Research Papers

Contrarotating Open Rotor Operation for Improved Aerodynamics and Noise at Takeoff

[+] Author and Article Information
Alexios Zachariadis

e-mail: alexios.zachariadis@cantab.net

Cesare Hall

e-mail: cah1003@cam.ac.uk
Whittle Laboratory,
Department of Engineering,
University of Cambridge,
Cambridge CB3 0DY, United Kingdom

Anthony B. Parry

Rolls-Royce plc,
Moor Lane,
Derby DE23 8BJ, UK
e-mail: anthony.parry@rolls-royce.com

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received January 11, 2012; final manuscript received February 27, 2012; published online March 25, 2013. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Turbomach 135(3), 031010 (Mar 25, 2013) (10 pages) Paper No: TURBO-12-1005; doi: 10.1115/1.4006778 History: Received January 11, 2012; Revised February 27, 2012

The contrarotating open rotor is, once again, being considered as an alternative to the advanced turbofan to address the growing pressure to cut aviation fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. One of the key challenges is meeting community noise targets at takeoff. Previous open rotor designs are subject to poor efficiency at takeoff due to the presence of large regions of separated flow on the blades as a result of the high incidence needed to achieve the required thrust. This is a consequence of the fixed rotor rotational speed constraint typical of variable pitch propellers. Within the study described in this paper, an improved operation is proposed to improve performance and reduce rotor-rotor interaction noise at takeoff. Three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) calculations have been performed on an open rotor rig at a range of takeoff operating conditions. These have been complemented by analytical tone noise predictions to quantify the noise benefits of the approach. The results presented show that for a given thrust, a combination of reduced rotor pitch and increased rotor rotational speed can be used to reduce the incidence onto the front rotor blades. This is shown to eliminate regions of flow separation, reduce the front rotor tip loss and reduce the downstream stream tube contraction. The wakes from the front rotor are also made wider with lower velocity defect, which is found to lead to reduced interaction tone noise. Unfortunately, the necessary increase in blade speed leads to higher relative Mach numbers, which can increase rotor alone noise. In summary, the combined CFD and aeroacoustic analysis in this paper shows how careful operation of an open rotor at takeoff, with moderate levels of repitch and speed increase, can lead to improved front rotor efficiency as well as appreciably lower overall noise across all directivities.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Smith, L. H., Jr., 1987, “Unducted Fan Aerodynamic Design,” ASME J. Turbomach., 109(3), pp. 313–324. [CrossRef]
Hager, R. D., and Vrabel, D., 1988, “Advanced Turboprop Project,” NASA SP-495.
Mitchell, G. A., 1988, “Experimental Aerodynamic Performance of Advanced 40°-Swept, 10-Blade Propeller Model at Mach 0.6 to 0.85,” NASA TM-88969.
Neumann, H. E., Bober, L. J., Serafini, J. S., and Chang, L.-K., 1983, “An Analytical and Experimental Comparison of the Flow Field of an Advanced Swept Turboprop,” Paper No. AIAA-1983-189.
Podboy, G. G., and Krupar, M. J., 1989, “Laser Velocimeter Measurements of the Flow Field Generated by an Advanced Counter Rotating Propeller,” Paper No. AIAA-1989-434.
Shin, H.-W., Whitfield, C. E., and Wisler, D. C., 1994, “Rotor-Rotor Interaction for Counter-Rotating Fans. I—Three-Dimensional Flowfield Measurements,” AIAA J., 32(11), pp. 2224–2233. [CrossRef]
Celestina, M. L., Mulac, R. A., and Adamczyk, J. J., 1986, “A Numerical Simulation of the Inviscid Flow Through a Counter-Rotating Propeller,” ASME Paper 86-GT-138.
Schnell, R., Yin, Y., Voss1, C., and Nicke1, E., 2010, “Assessment and Optimization of the Aerodynamic and Acoustic Characteristics of a Counter Rotating Open Rotor,” ASME Paper GT2010-22076. [CrossRef]
Peters, A., and Spakovszky, Z. S., 2010, “Rotor Interaction Noise in Counter-Rotating Propfan Propulsion Systems,” ASME Paper GT2010-22554. [CrossRef]
Zachariadis, A., and Hall, C. A., 2009, “Application of a Navier-Stokes Solver to the Study of Open Rotor Aerodynamics,” ASME Paper GT2009-59332. [CrossRef]
Kirker, T. J., 1990, “Procurement and Testing of a 1/5 Scale Advanced Counter Rotating Propfan Model,” Paper No. AIAA-1990-3975.
Moinier, P. and Giles, M. B., 1998. “Preconditioned Euler and Navier-Stokes Calculations on Unstructured Grids,” 6th ICFD Conference on Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, Oxford, UK, March 31–April 3.
Spalart, P. R., and Allmaras, S. R., 1994 “A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows,” Recherche Aerospatiale, 1, pp. 5–21.
Whitfield, C. E., Mani, R., and Gliebe, P. R., 1990, “High Speed Turboprop Acoustic Study (Counter Rotation), Volume II, Computer Programs,” Technical Report, NASA CR-185242.
Whitfield, C. E., Mani, R., and Gliebe, P. R., 1990, “High Speed Turboprop Acoustic Study (Counter Rotation), Volume I, Model Development,” Technical Report, NASA CR-185241.
Hanson, D. B., 1980, “Helicoidal Surface Theory for Harmonic Noise of Propellers in the Far Field,” AIAA J., 18(10), pp 1213–1219. [CrossRef]
Majjigi, R. K., and Gliebe, P. R., 1984, “Development of a Rotor Wake/Vortex Model,” Volume I, Final Technical Report, NASA CR-174849.
Majjigi, R. K., Uenishi, K., and Gliebe, P. R., 1989, “An Investigation of Counter-Rotating Tip Vortex Interaction,” NASA CR-185135.
Sears, W. R., 1941, “Some Aspects of Non-Stationary Airfoil Theory and Its Practical Application,” J. Aeronaut. Sci., 8(3), pp 104–108. [CrossRef]
Amiet, R. K., 1976, “High Frequency Thin-Airfoil Theory for Subsonic Flow,” AIAA J., 14(8), pp 1076–1082. [CrossRef]
Cumpsty, N. A., 1977, “A Critical Review of Turbomachinery Noise,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 99, pp 278–293. [CrossRef]
Parry, A. B., and Crighton, D. G., 1989, “Prediction of Counter-Rotation Propeller Noise,” AIAA Paper No. 1989-1141.
Parry, A. B., 1997, “Modular Prediction Scheme for Blade Row Interaction Noise,” J. Propul. Power, 13, 334–341. [CrossRef]
Vaczy, C. M., and McCormick, D. C., 1987, “A Study of the Leading Edge Vortex and Tip Vortex on Prop-Fan Blades,” ASME J. Turbomach., 109(3), pp. 325–331. [CrossRef]
Sujuki, D., and Haimes, R., 1995, “Identification of Swirling Flow in 3-D Vector Fields,” Paper No. AIAA-1995-1715.
Haimes, R., and Kenwright, D., 1999, “On the Velocity Gradient Tensor and Fluid Feature Extraction,” Paper No. AIAA-1999-3288.
Metzger, F. B., and Rohrbach, C., 1986, “Benefits of Blade Sweep for Advanced Turboprops,” J. Propul., 2(6), pp. 534–540. [CrossRef]
Parry, A. B., and Vianello, S., 2010 “A Project Study of Open Rotor Noise,” 14th CEAS-ASC Workshop (& 5th Scientific Workshop of X3-Noise), Warsaw, Poland, October7–8 .
Maksymiuk, C. M., and Watson, S. A., 1983 “A Computer Program for Estimating the Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 16-Series Airfoils,” NASA Tech. Memo 85696.
Parry, A. B., Howarth, N., and Taylor, M. D., 2008, “Aeroengine,” International Publication No. WO 2008/096124 A2.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Radial distribution of the front and rear rotor incidence at the nominal takeoff condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Very near-field noise directivities of the (2,1) rotor-rotor interaction tone for straight blades at takeoff and (1,2) interaction tone for another blade design at a takeoff condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of the front rotor-alone noise directivities at blade passing frequency in the very near and moderate near field at takeoff

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Measured and calculated cruise absolute stagnation pressure ratio (TPR) downstream of the contrarotating rotors at cruise

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Experimental and calculated distributions of pressure coefficient (CP) on the rig bullet surface at takeoff, from [10]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Summary of blade geometrical characteristics

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Overview of the Rig-140 straight blade geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Contours of entropy function (exp-(s/R)) for Rig-140 at the nominal takeoff condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Rotor face velocity triangles before and after repitching and speeding up at takeoff: (a) thrust versus incidence and (b) propeller efficiency versus incidence

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Performance tradeoffs due to rotor repitch and rotational speed increase

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Contours of entropy function downstream of the front rotor due to combined blade repitch and speed up

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Effect of repitching and speeding up on the rotor suction surface limiting streamlines at takeoff

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Radial distribution of front rotor stagnation pressure loss coefficient (YP) due to operating point variation at takeoff

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Calculated front rotor tip vortex contraction due to operating point variation at takeoff

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Wake profiles at r/R = 0.70 downstream of the front rotor trailing edge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Orientation of noise prediction locations: (a) front rotor and (b) rear rotor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of the predicted front and rear rotor-alone tones at 1 and 2 BPF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison of the predicted (1,1) and (1,2) interaction tones

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Predicted sound pressure level (dBA) reduction relative to the nominal condition at takeoff



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