Análise de Desempenho de Hélices

ITA Aeronautical Institute of Tchnology
June 30/2011, So Jose Dos Campos, SP, Brazil

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF PROPELLERS BY IMPROVED BLADE
ELEMENT MODEL IN INTERACTIVE ENVIRONMENT

Luiz Flvio Martins Pereira, fla_per@yahoo.com.br
Pedro Marcelo Alves Ferreira Pinto, pmarcelo.aero@hotmail.com
Renato Rebouas de Medeiros, renatormed@yahoo.com.br
Thiago de Moraes Barros, tmoraesbarros@hotmail.com
Willmari Dayana Suarez Hernandez, marwill13@hotmail.com
ITA Instituto Tecnolgico de Aeronutica
Praa Marechal Eduardo Gomes, 50 - Vila das Accias So Jos dos Campos SP - Brazil

Abstract. This work aims at presenting a blade element model and its application to performance analysis of
propellers. Airfoils chosen are known in literature (CLARK-Y and RAF-6), and its aerodynamic coefficients are taken
from experimental data. The main objective is to help geometry choices for propellers with application to Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). A preexistent interface of a blade element model was used and modified to include
compressibility corrections, induced velocity estimations and more reliable data on airfoils. Tests were performed at
zero forward velocity to validate the method for use in relative comparisons. Data of the propeller designated as
22x12, 24x10 and 24x12 were analyzed and compared with data from experimental tests carried out with commercial
propellers of similar geometry, using engine Zenoah GT-80 twin cylinder to exemplify a propeller choice.
Keywords: propeller,blade element, airfoil,UAV

1. INTRODUCTION

First used by William Froude and Stephan Dzerwiecki in late of nineteenth century (Johnson), blade element model
remains the best tool for preliminary investigation of propellers performance. Initial applications were in the field of
naval engineering, but the method is useful in general propeller design, from engine to wind turbines. Fundamental
concept is the same basis of strip theory for fixed wing analysis: to suppose independent flows in defined sections,
covering the entire span.
The idea of dividing a blade in small elements and consider flow as two-dimensional is simple, but efficient. This
theory has proven good applicability, but has some limitations if a large fraction of the blade is stalled or wind milling
while other part is producing thrust (Aerodynamics for students). The results, in absolute values, are not expected to
present good quality, but relative comparisons are generally true.
The trend of increasing demand for small aircraft renews the need for research on propellers. These remain the main
propulsive system for small aircraft, justified by the low cost and high propulsive efficiency. UAVs usually employ
propellers, especially those designed for good autonomy. The main interest of this work is to help in finding the best
choice of propeller geometry for a Zenoah GT-80 engine to equip an UAV.
There exist many codes and tools of blade element analysis. An example of open source code linked to XFOIL is
the Q-Blade. However, employing experimental results has advantages, mainly in torque prediction. In fact, drag is a
characteristic difficult to obtain by panel methods. This condition is aggravated when flow must be considered
compressible. A good database of experimental results may help in surpassing these difficulties.
In this paper we evaluate the performance of propellers modeled with two different airfoils, based on RAF-6 and
CLARK-Y families. Basic geometry is shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. The RAF-6 and CLARK-Y profiles were
applied in this work mainly due to availability of experimental data in the Reynolds interest range. Other important
feature is the common use of these airfoils in blade construction. Figure 1 shows that the pressure side of RAF-6
airfoil is flat and therefore easy to produce. Only the suction side has to be made with care.

Figure 1- RAF 6 Airfoil.


To carry out the tests, a graphical interface was used. This interface is based on a LabVIEW
TM
environment. This
software is an application in G language (graphical programming language). It uses icons instead of text to create
routines, bringing some advantages for scientific and engineering applications, primarily for the acquisition and
manipulation of data (NERY, 2010). The interface presents a front panel with geometric options, as well as flight
condition. Graphs show evolution of the behavior according to rotation speed, and data are recorded to permit detailed
analysis.

Figure 2-CLARK Y Airfoil

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The aircraft propeller looks like a simple mechanism to the uneducated individual. To the educated, an aircraft
propeller represents the highest sophistication in aerodynamics, mechanical engineering and structural design.
Barros (2009) mentioned that the aerodynamics development of aircraft propellers was slowed down due to the large
commercial airplane appearance back in the 50's. However, in the 80s after the oil crisis the research was taken up;
researchers were seeking to expand the propellers envelope to levels close to turbofans with the use of prop-fans.
Due to the use of computational aerodynamics new manufacturing processes and development of new airfoils has
been the main innovation of modern propellers.

2.1 Blade element Theory

William Froude (1878), David W. Taylor (1893) and Stefan Drzewiecki developed a mathematical process
originally designed to determine the behavior of propellers. This procedure allows for the values of thrust and angular
momentum in the differential blade element from an aerodynamic point of view, considering the values of the
coefficients of lift and push that is under the differential element of a shovel. The following simplifications are included
in the calculation:

- No interaction between the different elements aerodynamics that make up the shovel.
- The forces on the airfoil are only due to the lift and resistance experienced by the differential element of a
shovel.

2.2 The Theory of Vortices

Betz (1919) showed that the optimal efficiency of a propeller is associated with the optimal loading of the blades,
generating a flow in the form of a helix, Fig. 3. He demonstrated that low-loading pair propellers have minimal loss
of energy, the distribution of support should be such that the vortices form detached blades regular vortices in the form
of a helix, moving behind the propeller. Prandtl (1919) found an approximate solution for the flow around the vortex
mats, making an analog of the flow around the edges of the blades of two-dimensional vortices with the flow around a
cascade of semi-infinite straight blades, thus having a reasonable approximation when the rate of advance is small and
improves as increasing the number of blades.


Figure 3-Blades of a propeller helical vortices.

3. MODEL DESCRIPTION

As mentioned above, blade element models are a set of approaches commonly used in combination with momentum
theory to indicate a first-approximation of blade performance.
Blade element theory considers that flow can be treated independently at each station of blade as two-dimensional.
The basic idea is to divide a blade in strips, starting from center to the tip, and calculate the contribution of each element
to the resultant thrust and torque. Flow is assumed to be contained at each plane perpendicular to an element. This
model does not account for radial flow induced by vortex wake or by acceleration due to angular motion.
The model proposed in this work is a combination of typical concepts from blade element theory and improvements
obtained from experimental results, including compressibility corrections. The results used to compute thrust and torque
of each section are the values of Cl (lift coefficient) and Cd (drag coefficient) obtained from Stack (1934) in a report
developed at the old NACA (National Advisory Comitee for Aeronautics). The two profiles are the RAF-6 and
CLARK-Y modified in thickness to reach 10% of t/c (ratio between maximum thickness and chord). These results,
shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, are adequate because the chord of the airfoils tested is 2 inch, similar to typical lengths
encountered at UAVs propellers. This implies good similarity in Reynolds number, when the model is applied in such
cases.

Figure 4: RAF-6 data for 2inch airfoil at various Mach numbers

Based in such figures, it was possible to fit surfaces passing through these curves. This is a way to include
compressibility corrections. So, two-dimensional model uses Mach number and angle of attack as inputs. An example
of adjusted surfaces is shown in Fig. 6, for the RAF-6 airfoil.

Figure 5:
CLARK-Y data for 2inch airfoil at various Mach numbers
Figure 6 - Surface fitting of RAF-6 lifting coefficient

As seen in Fig. 6,, the Range of Mach number used varies from 0.4 to 0.65 in this model, Mach 0.4 is the lowest
one, representing incompressible characteristics of flow. As indicated in Stack (1934), this approximation is acceptable.
In practice, the great differences in aerodynamic coefficients occur in the range beyond Mach 0.4. For the models
analyzed in this work, with radius 0.3m, at most, Mach number does not reach values beyond indicated range. In the
lower limit, Mach numbers are set at 0.4, if the speeds are smaller than this level.
It's important to see that stall is partially contemplated by this model as a decrease in lift coefficient in high angles of
attack. Range is between -2 and 12 degrees. For higher angles, values of Cl and Cd are set as those corresponding to 12
degrees. This over-predicts Cl and under-predicts Cd , but is a reasonable and simple way to overcome this difficulty.
In Fig. 7,, the angles of attack are presented for propeller MenZpropS, kind used in comparisons of this paper. Angles
higher than 12 degrees are present in sections of r/R from 0 to 0.45. Fortunately, these sections present flows with
smaller velocity and are responsible for just an smaller part of thrust or torque, as will be shown.

Two-dimensional calculations are important in order to define incremental values o thrust (dT/dr) and torque
(dQ/dr). One of the key aspects in blade element theory is determination of angle of attack at each station. It depends on
torsion angle, flight velocity and induced angle. Torsion isn't the most common characteristic, but the pitch, defined is
the angle between the plane of the propeller and the zero-lift line, is the most popular term. In this work, which is based
in experimental results, chord line is used as reference, and geometric torsion is described as in Fig. 8,. Induced
angles and attack angles are represented, together with contributions to thrust and torque. Momentum theory relates
forces at an annular section with the induced velocity at the blade. It assumed that velocity at wake is twice induced
velocity at blade plane. This is obtained from momentum and energy equations, supposing energy conservation.
Equating two forms of obtaining thrust, induced angle
i
may be obtained.

i
=arctan()

)
`
1
32
1
16
r
a
+
a
=
(3.1)

(3.2)

R
r
= r (3.3)

Figure 7 - Attack angles and induced angle along span at 6000 rpm for a
24x10 static MenZpropS propeller
R
bc
=

rad
d
dc
= a
l
/ 5.73 ~ (3.4)

In equations above, R is the blade radius, r is the element radius position, b is the number of blades and c is the
element chord. The value of a is fixed, in this model, and its value is based on experimental results for profiles. The
model considers only axial induced velocity, disregarding tangential one.

Figure 8 - Blade schematic representation of two-dimensional flow. Source: Cavcar (2004)

Figure 7 shows a graph of induced angle along blade span. These angles may be significant. Its main consequence
is an increase in drag. An incompatibility appears, however: induced velocity at tip is not sufficient to reduce angle of
attack to zero. Actually, the angles predicted are trustful until 97% of radius (MacCormick, 1967). After this station, lift
decreases and reaches zero at tip.

Contribution of each element to thrust and torque are calculated by:

( ) ( )
i i
+ dD + dL = dT | | sin cos (3.5)

( ) ( ) | |
i i
+ dD + + dL r = dQ | | cos sin (3.6)

( ) dr c c V
= dL
i l e
|
2
2
(3.7)

( ) dr c c V
= dD
i d e
|
2
2
(3.8)
As an example, it is valuable to analyze thrust and torque distribution. The geometry is the same of Fig. 7,, a 24 x
10 MenZpropS.


Figure 9, and Fig. 10, show the expected trends. Towards center of blade, angle of attack increases beyond that
specified by experimental data. As discussed, values of 12 are maintained. In this way, estimates of thrust will be
higher than real values. Torque analysis reveals the opposite problem. If Cd is maintained in 12 level, it under-predicts
drag and torque, consequently.
Working with fitted surfaces to represent aerodynamics coefficients maybe created difficulties which caused the
corners noted in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10.

4. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS

Based on the blade element model described, a code was written in LabVIEW
TM
platform in order to predict
different blades behaviors. Summing up the contributions of the elements, thrust T and torque Q obtained were used to
calculate dimensionless coefficients C
T
and C
Q
given by the following formulas:

Figure 9 - Example of element thrust contribution along span.

Figure 10-Example of element torque contribution along span

4 2
D N
T
= C
T
(4.1)

5 2
D N
Q
= C
Q
(4.2)

N represent rotational speed of the propeller, and D, its diameter, while stands for air density. In this study
simulation, three different geometrical size of propeller were studied. As a common practice, a propeller is defined by
its diameter and its pitch at 75% station, measured in inches and placed in this order. Adopting this convention, the
simulated propellers were 24x10, 24x12 and 22x12. Rotation was normalized by its maximum value, taken as 10000
rpm. This number was chosen because it's the maximum experimental value of engine Zenoah GT-80 data. The series
of simulations were conducted with airfoils RAF-6 and CLARK-Y, for which the experimental coefficients were
adjusted.

Figure 11 Theoretical model curves of C
t
vs. N/N
max
.

Figure 12 Experimental results of C
t
vs. N/N
max
.

Using propellers of same dimensions, experimental results were obtained and are shown in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12,.
Propeller test stand is the same as described in Martins & Venson (2010). Data of thrust coefficient were neglected for
propeller 22x12, since the deviation was very high when compared to other measures.
Care must be taken when comparing these experimental results and blade element models. First, the propellers
MenZpropS tested have airfoils different from those simulated. Generally, the geometry varies between different
sections, in real props. So, just trends may be compared between data of the two theoretical figures and the
experimental one.
The data obtained through the program was satisfactory when compared to the experimental data (see Fig. 11 and
Fig. 12). Ct (thrust coefficient) curves as a function of the non-dimensional rotation for 24x10 and 24x12 propellers,
using a range between 0.4 and 0.7 of N/Nmax, showed similar trends in both the theoretical model and the experimental
data.


Figure 13 Theoretical model curves of C
q
vs. N/N
max
.

Figure14 - Experimental results of C
q
vs. N/N
max
.

The Cq (torque coefficient) curves as a function of the fraction of rotation for the same range (between 0.4 and 0.7
of N/Nmax), also shows similar trends for both the model and for the experimental analysis done for the propellers
22x12, 24x10 and 24x12.
These results show that the model is worth in predicting trends while some propeller parameters are varied. On the
other hand, there is no guarantee that the numeric values are valid results for design purposes. However, it may be
useful when choosing the adequate geometry of the propeller.
After this experimental validation, the model results were used to estimate witch propeller would provide greater
thrust at take-off conditions (V = 0). Power requirements of the propeller at each rotational speed were compared with
the power characteristics of Zenoah GT-80 driver as shown in Fig. 15 and Fig. 11. The matching point between
driver and propellers curves gives the rotational speed for which the maximum power can be delivered, and therefore
the maximum thrust for each propeller.


Figure 15 Power curves for Clark-Y propeller. Observe the matching points with Zenoah driver power curve.

Figure 16 Power curves for RAF6 propeller. Observe the matching points with Zenoah driver power curve.

Table 1 shows the summary of maximum thrust and related rotational speed for the propellers.

Table 1 Theoretical maximum thrust and related rotational speed.

ClarkY Speed (RPM) T (N) RAF6 Speed (RPM) T (N)
22x12 7200 199 22x12 6950 181
24x10 6900 239 24x10 6700 214
24x12 6200 206 24x12 6000 184

For comparison, the experimental maximum thrust results are shown in
Table 2:

Table 2 Experimental maximum thrust and related rotational speed.

Experimental Speed (RPM) T (N)
22x12 6600 126
24x10 6330 140
24x12 5970 136

Again, it can be seen the same trends between model and experimental results. The maximum thrust was
achieved by 24x10 propellers at intermediate speeds. Absolute values should not be compared since experimental work
was done with unknown blade airfoil distribution. However, propeller 24x10 also revealed to the best one in
experimental results, according to blade element model prediction.


4. CONCLUSIONS

This work proposed a simple method for propeller performance calculation, based on blade element model, as
shown. For its simplicity, it has some limitations, but preserves its utility. Moreover, simplicity does not mean the
method implementation was straightforward. Its useful to comment the implementation tasks with its challenges as
well as the usefulness and shortcomings of this model.
Firstly, wind tunnel testing results for propeller airfoils are not easy to found. Actually, the team was able to found
data only for RAF-6 and Clark-Y airfoils. Moreover, real propellers have variable airfoils along wingspan, and this
distribution information is not easy to obtain. Therefore, the calculations were performed for propellers with constant
airfoil.
The c
l
and c
d
of an airfoil is function of Mach, Reynolds and attack angle. Mach, attack angle and Reynolds varies
with radius along propeller blade. The way chosen to deal with this problem was to create a surface fitting of C
L
=
C
L
(M,) and C
D
= C
D
(M,) from experimental data, since the available curves implicitly considers Reynolds variation
as function of Mach (because experimental results were obtained for constant chord models, varying velocity). The
program xyExtract was very useful for collecting the experimental points, while MATLAB
was used for creating the

surface mathematical equation.
Thereafter, it was seen that airfoil data were satisfactory in a small range of attack angles: -2 to 12 degrees. The
solution proposed was simple: if > 12 C
L
= C
L
(M,12) and C
D
= C
D
(M,12). As shown, this approximation
underestimate propeller required torque at some rotational speed while overestimate thrust. It is a non conservative
approach and the user may be aware of this issue.
It was noticed that induced attack angle due to air suction should be considered. It has a non-negligible effect,
sometimes as much as 4 degrees. The theory used to estimate the values of these induced angles is commented in
section 3 (model description).
The propeller performance data generated through the program were satisfactory when compared to experimental
testing, in the sense of qualitative behavior. It is a sign that the approximations were reasonable. In fact, the change of
key parameters caused the same trends in performance variation in both theoretical and experimental results. Again,
absolute values of thrust and torque are not guaranteed.
The good relation with experimental testing in performance variation makes this model useful as a first
approximation for design purposes. The program allows a rapid analysis of different design proposals so that
undesirable propellers can be rejected. The user may, after having this first approach, seek for a more complete method,
like CFD, and finally, experimental testing.
The program is also useful for teaching purposes. The distribution of thrust and torque reveals details of
propeller operation. This kind of concepts can be explored by a teacher.

5. REFERENCES

Aerodynamics for students, "Analysis of Propellers". 27 Jun. 2011,
<http://s6.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/aero/propeller/blade_element.pdf>.
Barros, A. B. de (2009). Performance Analysis and Noise Propeller Minimum Energy Loss, Dissertation (MSc -
Graduate Program in Mechanical Engineering and Area of Concentration in Aircraft), School of Engineering of So
Carlos, University of So Paulo, p. 14-99.
Betz, A. (1919). Schraubenpropeller mit geringstem energieverlust. Gottinger Nachrichten, Gottingen, p. 193-217.
Cavcar, M., 2004. "Blade "Element Theory". Anadolu University. 27 Jun. 2011,
<http://home.anadolu.edu.tr/~mcavcar/hyo403/Blade_Element_Theory.pdf>.
Nery, R. T. C. (2010). Introduction to LabView, Federal University of Para, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Acoustics and Vibration Group, p 3-65.
Prandtl, L. (1919). Appendix. In: Betz A. Schraubenpropeller mit geringstem energieverlust. Gottinger Nachrichten,
Gottingen, p. 193-217
Stack, J, 1934. "The N.A.C.A. high-speed wind tunnel and tests of six propeller sections". 18 Jun. 2011,
<http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1934/naca-report-463.pdf>.

Análise de Desempenho de Hélices

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Análise de Desempenho de Hélices

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ITA Aeronautical Institute of Tchnology

June 30/2011, So Jose Dos Campos, SP, Brazil

was used for creating the

You might also like