figure

114:

Torque

Coefficient

versus

Advance

Ratio

for a Range

of Pitch

Angles

96

1.5

_,- --O , ' o _,..I / I'

<)-- - -

" -0

<_ | I -

O
X s / o /.---._'" X .- _.--'I" .... ..... ' /K _,,MI /' .. I' / ,. I I . ..p'" - - o X ..... -I,-" .... I' , 11 _ _ ---.a-_D .... ---B---I_| I I I 'Ir_o ,K--_

_.

I
0.5

I
I

k
1.5 2 2.5

Radius, meters
-_" -a-_" Beta at 75% R - 45.00 degrees Beta at 75% R = 42.52 degrees - Design Point Beta at 75% R = 40.00 degrees Beta at 75% R = 50.00 degrees

Figure 115: Lift Coefficient

Distributions

for a Range of Pitch Angles

CHAPTER ADPAC Three-Dimensional model 107-108) 5). Views

7 Calculations made from the twist and

Performance was Adkins' solid

A three-dimensional chord design distributions methods (Fig. (Ref.

of the propeller calculated of the using propeller's

and Liebeck's surfaces can

strip theory be seen in

Figures extends radially

116

and 117.

The computational of the propeller, tip, The

mesh

of the flowfield

around

the propeller and one radius grid points. and pressure hub fixed was on the

one radius outward

upstream from

one radius mesh

downstream, 4,157,138 suction

the blade modelled as

entire

contains The blade while the

The hub surface surfaces established vertical The inlet were

was

as a simple "no-slip" Total

cylinder. surfaces

established surface.

cylindrical were

as a "slip" plane,

temperature static fixed pressure on the

and total pressure was fixed cylindrical

and freestream number was

at the vertical outer

exit plane. of the

freestream

Mach grid.

boundary

computational

A program to create "H" grid a fine farther meshes mesh

called "C"

TCGRID

written one

by Roderick blade

V. Chima as well was a

(Ref.

14) was used coarser to an

grid around

propeller Since blading,

as a somewhat originally to

upstream for

of the blade.

TCGRID it was

intended create

generate appropriate with blocks.

turbomachinery

challenge

for such a large blade modified in Figure

with this program. final fine mesh grid

The two grid blocks of ten was separate into

made grid four

TCGRID As

were shown

so that the 118, the

consisted block

"C"

broken

97

98

separate blocks (Blocks 1-4),andthe coarseinlet block is shownin yellow as Block 5. The fine meshwas retainedfor Block 1 closestto the blade,while the meshwas coarsened by eliminating everyother grid line from the original fine meshto yield Blocks 2 through 4. The coarsemeshwasbroken at the comersof the "C" grid to avoid possibleproblemswithin ADPAC concemingstretchingratios, or the relative sizeof neighboringcomputational cells. Figure 119is a view forward looking aft of the computational domainsurroundingoneof the threepropellerblades. Figures120 through 122showthe portion of the computational meshnearthe inlet block region, near the blade hub, and near the exit region, respectively. SeparateFORTRAN programs were written to extend the mesh radially outwards creating Blocks 6 through 10(Fig. 123). There are many featureswhich are desiredof a computationalmesh_some for physical reasons and some to comply with the ADPAC program format. Physically,thereagainshouldbe enoughgrid pointspackedcloseto the bladesurface so that theboundarylayercanbe resolved. The grid shouldalsoextendwell into the free streamaheadof the blade,behind the blade, and radially outward. It is also recommended that the gridlinesfollow thetrailing edgeangleof the bladesectionsso that separation andany vorticesthat may be shedcan be seen. The challengewhen creatinga meshis meetingall theserequirements while keepingthe numberof grid points to a minimum to reducecomputationaltime. Practically, the upstreamand downstreamextentsof the meshweresacrificedin orderto addgrid points closerto

99

the blade dimensional surface r/Rtip

surface. meshes

Even seen

so, the three-dimensional earlier. Values

mesh

is much

coarser

than the twothe blade section at

for y+ of the first grid location = 0.666, were 2.266

line above for the

at approximately = 0.406, For 2.692

the quarter

chord at r/Rtip for

for the section to be suitable should ratios

and 3.671

at r/Rtip

= 0.905. calculation, input

a mesh ratios

an ADPAC 1.3.

three-dimensional TCGRID

stretching parameters grid points

for the cells stretching the stretching

be around directly, near

did not contain was

to vary until

so this requirement the tip were within This

met by adding bounds. generates Three in

ratios

acceptable technique grid points.

ADPAC intermediate levels each

uses

a multigrid solutions

method

to speed the

convergence. mesh

by coarsening

by eliminating

of multigrid direction

are recommended

and can be achieved by four.

if the number

of cells

for each block edge of the blade

are divisible must

Coordinates

for the leading

edge

and trailing is to be used.

also meet this criterion for an inlet block, the inlet block

if the multigrid edge

technique of the "C" of

If an "H" grid is used

the upstream cells. Finally, system. flow

grid must be square all grid blocks ADPAC propeller Figure because separated blade 124. must was

and must not overlap

coordinates

be ordered to form a left-handed used to calculate conditions. iterations, the steady

coordinate state viscous

over the rotating plots are shown in

at the design over 2500

The convergence the solution by three orders 125 shows

history

After

was considered of magnitude blade

to be converged and the number near of

the RMS points

error had decreased was constant. Figure

three

sections

the hub,

100

midspan,and tip
shown indicated Mach edge in Figures

of the blade 126 through bubbles

where 131.

the pressure The ADPAC

and

Mach solution

number at the

contours design number

are point low

no separation

that had been cases studied along

seen in the low Reynolds earlier. Full separation

number

two-dimensional

near the trailing of the blade 132 and calculated 133. and can be ......

was seen, along

with a shock

wave

approximately clearly

one quarter

near the tip. Efficiency, compared in Table

The area of supersonic as well as thrust, obtained

flow is more and torque

seen in Figures were

power, from

coefficients

to results

strip theory 134 through

calculations. 137.

The comparisons

5 or graphically

in Figures

Table

5. Comparison

of Strip Theow Strip Theory

and ADPAC Result Point at

Results ADPAC

at Design Result Point

Point at the

the Design Efficiency Thrust Power Torque Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Thrust 0.8509 0.1411 0.3007 0.04785

Design

0.8624 0.1355 0.2850 0.04536 433.0 (97.3 N lbs)

450.9 N (101.3 lbs)

Power

63.4 kW (85 hp)

60.1 kW (80.6 667.0 (491.9 hp) N-m fi-lbs)

Torque

703.7 (519.0

N-m ft-lbs)

101

power, attributed

and torque to several

coefficients factors.

were First, number

approximately because transonic

5% lower.

This difference application strip theory to 0.90. the

can be

of the simplistic predictions, the 0.75 than

of the twodesign did the

dimensional not account

low Reynolds for the shock mesh be below points.

from was the

r/Rtip

of approximately less dense the

Secondly, two-dimensional

three-dimensional meshes number taken and may

considerably value the

for which tip vortices design and

solution

is independent in Figure 138, The

of the were not

of grid

Finally,

as shown analysis

into account

in the strip theory wake

programs.

tip vortex distribution

from one blade

and the blade

can also be seen shown

in the Mach 139.

number

at the exit of the computational

domain

in Figure

102

Figure

116:

The Three-Bladed

Propeller

and Extended

Hub Surface,

Side View

Figure

117:

Front

View

of Three-Bladed

Propeller

103

BIock Block Block Block

t 2 3 4

Figure

118: Computational

Mesh

Blocks

and Solid

Surfaces,

Axial

View

Figure

119: Forward

Looking

Aft View of Propeller Mesh Blocks

Blade

and Computational

104

Figure

120:

Magnified

View

of Inlet

Block

Region

Figure

121"

Magnified

View

of Blade

Region

105

Figure

122-

Magnified

View

of Trailing

Edge

Region

Figure

123:

View

of Computational Mesh Upstream Forward Looking Aft

and Above

the Blade

Tiw--

106

-4

-{

O ,--1

-8'

,
0

I
500

I
1000

I
1500

I
2000

I
2500 3000

._
O

2-i0 4

r_

_
o

1.104
,.,-,, _",,-,,.,,.,__ ._,__"'_

..-..

"'_--._...-..._.,___

0 0 5O0 1000

I
1500

I
2000

I
2500 3OO0

Iteration Figure 124: Convergence History for the Three-Dimensional Calculation ADPAC

r/Rtip = 0.406

r/Rtip = 0.666

r/Rtip = 0.905

Figure

125"

Hub, Midspan,

and Tip Sections

107

Pressure Ratio, Ps/Pt 1.2500

0.7$00

,9.2500

Figure

126:

Pressure

Ratio

Contours

for r/Rtip \

= 0.406

Math Number

\_l,

Figure

127-

Mach

Number

Contours

for r/Rtip

- 0.0406

108

.... k.

i /

/,-

_. _

./

!/

/ <!/ /

.......

l_mre

Ralio,

PI/Pt

: .!

.\_-J
\ \. ",. / ./

,
,

::

Figure

128:

Pressure

Ratio

Contours

for r/Rtip

= 0.666

Maeh Number 1=5000

0.7500

0.0000

/
Figure 129: Mach Number Contours for r/Rtip = 0.666

C_ C_

II

z,,
r_

0 C_

O
i,,,,,,-I

c_

ee

N)
em

110

Figure

132:

Suction

Surface

Pressure

Distribution

Figure

133:

Mach

Number

Distribution

Over

the Suction

Side

of the Blade

III

0.9

_-..,--,-...._.....

0.8

o o
., _,,=a

0.7

\
'.\

[.T-1
0.6

\
'\

4"

,\

0.5

I I.g

I !.9

I 2

I 2.1

I,

,,

I
2.3

I
2.4 2.5

2.2

Advance
-_+ o Beta Beta Beta at 75% at 75% at 75% R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R = 40.00 degrees degrees-Design degrees at the Design Point Point

Ratio,

ADPAC

3-D Calculation

Figure

134:

Comparison

of Strip Theory

and ADPAC

Calculations

of Efficiency

0.25

0.2

0.15 aJ
p=q

QJ O
4--t

0.1

0.05

I
1.7 1.8

I
i.9

I
2

Advance
Beta + -_ o Beta Beta at 75% at 75% at 75% R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R = 4000 degrees degrees degrees at the Design Point - Design Point

Ratio,

ADPAC

3-D Calculation

Figure

135:

Comparison

of Strip

Theory and ADPAC Coefficient

Calculations

of Thrust

112

0.5

.i

0.4

r,..)
0.3

r,..)
0

0.2

0.I _-rl I 1.7 1.8 I !.9 I 2 I 2.1 I 2.2 I 2.3 ! 2.4 2.5

Advance
--'<_ -o o Beta Beta Beta ADPAC at 75% at 75% at 75% 3-D R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R = 40.00 Calculation degrees degrees-Design degrees at the Design Point Point

Ratio,

Figure

136: Comparison

of Strip Theory and ADPAC Coefficient

Calculations

of Power

0.08

i
I

CY
4--t

! 0.06 ==. _ -,i

O_
.vm

0.04 O

0.02

B..

13 I 1.7 1.8 I 1.9 I 2 I 2.1 I 2.2 ! 2.3 , ! 2.4 2.5

Advance
-_ t -eo Beta Beta Beta ADPAC at 75% at 75% at 75% 3-D R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R = 40.00 Calculation degrees degrees degrees at the Design Point - Design Point

Ratio,

Figure

137: Comparison

of Strip Theory and ADPAC Coefficient

Calculations

of Torque

111

0.9

0.8 Q, o
:\ oI,,_

0.7

"'" "4

_,
\

r.l.l
0.6

\i 4"

0.5

I 1.8

I 1.9

I 2

I 2.1

I
2.2

I
2.3

I
2.4 2.5

Advance
-_Beta Beta Beta o at 75% at 75% at 75% R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R = 40.00 degrees degrees-Design degrees at the Design Point Point

Ratio,

ADPAC

3-D Calculation

Figure

134:

Comparison

of Strip Theory

and ADPAC

Calculations

of Efficiency

0.25

0.2

0.15 O

E
0.1 0 rj) 0.05

Advance
-3<-4-o o Beta Beta Beta at 75% at 75% at 75% R = 45.00 R = 42.52 R = 40.00 degrees degreesdegrees at the Design Point Design Point

Ratio,

ADPAC

3-D Calculation

Figure

135:

Comparison

of Strip

Theory and ADPAC Coefficient

Calculations

of Thrust

112

0.5

.I

0.4

0.3

o
g.,

0.2

O.l

I
1.7 1.8

!
1.9

I
2

I
2.1

I
2.2

I
2.3

!
2.4 2.5

Advance
-'_ _ -o o Beta at 75% R = 45.00 degrees Beta at 75% R = 42.52 degrees-Design Point Beta at 75% R = 40.00 degrees ADPAC 3-D Calculation at the Design Point

Ratio, J

Figure

136" Comparison

of Strip

Theory and ADPAC Coefficient

Calculations

of Power

0.08

f'

CY
4-a

0.06

0.04 O

0.02

I
1.7 1.8

I
1.9

I
2

I
2.1

!
2.2

I
2.3

I
2.4 2.5

Advance
-_ _' -eo Beta at 75% R = 45.00 degrees Beta at 75% R = 42.52 degrees - Design Point Beta at 75% R = 40.00 degrees ADPAC 3-D Calculation at the Design Point

Ratio, J

Figure

137" Comparison

of Strip

Theory and ADPAC Coefficient

Calculations

of Torque

113

........

:.........

Figure

138:

Tip Vortex

Streamlines

Exit Plane Math Number

O.3OOO

O.4OOO

O..._H)O

Figure

139:

Pressure

Distribution

at the Exit Plane Domain

of the Computational

CHAPTER 8--CONCLUSION
Comparison ADPAC, weaknesses within ADPAC lower a numerical of both of the strip theory design and code, analysis sheds results light predicted with those from and was while 5%

Navier-Stokes techniques.

analysis Propeller

on the by

strengths ADPAC point

efficiency

1.5% of that calculated predictions of thrust,

with the strip theory power, and torque

methods coefficients

at the design were

approximately

than the strip theory The main advantage

results. to the strip theory process, propeller's tool. design must quickly from and analysis be able and strip methods is speed. conditions Liebeck's can be off-

Since easily

design and

is an iterative determine prove the

the designer geometry Results when

to change and

Adkins' theory

procedures obtained design

to be a useful as well, in order reasonable

analyses

quickly conditions made,

a necessity to create accuracy

calculating map.

performance Despite with Adkins' the

at many

a propeller was

simplifying Liebeck's

assumptions strip theory The assumptions results. in viewing substantial and

achieved

and

methods. main advantages to make of using ADPAC was the elimination and analysis the of simplifying visualization were clearly of seen a

required

the performance ignored However,

calculation

Shocks

and tip vortices results.

in the strip theory the improvement

the ADPAC amount

in the analysis to create appropriate to that

required meshes, required

of time to Ieam how to run the code, the output files. This time

to post-process

is in addition

to

114

115

actually run the calculation. The three-dimensional meshconsumeda greatamount of time sinceapproximately22 hourswere neededto complete 100 iterationson a dedicated workstationwith anR8000processor. In conclusion,the fusion of
methods generation stratosphere. transonic unavailable that the with ADPAC, two dimensional strip theory design and analysis a good in firstEarth's number were

a three-dimensional design for a vehicle

Navier-Stokes capable of

yielded

propeller

subsonic

flight

Lift and drag conditions were

coefficients generated

for the Eppler with ADPAC of the airfoil seen

387 at low Reynolds experimental

since

results results

for this regime. Eppler because 387 was not shock

Examination a suitable waves

three-dimensional at least the surface

showed of the relatively twoand three-

for

tip sections of the

propeller thick

of the

on the suction

outboard

sections. airfoil

Improvements results

can be made for other data is design airfoils

to this design

by combining design full

dimensional analysis dimensional

ADPAC (if

into the strip theory making are made. a

methods

experimental

unavailable), iterations

prediction

only after several

REFERENCES

[ 1 ] ERAST

Leadership

Team.

1996. A Review for High Altitude Office

of Remotely Civil Sciences

Piloted

Aircraft

(RPA)

Technology Washington, to Planet

Required D.C.: Earth (Code

Missions. R), Office of Mission

NASA,

of Aeronautics

(Code

Y). Photocopied. New York"

[2] Adkins, C.N. and R.H. Liebeck. 1983. Design of Optimum Propellers. American Instintue of Aeronautics and Astronautics. AIAA-83-0190. [3] Mueller, To J. 1985. Low Reynolds Group for Aerospace No. 288. and WoC. Reynolds. Separation. York: in Notre 1989. The Instability Number Indiana. Number Research Vehicles. Neuilly-Sur-Seine, NTIS,

France:

Advisory

and Development.

AGARDograph [4] Pauley,

LoL. and P. Moin Laminar

of Two-

Dimensional Proceedings Springer-Verlag, [5] McGhee,

In Low Reynolds Dame, Springer-Verlag.

Aerodynamics:

of the Conference 82-92. New

June 5-7, 1989 by

R.J. and B.J. Walker 387 Airfoil Pressure XFOIL: Tunnel.

and B.F. Millard. Washington,

1988. Experimental in the Langley TM-4062.

Results Low-

for

the Eppler Turbulence [6] Drela, M.1989.

at Low Reynolds

Numbers

D.C. NASA System

An Analysis Dame,

and Desing Number Indiana, June

for Low Reynolds Proceedings of

Number Verlag. [7] Drela,

Airfoils.

In Low Reynolds in Notre

Aerodynamics:

the Conference

5-7. 1989. By Springer-

1-12. New York"

Springer-Verlag Low-Reyonlds 1106-1113. 1989. Prediction Number Flows. of Aerodynamic In Low Reynolds in Notre York: Performance Number Indiana. June Dame, of Number Airfoils. Journal of Aircraft.

M. 1992. Transonic

Volo 29 No. 6 (Nov.-Deco) [8] Coiro, D.Po and CodeNicola. in Low Reynolds Proceedings

Airfoils

Aerodynamics:

of the Conference 13-23, New

5-7, 1989. By Springer-Verlag. [9]

Springer-Verlag. C Users NASA York: CR-195472.

Hall, E.Jo and D.A. Top and R.A. Delaney. Manual.Cleveland: NASA Lewis Layer

Task 7-ADPA Center, New

Research Theory.

[ 10]

Schlichting,

H. 1960. Boundary

McGraw-Hill.

116

117

[11] Glauert,H. 1926.The

The University [ 12] McCormick, New [ 13] B.W. Press.

Elements

of Aerofoil

and Airscrew

Theory,

Cambridge"

1979. Aerodynamics, and Sons.

Aeronautics,

and Flight

Mechanics,

York: John Wiley J.D.

Anderson, Company.

1989. Introduction

to Flight.

New

York:

McGraw-Hill

Book

[ 14] Chima,

R.V.

1990.

TCGRID.

Cleveland:

NASA

Lewis

Research

Center.

REPORT

DOCUMENTATION

PAGE

OMB No. 0 704-0188 Form Approved

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducin_ this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Design and Performance

2.

REPORT

DATE

3.

REPORT

TYPE

AND

DATES

COVERED

February

1998

Technical
5.

Memorandum
I_IUMBERS

FUNDING

Calculations

of a Propeller

for Very

High

Altitude

Flight WU-529-10-I 3--00

6. AUTHOR(S) L. Danielle Koch

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) National Lewis Aeronautics Research Ohio Center 44135-3191 and Space Administration

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

E-11102

Cleveland,

9.

SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY

NAME(S)

AND

ADDRESS(ES)

10.

SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

National Washington,

Aeronautics DC

and Space 20546-0001

Administration NASA TMm1998-206637

11. SUPPLEMENTARY This report was

NOTES submitted Western (216) as a thesis Reserve 433-5656. in partial University, fulfillment Cleveland, of the requirements Ohio, January for the degree 1998. Responsible of Masters person, of Science L. Danielle in Koch,

Engineering organization

to Case code

7565,

12a.

DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY

STATEMENT

12b.

DISTRIBUTION

CODE

UnclassifiedSubject

Unlimited 02 and 07 Distribution: Information, Nonstandard (301) 621--0390.

Categories:

This publication
13. ABSTRACT

is available
200

from the NASA Center for AeroSpace

words)

(Maximum

Reported

here is a design

study of a propeller

for a vehicle

capable

of subsonic

flight in Earth's

stratosphere.

All propellers

presented

were required to absorb 63.4 kW (85 hp) at 25.9 km (85,000 ft) while aircraft cruise velocity was maintained the final design, classic momentum and blade-element theories were combined with two and three-dimensional Advanced Ducted Propfan Analysis Code (ADPAC), compared. programs transonic numbers angles written. a numerical Experimental and calculated of 60,000 of attack, calculations ADPAC assumptions Navier-Stokes analysis code. The Eppler of the constant the strip theory 60,000 attack. section design propeller designs data from the Langley surface pressure Low-Turbulence are compared

at Mach 0.40. To produce results from the Tunnel was used in numbers of section pressure A of

387 airfoil was used for each Pressure at a Reynolds two-dimensional

and analysis number

The experimental

data was also used to validate coefficients ADPAC

ADPAC

and a Mach

number

of 0.20. Experimental

for a range of angles

Since low Reynolds predictions are presented were compared

experimental

data was unavailable, and 100,000 to the variation point. Propeller of thrust,

was used to generate ranging propeller

performance coefficients predictions

for Reynolds for selected

and Mach numbers used to calculated power,

from 0.45 to 0.75. Surface performance. coefficients ADPAC

in addition at design

of lift and drag coefficients efficiency predicted

at each flow condition. performance was within

three-dimensional that calculated

model of the final design with strip-theory methods, results. Simplifying by strip theory

was made which ADPAC predictions

by ADPAC

1.5% of 5%

although

and torque

were approximately seen.

lower than the strip theory 14. SUBJECT TERMS Propeller;

17. SECURITY OF REPORT

made in the strip theo_'y account

for the differences

15. NUMBER OF PAGES ]30 Low Reynolds number aerodynamics;

19.

High-altitude;
CLASSIFICATION

ADPAC
SECURITY OF CLASSIFICATION

16.

PRICE

CODE

A07 18. SECURITY CLASSIIT:ICATION OF THIS PAGE Unclassified

m

20.

LIMITATION

OF

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

Unclassified NSN 754_)-01-280-5500

Unclassified
Standard Prescribed 298-102 Form by ANSI 298 Std. (Rev. Z39-18 2-89)