Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T09:07:52.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison between blade-element models of propellers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

O. Gur and
A. Rosen
O. Gur
Affiliation:
Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
A. Rosen
Affiliation:
Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Blade-element models are the most common models for the analysis of propeller aerodynamics, performance calculations and propeller design. In spite of their simplicity these models are very efficient and accurate. Blade-element models use the local induced velocities as an input thus they should be combined with another model in order to calculate these induced velocities. Various models are used for the calculation of the induced velocity, where the most popular ones include: momentum, simplified-momentum, lifting-line (prescribed and free wake), and vortex (McCormick and Theodorsen) models. The paper describes the various models, compares their results and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each one. The results indicate that the Bladeelement/simplified-momentum model offers very good accuracy together with high efficiency. For propeller performance calculations during steady axial flight, where most of the cross-sections do not experience stall, detailed and complicated models for calculating the induced velocities do not show advantages over the simple bladeelement/simplified-momentum model,

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 112 , Issue 1138 , December 2008, pp. 689 - 704
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2008 

References

1. Sezer-Uzol, N. and Long, N.L., 3-D time accurate CFD simulations of wind turbine rotor flow fields, 2006, AIAA Paper 2006-394, 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibition, 9-12 January 2006, Reno, Nevada.Google Scholar
2. Janus, J.M. General aviation propeller-airframe integration simulations, AIAA J Aircr, March-April 2006, 43, (2), pp 390–394.Google Scholar
3. Kobayakawa, M. and Hatano, I., Flow field around a propeller by Navier-Stokes equation analysis, AIAA Paper 88-3150, AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE 24th Joint Propulsion Conference, 11-13 July 1988, Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
4. Yoon, S.J. and Schetz, J.A., Numerical Navier-Stokes solutions of high-speed propeller flows, AIAA J Propulsion, July-August 1988, 4, (4), pp 291–292.Google Scholar
5. Wald, Q.R., The Wright brothers propeller theory and design, 2001, AIAA Paper 2001-3386, AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE 37th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibition, 8-11 July 2001, Salt Lake City, Utah.Google Scholar
6. Drzewiecki, S., Théorie Générale de L’hélice, 1920, Paris.Google Scholar
7. Hunsaker, F.D., A numerical blade element approach to estimating propeller flowfields, 2007, AIAA Paper 2007-374, 45th AIAA Aerospace science Meeting and Exhibition, 8-11 January 2007.Google Scholar
8. Glauert, H., Airplane propellers, Aerodynamic Theory, 1935, Third Edition, Vol 4, Division L, Durand, F.W. (Ed), Dover, New York.Google Scholar
9. Clark, R.D. and Leiper, C.A., The free wake analysis. A method for the prediction of helicopter rotor hovering performance, J American Helicopter Soc, 1970, 15, (1), pp 3–11.Google Scholar
10. Theodorsen, T., Theory of Propellers, 1948, McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
11. McCormick, B.W., Aerodynamics of V/STOL Flight, 1967, Academic Press, New-York.Google Scholar
12. Horlock, J.H., Actuator Disk Theory, 1978, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
13. Prandtl, L., Application of modern hydrodynamics to aeronautics, 1923, NACA Technical Report No 116.Google Scholar
14. Bober, L.J. and Mitchell, G.A., Summary of advanced methods for predicting high speed propeller performance, 1980, AIAA Paper 80-0225, 18th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 14-16 January 1980, Pasadena, California.Google Scholar
15. Lock, C.N.H. and Bateman, H., Experiments with a family of airscrew. Part III: Analysis of the family of airscrew by means of the vortex theory and measurements of total head, December 1923, Aeronautical Research Committee, Report & Memoranda No 892.Google Scholar
16. Shen, W.Z., Sorensen, J.N. and Mikkelsen, R., Tip loss correction for actuator/Navier-Stokes computations, J Solar Energy Engineering, May 2005, 127, pp 209–213.Google Scholar
17. Sissingh, G., Contribution to the aerodynamic of rotating-wing aircraft, December 1939, NACA Technical Memorandums No 921.Google Scholar
18. Gur, O. and Rosen, A., Propeller performance at low advance ratio, AIAA J Aircr, March-April 2005, 42, (2), pp 435–441.Google Scholar
19. Sandak, Y. and Rosen, A., Aeroelastically adaptive propeller using blade;s root flexibility, Aeronaut J, August 2004, 108, (1086), pp 411–418.Google Scholar
20. Rosen, A. and Gur, O., A novel approach to actuator disk modeling, 2006, 32nd European Rotorcraft Forum, 12-14 September 2006, Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
21. Wald, Q.R., The aerodynamics of propellers, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2006, 42, pp 85–128.Google Scholar
22. Evans, J.A. and Liner, G., A wind tunnel investigation of the aerodynamic characteristics of a full-scale sweptback propeller and two related straight propellers, January 1951, NACA Research and Memorandum L50J05.Google Scholar
23. Karamcheti, K., Principles of Ideal-Fluid Aerodynamics,1980, Krieger Publishing Company.Google Scholar
24. Wickenheiser, A. and Garcia, E., Aerodynamic modeling of morphing wings using an extended Lifting-Line analysis, J Aircr, January-February 2007, 44, (1), pp 10–16.Google Scholar
25. Betz, A., Screw propeller with minimum energy loss (Schraubenpropeller mit geringstem energieverlust), 1919, Translation from German by Sinclair, D.A., Translation Section, NRC Library, Technical translation 736, Source: Nachr Kgl Ges Wiss Göttingen, Math-Phys Kl, 1919, 2, pp 193–217.Google Scholar
26. Goldstein, S., On the vortex theory of screw propellers, Proceeding of the Royal Society (A), 1929, 123, pp 440–465.Google Scholar
27. Rosen, A. and Graber, A., Free wake model of hovering rotors having straight or curved blades, J American Helicopter Soc, 1988, 33, (3), pp 11–19.Google Scholar
28. Rand, O. and Rosen, A., Efficient method for calculating the axial velocities induced along rotating blades by trailing helical vortices, AIAA J of Aircr, June 1984, 21, pp 433–435.Google Scholar
29. Leishman, J.G., Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics, Cambridge Aerospace Series, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
30. Larrabee, E.E., Practical design of minimum induced loss propellers, 1979, SAE 790585, Business Aircraft Meeting and Exposition, 3–6 April, 1979, Century II, Wichita.Google Scholar
31. Crigler, L.J., Application of Theodorsen’s theory to propeller design, 1948, NACA Report 924.Google Scholar
32. McLemore, H.C. and Cannon, C.M., Aerodynamic investigation of a four-blade propeller operating through an angle-of-attack range from 0º to 180º, June 1954, NACA Technical Note No 3228.Google Scholar