Performance and Physics of a S-76 Rotor in Hover With Non-Contiguous Hybrid Methodologies

Modifications to allow non-contiguous, moving grids have been made to a hybrid computational fluid dynamics free-wake (CFD-FW) solver for aeroelastic rotors. In the CFD-FW approach, a CFD code resolves the unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes equations in the near field, and a vortex free-wake analysis models the wake beyond the near-field CFD grids. Blade loading from the CFD solver is utilized to calculate circulation and advance the free-wake solver. The outer boundaries of the CFD domain have boundary conditions that are modified based on the induced velocities from the free-wake code. Previous studies have demonstrated that the application of the free-wake code in the far-field allows the computational domain to be smaller than in a traditional CFD analysis which saves computational cost and memory while maintaining the accuracy of the solution. Before the current modifications, the hybrid solver was limited to CFD domains that included off-body grids with outer boundaries that were stationary in an inertial frame. By allowing grid systems with moving outer boundaries, the inertial grids can be removed, further reducing the computational cost and memory required by the hybrid solver. The resulting meshes consist of only near-body grids that can be non-contiguous, i.e., not requiring overlap of the meshes. In this work, hover performance predictions of a scaled S-76 rotor are performed using the hybrid CFD non-contiguous grid approach and compared to those of the hybrid solver with the inertial background grids and full CFD simulations. The noncontiguous grid approach predicts comparable thrust coefficients, torque coefficients, and figures of merit, within 2.0 counts of the experimental data, at 7.6% of the computational cost of full CFD simulations. A preliminary study of sensitivity to different model inputs is performed.

[1]  Robert Narducci Hover Performance Assessment of Several Tip Shapes using OVERFLOW , 2015 .

[2]  Ruckel,et al.  High Fidelity Helicopter Simulation Using Free Wake, Lifting Line Tail, and Blade Element Tail Rotor Models , 2003 .

[3]  Chunhua Sheng,et al.  S-76 Rotor Hover Predictions Using Advanced Turbulence Models , 2015 .

[4]  M. Potsdam,et al.  Hover Predictions on the Sikorsky S-76 Rotor using Helios , 2014 .

[5]  Todd R. Quackenbush,et al.  A new methodology for free wake analysis using curved vortex elements , 1987 .

[6]  Nathan Hariharan,et al.  Helicopter Rotor Aerodynamic Modeling in Hover: AIAA Standardized Hover Evaluations , 2015 .

[7]  Robert P. Narducci OVERFLOW Simulation of Rotors in Hover: The Boeing Company , 2014 .

[8]  Eliot Quon,et al.  Data transfer strategies for overset and hybrid computational methods , 2014 .

[9]  Montgomery Knight,et al.  Static Thrust Analysis of the Lifting Airscrew , 1937 .

[10]  George N. Barakos,et al.  Hover Performance Predictions for the S-76 Main Rotor Blade , 2015 .

[11]  Lakshmi N. Sankar,et al.  Analysis of a Rotor in Hover using Hybrid Methodology , 2014 .

[12]  R. Jain Hover Predictions for the S-76 Rotor with Tip Shape Variation using CREATE-AV Helios , 2015 .

[13]  Todd R. Quackenbush,et al.  Predicting the Influence of Blade Tip Shape on Hovering Rotor Performance with Comprehensive Analyses , 2015 .

[14]  Nicolas Reveles,et al.  Advanced methods for dynamic aeroelastic analysis of rotors , 2014 .

[15]  Hormoz Tadghighi,et al.  Helios Simulation of Rotors in Hover: The Boeing Company , 2014 .

[16]  Qingpu Wang,et al.  Comparison of c-Nd:YVO4/YVO4 raman lasers and c-Nd:YVO4 self-Raman lasers , 2012 .

[17]  Daniel A. Wachspress,et al.  Evaluation of Rotor Hover Performance With Differing Blade Tip Shapes Using Carefree Hybrid Methodologies , 2015 .

[18]  Boschitsch,et al.  Novel Eulerian Vorticity Transport Wake Module for Rotorcraft Flow Analysis , 2007 .

[19]  Matthew,et al.  Validation of CHARM Wake Methodology for Computation of Loads and Vibrations , 2009 .

[20]  D. Kao,et al.  Comparison of Computed and Measured Vortex Evolution for a UH-60A Rotor in Forward Flight , 2013 .

[21]  Hossein Saberi,et al.  Helicopter Rotor Airload Predictions with a Comprehensive Rotorcraft Analysis , 2012 .

[22]  Jennifer Abras,et al.  Comparison of CFD Hover Predictions on the S-76 Rotor , 2015 .

[23]  Richard E. Brown,et al.  Efficient High-Resolution Wake Modeling Using the Vorticity Transport Equation , 2004 .

[24]  Tarandeep S. Kalra,et al.  OVERTURNS Simulation of S-76 Rotor in Hover , 2014 .

[25]  Richard E. Brown,et al.  Rotor Wake Modeling for Flight Dynamic Simulation of Helicopters , 2000 .

[26]  Lakshmi N. Sankar,et al.  High Order Evaluation of S-76 in Hover , 2015 .

[27]  Thomas R. Norman,et al.  Assessment of Predictive Capability of Aeromechanics Methods , 2010 .

[28]  Oh Joon Kwon,et al.  Assessment of S-76 Rotor Aerodynamic Performance in Hover on Unstructured Mixed Meshes , 2015 .

[29]  D. T. Balch,et al.  Experimental study of main rotor tip geometry and tail rotor interactions in hover. Volume 2: Run log and tabulated data , 1985 .

[30]  D. T. Balch,et al.  Experimental study of main rotor tip geometry and tail rotor interactions in hover. Volume 1. Text and figures , 1985 .

[31]  Oh Joon Kwon,et al.  Assessment of Rotor Aerodynamic Performances in Hover Using an Unstructured Mixed Mesh Method , 2014 .

[32]  Lakshmi N. Sankar,et al.  Simulation of Rotor in Hover: Current State, Challenges and Standardized Evaluation , 2014 .

[33]  Todd R. Quackenbush,et al.  Rotorcraft Interactional Aerodynamics with Fast Vortex/Fast Panel Methods , 2003 .

[34]  James G. Coder,et al.  CFD Investigation of Unsteady Rotorcraft Airfoil Aerodynamics: MiTEs and Dynamic Stall , 2011 .

[35]  Berend G. van der Wall,et al.  An Assessment of CFD/CSD Prediction State-of-the-Art Using the HART II International Workshop Data , 2012 .