Research Papers

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

[+] Author and Article Information
Benjamin François

Aerodynamic Department,
Airbus Operations S.A.S.,
306 Route de Bayonne,
Toulouse Cedex 9 31000, France
e-mail: benjamin.francois@cerfacs.fr

Martin Laban

Flight Physics and Loads Department,
National Aerospace Laboratory, NLR,
Anthony Fokkerweg 2,
Amsterdam 1059CM, Netherlands
e-mail: martin.laban@nlr.nl

Michel Costes

Onera, The French Aerospace Lab,
8 Rue des Vertugadins,
Meudon F-92190, France
e-mail: michel.costes@onera.fr

Guillaume Dufour

Institut Supérieur de l'Aéronautique
et de l'Espace (ISAE),
Université de Toulouse,
10 avenue Edouard Belin, Toulouse 31400, France
e-mail: guillaume.dufour@isae.fr

Jean-François Boussuge

CFD Department, CERFACS,
42 avenue Gaspard Coriolis,
Toulouse 31000, France
e-mail: boussuge@cerfacs.fr

The expression 1P-forces (1P stands for once-per-revolution) can also be found in literature to define the in-plane forces on a propeller. However, the 1P-forces expression will not be used in this work.

The mesh density ratio is here expressed to the third power to give an average density ratio for each direction.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received January 17, 2013; final manuscript received December 11, 2013; published online January 31, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Alok Sinha.

J. Turbomach 136(8), 081002 (Jan 31, 2014) (16 pages) Paper No: TURBO-13-1006; doi: 10.1115/1.4026311 History: Received January 17, 2013; Revised December 11, 2013

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 phenomenon 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 computational 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.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Topics: Rotors , Blades , Thrust
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Hager, R. D., and Vrabel, D., 1988, “Advanced Turboprop Project,” NASA SP Technical Report No. 495.
Lanchester, F. W., 1916, The Flying-Machine From an Engineering Standpoint, Constable and Co., London.
Harris, R. G., 1918, “Forces on Propeller Due to Sideslip,” British Aeronautical Research Council, Technical Report No. 427.
Glauert, H., 1919, “The Stability Derivatives of an Airscrew,” British Aeronautical Research Council, Technical Report No. 642.
Glauert, H., 1935, Aeroplane Propellers, Miscellaneous Airscrew Problems, (Aerodynamics Theory, Vol. IV), Springer, New York.
Goett, H. J., and Pass, H. R., 1941, “Effect of Propeller Operation on the Pitching Moments of Single-Propellers Monoplanes,” NACA Technical Report No. L-761.
Ribner, H. S., 1945, “Propellers in Yaw,” NACA Technical Report No. 820.
Bober, L. J., Chaussee, D. S., and Kutler, P., 1983, “Prediction of High Speed Propeller Flows Fields Using a Three-Dimensional Euler Analysis,” NASA TM Technical Report No. 83065.
Wong, P., Maina, M., Forsey, C. R., and Bocci, A. J., 1988. “Single and Contra-Rotating High-Speed Propellers: Flow Calculation and Performances Prediction,” ICAS No. 2.4.2.
Nicoud, D., Brochet, J., and Goutines, M., 1989, “A Methodology Proposal to Design and Analyse Counter-Rotating High Speed Propellers,” ASME Paper No. 89-GT-38.
Denton, J., and Singh, U. K., 1979, “Time Marching Methods for Turbomachinery Flow Calculation,” Application of Numerical Methods to Flow Calculations in Turbomachines (VKI Lecture Series), E.Schmidt, ed., von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Rhode-St-Genese, Belgium.
Nallasamy, M., 1994, “Unsteady Blade Pressures on a Propfan: Predicted and Measured Compressibility Effects,” J. Aircr., 31, pp. 730–736. [CrossRef]
Bousquet, J.-M., and Gardarein, P., 2002, “Improvements on Computations of High Speed Propeller Unsteady Aerodynamics,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 7(6), pp. 465–472. [CrossRef]
Stuermer, A., 2008, “Unsteady CFD Simulations of Contra-Rotating Propeller Propulsion Systems,” 44th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Hartford, CT, July 21-23, AIAA Paper No. 2008-5218. [CrossRef]
Zachariadis, A., and Hall, C. A., 2011, “Application of a Navier–Stokes Solver to the Study of Open Rotor Aerodynamics,” ASME J. Turbomach., 133(3), p. 031025. [CrossRef]
Peters, A., and Spakovszky, Z. S., 2012, “Rotor Interaction Noise in Counter-Rotating Propfan Propulsion Systems,” ASME J. Turbomach., 134(1), p. 011002. [CrossRef]
Schnell, R., Yin, J., Voss, C., and Nicke, E., 2012, “Assessment and Optimization of the Aerodynamic and Acoustic Characteristics of a Counter Rotating Open Rotor,” ASME J. Turbomach., 134(6), p. 061016. [CrossRef]
Stuermer, A., and Yin, J., 2011, “Installation Impact on Pusher-CROR Engine Low Speed Performance and Noise Emission Characteristics,” 46th Applied Aerodynamics Symposium of Rotating Bodies, Orleans, France, March 28-30.
Laban, M., Kok, J. C., and Prananta, B. B., 2010, “Numerical Tools for Contra-Rotating Open-Rotor Performance, Noise and Vibration Assessment,” 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS 2010), Nice, France, September 19-24.
Brandvik, T., Hall, C., and Parry, A. B., 2012, “Angle-Of-Attack Effects on Counter-Rotating Propellers at Take-Off,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-69901. [CrossRef]
Ortun, B., Boisard, R., and Gonzalez-Martino, I., 2012, “Assessment of Propeller 1P-Loads Predictions,” Int. J. Eng. Syst. Model. Simul., 4, pp. 36–46. [CrossRef]
Dequin, B., Kampa, A. M., Grunhagen, K., Basset, P. M., and Gimonet, B., 2000, “HOST: A General Helicopter Tool for Germany and France,” 56th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Virginia Beach, VA, May 2-4.
Cambier, L., Heib, S., and Plot, S., 2013, “The Onera elsA CFD Software: Input From Research and Feedback From Industry,” Mech. Ind., 14(03), pp. 159–174. [CrossRef]
Kok, J. C., 2000, “Resolving the Dependence on Freestream Values for the k–ω Turbulence Model,” AIAA J., 38, pp. 1292–1294. [CrossRef]
Kok, J. C., 2009, “A Higher-Order Low-Dispersion Symmetry-Preserving Finite-Volume Method for Compressible Flow on Curvilinear Grids,” J. Comput. Phys., 228, pp. 6811–6832. [CrossRef]
Jameson, A., Schmidt, R. F., and Turkel, E., 1981, “Numerical Solutions of the Euler Equations by Finite Volume Methods Using Runge-Kutta Time Stepping,” AIAA Paper No. 1981-1259. [CrossRef]
Jameson, A., 1991, “Time Dependent Calculations Using Multigrid, With Applications to Unsteady Flows Past Airfoils and Wings,” AIAA Paper No. 91-1596. [CrossRef]
Spalart, P. R., and Allmaras, S. R., 1992, “A One-Equation Turbulence Transport Model for Aerodynamic Flows,” 30th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 6-9, AIAA Paper No. 92-0439. [CrossRef]
Yoon, S., and Jameson, A., 1987, “An LUSSOR Scheme for the Euler and Navier–Stokes Equations,” AIAA J., 4, pp. 36–46. [CrossRef]
Jameson, A., and Yoon, S., 1986, “Multigrid Solution of the Euler Equations Using Implicit Schemes,” AIAA J., 24(11), pp. 1737–1743. [CrossRef]
Couaillier, V., 2005, “Effective Multidimensional Non-Reflective Boundary Condition for CFD Calculations Applied to Turboengine Aeroacoustics Prediction,” ISABE 17th Symposium on Air Breathing Engines (ISABE 2005), Munich, Germany, September 4-9.
Boisard, R., Delattre, G., and Falissard, F., 2011, “Assessment of Aerodynamics and Aero-Acoustics Tools for Open Rotors,” 9th European Turbomachinery Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, March 21-25, pp. 21–25.
Negulescu, C. A., 2013, “Airbus AI-PX7 CROR Design Features and Aerodynamics,” SAE 2013 AeroTech Congress & Exhibition, Montreal, Canada, September 24-26, SAE Paper No. 2013-01-2245. [CrossRef]
Rai, M., 1986, “A Conservative Treatment of Zonal Boundaries for Euler Equation Calculations,” J. Comput. Phys., 62, pp. 472–503. [CrossRef]
Fillola, G., Le Pape, M.-C., and Montagnac, M., 2004, “Numerical Simulations Around Wing Control Surfaces,” 24th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS 2004), Yokohama, Japan, August 29-September 3.
Gourdain, N., Montagnac, M., Wlassow, F., and Gazaix, M., 2010, “High-Performance Computing to Simulate Large-Scale Industrial Flows in Multistage Compressors,” Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl., 24(1), pp. 429–443. [CrossRef]
Tyler, J. M., and Sofrin, T. G., 1962, “Axial Flow Compressor Noise Studies,” SAE Trans., 70, pp. 309–332. [CrossRef]
Purwanto, A., Deconinck, T., Vilmin, S., Lorrain, E., and Hirsch, C., 2011, “Efficient Prediction of Nacelle Installation Effects at Take-Off Conditions,” 9th European Turbomachinery Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, March 21-25.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Two different Airbus nacelle designs for AI-PX7 configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Splitting of the computational domain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Blade mesh: (a) front blade and (b) rear blade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Blade to blade mesh: (a) elsA and (b) ENSOLV

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Definition of the azimuthal angle: (a) front rotor and (b) rear rotor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Global forces on rotors: (a) thrust coefficient on the front rotor, (b) thrust coefficient on the rear rotor, (c) in-plane force modulus on the front rotor, (d) in-plane force modulus on the rear rotor, (e) in-plane force angle on the front rotor, and (f) in-plane force angle on the rear rotor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Fast Fourier transform on CIP signal from elsA computations: (a) front rotor and (b) rear rotor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Thrust coefficient CT on a single blade: (a) front blade and (b) rear blade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Kp distribution on blade at ξ=0.75

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Velocity triangle for propellers at nonzero angle of attack: (a) front view of propellers and (b) advancing blade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Velocity triangle for propellers at nonzero angle of attack with induced velocities

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Instantaneous induced velocity flow-fields in an X-plane at one chord upstream of the front rotor: (a) normalized axial induced velocity ux/Vx∞ and (b) Δαloc (deg) due to induced velocity field

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

In-plane force on the front rotor regarding time step: (a) modulus and (b) angle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Impact of the aerodynamic interactions on a front single blade: (a) filtered thrust coefficient CTHF on a front single blade and (b) thrust coefficient CT on a rear single blade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Impact of the increase of the axial velocity due to the front stage: (a) axial velocities on an X-plane at one chord upstream to the rear rotor and at ξ = 0.75 and (b) velocity triangle for the advancing blade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Relative flow angles Φr (deg) upstream of the rear rotor: (a) X-cut at one chord upstream of rear rotor (α = 1 deg) and (b) extraction from a line at ξ = 0.75

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

In-plane forces on the rear rotor regarding time step: (a) modulus and (b) angle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Impact of the aerodynamic interactions on a rear single blade: (a) filtered thrust coefficient CTHF on a rear single blade and (b) thrust coefficient CT on a front single blade




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In