Hovering efficiency optimization of the ducted propeller with weight penalty taken into account

Abstract The ducted propeller is superior to the open propeller in hovering efficiency. However, the overall system efficiency of a ducted propeller is reduced due to its heavy structure. If the weight penalty is taken into account, will the ducted propeller still be superior to an open propeller? And in this scenario, how will a ducted propeller with better efficiency than an open propeller be designed? This paper investigates these questions by parametric analysis based on experiments and then parametric optimization that involves hovering efficiency and structural weight in objective functions. Both multi-disciplinary design optimization and multi-objective programming are performed by surrogate-based optimization. An in-house automatic structured mesh generation module is developed to deal with significant geometry variation in design space. Finally, the optimization results are validated by post-optimization experiments. The results of experiment and optimization indicate that the effects of weight penalty play a leading role at low disk loading and hence in this case, the one with lighter structure is superior. But at high disk loading, as thrust gets higher, the leading factor turns into aerodynamic hovering efficiency, therefore the one with higher aerodynamic hovering efficiency prevails. The multi-objective optimization produces an L-shaped Pareto front, and the optimum of multi-disciplinary optimization is quite close to the Pareto front knee point. The designs in this region encounter limited aerodynamic hovering efficiency loss but gain significant weight reduction. Therefore, we can obtain a ducted propeller superior to an open propeller in system efficiency with pretty low disk loading, although the weight penalty is considered. These designs feature a relatively large inner lip radius, a small outer lip radius, and a short or even no diffuser. This means that the inner lip radius contributes the most to the aerodynamic hovering efficiency, followed by the diffuser and outer lip. These designs have very low height to diameter ratio therefore they can be easily integrated into aircraft structure.

[1]  Michael L. Stein,et al.  Interpolation of spatial data , 1999 .

[2]  Jeong‐Soo Park.  Optimal Latin-hypercube designs for computer experiments , 1994 .

[3]  Jason Louie Pereira,et al.  Hover and wind-tunnel testing of shrouded rotors for improved micro air vehicle design , 2008 .

[4]  Patricia Ventura Diaz,et al.  High-Fidelity Computational Analysis of Ducted and Coaxial Rotors for Urban Air Mobility , 2019 .

[5]  Thomas J. Santner,et al.  Design and analysis of computer experiments , 1998 .

[6]  Stavros Vouros,et al.  Multi-disciplinary optimization of variable rotor speed and active blade twist rotorcraft: Trade-off between noise and emissions , 2020 .

[7]  Roger C. Strawn,et al.  Discrete Blade CFD Analysis of Ducted Tail Fan Flow , 2004 .

[8]  I-Chung Chang,et al.  CFD Analysis for Ducted Fans with Validation , 2003 .

[9]  Sanjay R. Mathur,et al.  Three dimensional analysis of a rotor in forward flight , 1993 .

[10]  T. N. Croft,et al.  A coupled blade element momentum – Computational fluid dynamics model for evaluating tidal stream turbine performance , 2013 .

[11]  R. Rajagopalan,et al.  Performance and flow field of a ducted propeller , 1989 .

[12]  Cengiz Camci,et al.  Experimental and Computational Assessment of a Ducted-Fan Rotor Flow Model , 2012 .

[13]  Piet Demeester,et al.  ooDACE toolbox: a flexible object-oriented Kriging implementation , 2014, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[14]  J. Gordon Leishman,et al.  Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics , 2000 .

[15]  Jason L. Loeppky,et al.  Analysis Methods for Computer Experiments: How to Assess and What Counts? , 2016 .

[16]  Henry P. Wynn,et al.  Maximum entropy sampling , 1987 .

[17]  Shuanghou Deng,et al.  Aerodynamic performance assessment of a ducted fan UAV for VTOL applications , 2020 .

[18]  Robert T Taylor.  Experimental investigation of the effects of some shroud design variables on the static thrust characteristics of a small-scale shrouded propeller submerged in a wing , 1958 .

[19]  Seung-O Park,et al.  Unsteady Momentum Source Method for Efficient Simulation of Rotor Aerodynamics , 2013 .

[20]  Herman S Fletcher,et al.  Experimental Investigation of Lift, Drag, and Pitching Moment of Five Annular Airfoils , 1957 .

[21]  Nícolas Lima Oliveira,et al.  Evaluation of low fidelity and CFD methods for the aerodynamic performance of a small propeller , 2021, Aerospace Science and Technology.

[22]  William J. Welch,et al.  Computer experiments and global optimization , 1997 .

[23]  David Herrero Pérez,et al.  Kriging-based infill sampling criterion for constraint handling in multi-objective optimization , 2016, J. Glob. Optim..

[24]  Kyung-Tae Lee,et al.  Performance Prediction and Design of a Ducted Fan System , 2004 .

[25]  Duygu Erdem,et al.  Performance of a ducted propeller designed for UAV applications at zero angle of attack flight: An experimental study , 2015 .

[26]  H. H. Mian,et al.  Optimization of thin electric propeller using physics-based surrogate model with space mapping , 2021 .

[27]  R. Bontempo,et al.  Effects of Duct Cross Section Camber and Thickness on the Performance of Ducted Propulsion Systems for Aeronautical Applications , 2016 .

[28]  George N. Barakos,et al.  Review on ducted fans for compound rotorcraft , 2020, The Aeronautical Journal.

[29]  Will Edward Graf,et al.  Effects of Duct Lip Shaping and Various Control Devices on the Hover and Forward Flight Performance of Ducted Fan UAVs , 2005 .

[30]  Roger Woodard,et al.  Interpolation of Spatial Data: Some Theory for Kriging , 1999, Technometrics.

[31]  M. D. McKay,et al.  A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code , 2000 .

[32]  Mohsen Rostami,et al.  Aerodynamic performance of mutual interaction tandem propellers with ducted UAV , 2020 .