2022
DOI: 10.1007/s13272-022-00579-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison and evaluation of blade element methods against RANS simulations and test data

Abstract: This paper compares several blade element theory (BET) method-based propeller simulation tools, including an evaluation against static propeller ground tests and high-fidelity Reynolds-Average Navier Stokes (RANS) simulations. Two proprietary propeller geometries for paraglider applications are analysed in static and flight conditions. The RANS simulations are validated with the static test data and used as a reference for comparing the BET in flight conditions. The comparison includes the analysis of varying … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Validation The aerodynamic module was previously compared to other available methods, including approaches based on potential flow theory, commercial CFD tools applying RANS simulations, and experimental test data. The aerodynamic module agrees well with experimental and CFD data in most investigated cases, even though aeroelastic deformations were not considered [24].…”
Section: Numerical Approach: Propcodesupporting
confidence: 68%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Validation The aerodynamic module was previously compared to other available methods, including approaches based on potential flow theory, commercial CFD tools applying RANS simulations, and experimental test data. The aerodynamic module agrees well with experimental and CFD data in most investigated cases, even though aeroelastic deformations were not considered [24].…”
Section: Numerical Approach: Propcodesupporting
confidence: 68%
“…The nonlinear momentum approach also incorporates corrections for tip and root losses, sweep, and post-stall behavior. Further information on the model can be found in [24].…”
Section: Numerical Approach: Propcodementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The flow field is calculated with ANSYS CFX 2020R1 with the multiple reference frames(MRF) model. MRF simulations are sufficient for thrust and torque prediction of an open propeller and can reduce the CPU time of rigid body motion simulations [27]. In the rotation domain, the flow around a propeller by assigning a constant rotational velocity while the solid structure of the propeller itself remains fixed [28][29][30][31].…”
Section: Mesh and Cfd Setupmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prandtl's tip and root loss correction attenuate the lift distribution [31]. The second author presents a detailed explanation and validation cases in reference [32].…”
Section: Steady-state Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%