In-Plane Forces Prediction and Analysis in High-Speed Conditions on a Contra-Rotating Open Rotor

Due to the growing interest from engine and aircraft manufacturers for contra-rotating open rotors (CROR), much effort is presently devoted to the development of reliable computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methodologies for the prediction of performance, aerodynamic loads, and acoustics. Forces transverse to the rotation axis of the propellers, commonly called in-plane forces (or sometimes 1P forces), are a major concern for the structural sizing of the aircraft and for vibrations. In-plane forces impact strongly the stability and the balancing of the aircraft and, consequently, the horizontal tail plane (HTP) and the vertical tail plane (VTP) sizing. Also, in-plane forces can initiate a flutter phe- nomenon on the blades or on the whole engine system. Finally, these forces are unsteady and may lead to vibrations on the whole aircraft, which may degrade the comfort of the passengers and lead to structural fatigue. These forces can be predicted by numerical methods and wind tunnel measurements. However, a reliable estimation of in-plane forces requires validated prediction approaches. To reach this objective, comparisons between several numerical methods and wind tunnel data campaigns are necessary. The primary objective of the paper is to provide a physical analysis of the aerodynamics of in-plane forces for a CROR in high speed at nonzero angle of attack using unsteady simulations. Confidence in the numerical results is built through a code-to-code comparison, which is a first step in the verification process of in-plane forces prediction. Thus, two computa- tional processes for unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (URANS) simulations of an isolated open rotor at nonzero angle of attack are compared: computational strategy, open rotor meshing, aerodynamic results (rotor forces, blades thrust, and pressure distributions). In a second step, the paper focuses on the understanding of the key aerodynamic mechanisms behind the physics of in-plane forces. For the front rotor, two effects are predominant: the first is due to the orientation of the freestream velocity, and the second is due to the distribution of the induced velocity. For the rear rotor, the freestream velocity effect is reduced but is still dominant. The swirl generated by the front rotor also plays a major role in the modulus and the direction of the in-plane force. Finally, aerodynamic interactions are found to have a minor effect.

[1]  Jianping Yin,et al.  Assessment and Optimization of the Aerodynamic and Acoustic Characteristics of a Counter Rotating Open Rotor , 2012 .

[2]  Jianping Yin,et al.  Installation impact on pusher CROR engine low speed performance and noise emission characteristics , 2012 .

[3]  Camil Negulescu,et al.  Airbus AI-PX7 CROR Design Features and Aerodynamics , 2013 .

[4]  M. Goutines,et al.  A Methodology Proposal to Design and Analyse Counterrotating High Speed Propellers , 1989 .

[5]  Nicolas Gourdain,et al.  High-performance Computing to Simulate Large-scale Industrial Flows in Multistage Compressors , 2010, Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl..

[6]  J. C. Kok,et al.  A high-order low-dispersion symmetry-preserving finite-volume method for compressible flow on curvilinear grids , 2009, J. Comput. Phys..

[7]  L. J. Bober,et al.  Prediction of high speed propeller flow fields using a three-dimensional Euler analysis , 1983 .

[8]  A. Jameson,et al.  Numerical solution of the Euler equations by finite volume methods using Runge Kutta time stepping schemes , 1981 .

[9]  W. von Grünhagen,et al.  HOST, a General Helicopter Simulation Tool for Germany and France , 2000 .

[10]  H. S. Ribner Propellers in yaw , 1943 .

[11]  Arne Stürmer,et al.  Unsteady CFD Simulations of Contra-Rotating Propeller Propulsion Systems , 2008 .

[12]  Ignacio Gonzalez-Martino,et al.  Assessment of propeller 1P loads predictions , 2012 .

[13]  T. G. Sofrin,et al.  Axial Flow Compressor Noise Studies , 1962 .

[14]  P. Spalart A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows , 1992 .

[15]  M. Rai A conservative treatment of zonal boundaries for Euler equation calculations , 1984 .

[16]  Antony Jameson,et al.  Multigrid solution of the Euler equations using implicit schemes , 1985 .

[17]  V.Couaillier Effective Multdimensional Non-Reflective Boundary Condition for CFD Calculations Applied to Turboengine Aeroacoustics Prediction , 2005 .

[18]  P. Gardarein,et al.  Improvements on computations of high speed propeller unsteady aerodynamics , 2003 .

[19]  C. Hirsch,et al.  EFFICIENT PREDICTION OF NACELLE INSTALLATION EFFECTS AT TAKE-OFF CONDITIONS , 2011 .

[20]  Johan C. Kok,et al.  Resolving the Dependence on Freestream Values for the k- Turbulence Model , 2000 .

[21]  Roy D. Hager,et al.  Advanced Turboprop Project , 1988 .

[22]  Cesare A. Hall,et al.  Application of a Navier–Stokes Solver to the Study of Open Rotor Aerodynamics , 2011 .

[23]  H R Pass Effect of Propeller Operation on the Pitching Moments of Single-Engine Monoplanes , 1941 .

[24]  Zoltán S. Spakovszky,et al.  Rotor Interaction Noise in Counter-Rotating Propfan Propulsion Systems , 2012 .

[25]  F W Lanchester THE JAMES FORREST LECTURE 1914, THE FLYING MACHINE FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT. , 1914 .

[26]  Marc Montagnac,et al.  NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS AROUND WING CONTROL SURFACES , 2022 .

[27]  Laurent Cambier,et al.  The Onera elsA CFD software: input from research and feedback from industry , 2013 .

[28]  Cesare A. Hall,et al.  Angle-of-Attack Effects on Counter-Rotating Propellers at Take-Off , 2012 .

[29]  B. Prananta NUMERICAL TOOLS FOR CONTRA-ROTATING OPEN-ROTOR PERFORMANCE, NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT , 2010 .

[30]  Seokkwan Yoon,et al.  An LU-SSOR scheme for the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations , 1987 .

[31]  U. K. Singh,et al.  Time marching methods for turbomachinery flow calculation , 1979 .

[32]  A. Jameson Time dependent calculations using multigrid, with applications to unsteady flows past airfoils and wings , 1991 .