AE 667 – Rotary wing Aerodynamics

Assignment 1
AYUSH SARRAF
190010014
Assumptions and Data:
The main aim of the assignment was to come up with feasible rotor designs that could be used on Mars.
The helicopter is required to carry sensors of mass 1 kg and the mass limit of the Mars Lander is 4 kg and
space of 1m x 1m x 1m. It is assumed that the mass of the helicopter is equal to 4 kg. The root cut out
fraction of the blade is assumed to be 15% of the radius of the blades. The airfoil used for the blades is
NACA 0015 which is the same as that used for benchmarking of the coding tools developed.

Airfoil Specifications for NACA 0015

The atmosphere of Mars is rarer compared to that of Earth, with the peak atmospheric density of 0.02
Kg/m3 that is equal to the density fond at an altitude of 35 km above the Earth’s surface. However, since
our helicopter would hover around the surface of Mars, the surface atmospheric density is around
0.015 kg/m3. Further, the gravitational acceleration of Mars is three times lesser as compared to that of
Earth. The surface gravitational acceleration of Mars is equal to 3.71 m/s-2.

Initial Sizing:
The initial sizing is done using the momentum theory for hover condition. Since, the mass of the helicopter
is equal to 4kg, the rotos must generate a thrust of 4g for hover. Hence the induced velocity, ideal power
and peak downwash can be obtained as follows:
𝑚 = 4 𝑘𝑔
𝑔 = 3.71 𝑚/𝑠
𝑇 = 𝑚 ⋅ 𝑔 = 14.8 𝑁

The diagonal of the square of 1m x 1m is equal to √2 m = 1.41 m. Taking a clearance of 10 cm and fitting
the blades along the diagonal, we get rotor diameter = 1.3 m. The maximum possible blade diameter is
chosen in order to maximize the lift produced per blade.
𝑟 = 0.65 𝑚

𝑇
𝑣= = 19.28 𝑚/𝑠
2⋅ρ⋅𝐴

𝑃 = 𝑇 ⋅ 𝑣 = 286.12 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑠
𝑣 = 2 × 𝑣 = 38.56 𝑚/𝑠
Therefore, from the momentum theory we have,
Blade Radius (R) = 0.65 m
Ideal Power (𝑃 ) = 286.12 Watts
Far Stream Downwash (𝑣 ) = 38.56 m/s

Computation Tool:
The BEM Theory is used for the computation process. The codes for the BEM theory have been developed
and benchmarked with the given reference. Firstly, the blade is discretized from the hub to the tip in finite
sections and functions are developed to store the radial locations.

‘R’ is the radius of the blade

‘R_c’ is the root cut out radius
‘N’ is the number of discrete points
The pitch angle and the chord lengths at these radial locations can be linearly varied using the
“blade_pitch” and the “blade_chord” functions.

‘theta_0’ and ‘c_0’ are the pitch angle and chord lengths at the zero location respectively.
Further, two functions are developed that computes and returns the sectional thrust and the total torque
using the following formulae:

1
𝑇=𝑏× × ρ(𝑈 + 𝑈 ) × 𝑐 × 𝐶 𝑐𝑜𝑠(ϕ) − 𝐶 𝑠𝑖𝑛(ϕ) 𝑑𝑟
2

1
𝑄=𝑏× 𝑟 × × ρ(𝑈 + 𝑈 ) × 𝑐 × 𝐶 𝑐𝑜𝑠(ϕ) + 𝐶 𝑠𝑖𝑛(ϕ) 𝑑𝑟
2
Here, the integration is converted into summation over finitely many discrete points.
The “BEM” function is used to call all the above functions and finally return the value of thrust and power
for a given blade configuration and is used to design the rotor blades by varying the different inputs.

The “tip_loss” when set to True includes the Prandtl’s tip loss function and hence iteratively solves for the
value of inflow ratio. Also, the “section_variable” takes Boolean values and is set to false by default, when
True the BEM function returns the sectional radius, thrust, effective angle of attack and the induced
velocity at different blade location.
The following formula is used to calculate the inflow ratio,

σ𝑎 λ σ𝑎 𝑟 σ𝑎 λ
λ= − + θ − −
16 2 8 𝑅 16 2

σ= ;λ= ;λ =
Further, when the Prandtl’s tip loss model is invoked the value of lambda is iteratively computed to include
the effect of tip loss using,

σ𝑎 λ σ𝑎 𝑟 σ𝑎 λ
λ= − + θ − −
16𝐹 2 8 𝑅 16𝐹 2

𝐹 = 𝐶𝑜𝑠 (𝑒 );𝑓 =

The code is run in loop until convergence and the convergence criteria is set at 0.1%.
Once, the value of λ is obtained, it is used to compute the induced velocity which is further used to
compute the effective angle of attack at different blade locations. The lift and drag models for NACA 0015
airfoil has been used to obtain the 𝐶 and 𝐶 values at different blade locations. All this is finally used to
calculate the thrust and torque using the following function which is invoked inside “BEM”.

The last index is omitted when the “tip_loss” is invoked in order to avoid singularity at the wing tip.
Further, the values of thrust and power obtained from the “BEM” is normalized using the formulae:
2𝑇
𝐶 =
ρπ𝑅 Ω
2𝑄 𝑃
𝐶 = ;𝑄=
ρπ𝑅 Ω Ω
Benchmarking:
The “BEM” function developed is benchmarked by using the experimental data from the reference paper
by plotting the thrust and the torque coefficients with change in the pitch angle of the rotor blades for
rotors with 2/3/4/5 blades obtained experimentally and using the codes.
The experiments used a NACA 0015 airfoil as well and the following initial conditions were set during the
experiment:
ρ = 1.225 𝑘𝑔/𝑚
𝐶 = 5.75
𝐶 = 0.0113 + 1.25α
𝑐 = 0.0508 𝑚
𝑅 = 0.762 𝑚 ; 𝑅 = 0.125 𝑚
Ω = 960 𝑟𝑝𝑚
The twist rate and the taper rate were set to zero and the pitch angle was varied between 00 to 120. The
following results were obtained –

We can see that the values obtained from the code closely follows the experimental data which validates
our code. Further, the accuracy is greater when the Tip Loss model is included, justifying the correct
involvement of the wing tip losses. Also, we can see that the thrust coefficient tends to increase lineraly
with increase in the blade pitch angle.
The results obtained for the torque coefficient is also in agreement with the experimentally measured
values and the accuracy is enhanced with the involvement of the Tip Loss model even in this case. Further,
we can see that the torque coefficient stays almost constant for small values of pitch angle and tends to
increase non linearly with increase in pitch angle, unlike the thrust coefficient.
Therefore, from the above plots, we can conclude that:
1. The codes developed are in agreement with the experimentally determined values for all the blade
configuration.
2. The Tip Loss model gives us more accurate results by including additional losses.
3. The Thrust coefficient increases almost linearly with the pitch angle.
4. The variation of Torque coefficient is rather non-linear, more of exponential, unlike the thrust
coefficient.
Design Variables Study:
Now, since we are quite certain that the codes developed does a decent job at computing the thrust and
power for a given rotor design, let us check the variation of thrust and power with different design
variables.
1. Solidity (σ)
Solidity is defined as the ratio of the blade area to the disc area. Typical values of solidity for rotors
lies between 0.05 – 0.12. Solidity can be varied by increasing the chord length or the number of
blades or both. The variation of thrust and power with solidity for the above experimental
configuration is as follows:

Both Thrust and power shows a near-linear increasing trend for the given domain in both the case
of chord length variation as well as number of blades variation.
2. Taper Ratio
Taper ratio is defined as the ratio of the chord length at the tip of the blade to that at the root of
the blade. The value of taper ratio is equal to one for a rectangular blade. Typically, the taper ratio
is kept less than 1, so as to avoid the high skin friction drag at the tip due to higher velocities at the
tip of the rotors. Our code allows us to vary the taper ratio by varying the chord length linearly from
the hub to the tip. So, typically negative values for taper rates are used in order to maintain a taper
ratio of less than 1, so absolute values of taper rates are plotted here. The effect of taper on thrust
and power is as follows:
 Both the thrust and power show similar trends for variation in taper. They increase with increase in
taper ratio, i.e., power consumption as well as thrust produced is higher for rectangular blades. We
can also see that both power and thrust tends to reduce with increase in the rate of taper.
3. Twist θ −θ
Twist is defined as the difference in the pitch angle at the root to that of the tip. Typical values of
twist for rotors lies in the range of 100 – 200. Twist is generally introduced in an attempt to keep
major portion of the blade at the optimal effective angle of attack, so as to enhance performance.
The rate of twist from the root to the tip is generally kept positive, so as to prevent the flow
separation near the root. The variation of thrust and power with twist is as shown:
 Again, the thrust and power behave similarly to the effect of twist. They tend to increase with
increase in twist.

Design Procedure:
The following steps were used in the design process:

 Firstly, Power vs Angular speed of the blades were plotted for different number of blades
and varying pitch angle and chord length one after the other respectively, such that the thrust is
kept constant at the thrust required for hover.

From here we can see that, with 2 and 3 blade very high rpms are required to support the thrust. 4
and 5 blades behave similarly. Hence, we fix the number of blades to be 4. Further, chord length
values around 0.07m is preferred since the power is stagnant in that region for 4 blades.
For 4 blades, the power consumption is nearly stagnant for pitch angles greater than 100, hence
they are more preferable, since lower pitch angles have a large increase in values of power.
 Now, since we know a reasonable range for both pitch angles as well as chord lengths, we
can plot the effect of power by varying both of them together.

Pitch angle of 140 and 160 are very close to each other, so we can roughly say that the Power have
stagnated after that. Hence, we fix the pitch angle at 140. Further, noticing that the change in
Power is slower after chord length of 0.085 m, we fix the chord length to be 0.085 m.
Therefore, we have our first design as a simple rotor with 4 rectangular blades, and chord length
and pitch angle equal to 0.085m and 140 respectively.
 Now, we try to see the effect of taper and twist on our first design obtained in the previous
step.

From here we can see that, when the rate of taper is increased from tip to hub, the power values
increase as well as the rpm required for the hover thrust increases. Hence, taper alone does not
gives us any advantage. So, currently we proceed with 0 taper.

The power required increases with increase in taper on either side of the zero mark. But, with
positive twist rates, we can see that the thrust is generated at a much lower rpm and also positive
twist helps prevent stall near the hub of the rotor. Hence a twist rate of 100/m is chosen as our
second design in addition to the previous conditions of the first design.
  Now, we try to visualize the effects of taper and twist collectively on the power. Hence, we
do so by the following plot-

From here, we can see that the power initially increases with taper rate, then stagnates and then
further increases. Also, the difference in power for different twist rate is not huge. Hence for our
third design, we choose a combination of a twist rate of 140/m and taper rate of 6 cm/m.

Rotor Designs:
Using the above process, we now have three rotor designs, which have been chosen keeping various
factors in mind. All of them satisfy the criteria of providing the desired thrust of 14.8 N in hover condition.
Hence the specifications of the rotors are:

Design Parameters Design 1 Design 2 Design 3

Airfoil NACA 0015 NACA 0015 NACA 0015

Rotor Radius 0.65 m 0.65 m 0.65 m

Rotor Speed 3122 rpm 2552 rpm 2620 rpm

Number of Blades 4 4 4
Constant chord Constant chord Linear taper
Chord Length Variation
c = 8.5 cm c = 8.5 cm c = (8.5 - 4 ⋅ 𝑟) 𝑐𝑚
Constant Pitch Linear Pitch Linear Pitch
Twist variation
θ = 14 θ = 14 + 10 ⋅ 𝑟 θ = 14 + 14 ⋅ 𝑟
Root Cutout 15% 15% 15%

Thrust 14.8 N 14.8 N 14.8 N

Power 432.42 W 445.49 W 456.72 W

So, we can see that all the three final designs are quite similar with slight variations. The power
consumption and thrust provided by all of them are nearly identical. Hence, the final design chosen for the
helicopter is Design 2 since it can run at a smaller rpm. The ability to be able to provide the desired thrust
at a smaller rpm increases the life of the rotor and also aids towards the structural and vibrational aspects
of the design. The lower hover rpm also enables the helicopter to have better safety limits since now if a
higher rpm motor is used to power the rotor, higher thrust can be obtained by increasing the rpm in case
of external turbulences. Further, the twisted blades allow Design 2 to prevent stall near the root.
The size of the blades is the same as that in the momentum theory. Also, the thrust is the same as the
hover thrust for the momentum theory. Comparing the ideal power obtained from the momentum theory
with the actual power, we get the figure of merit of our final design to be:
𝐼𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 281.12
𝐹𝑀 = = = 0.63
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 445.49
The figure merit of 63% for the final design is at par with the typical figure of merit values around 60% for
most helicopters. Hence, the design is realistic and takes care of most of the factors.

Rotor Performance:

The pitch angle is varied keeping all the other parameter same as Design 2 and the radial variation of
effective angle of attack is plotted for different pitch rates. The stall angle for the airfoil NACA 0015 as
obtained from the literature is around 150. It can be seen that a portion of the airfoil would stall at a pitch
angle of 210. Hence, that is the maximum pitch which can be achieved before stall. Now, the maximum
thrust before stall can be computed using the algorithm by keeping all the parameters same as Design 2,
and just changing the pitch angle at the root to be 210. Therefor the maximum value of thrust before stall
obtained is equal to 22.45 N.
Acknowledgement:
In preparation of my assignment, I had to take help from a few of my peers, without whom I would not be
able to complete my assignment. As the completion of this assignment gave me much pleasure, I would
like to show my gratitude to Gourav Kumar (190010026), Pondreti Dinesh (190010052), Jateen Bhagat
(190010015) and Gauri Garg (190010023). I did fall back onto them whenever encountered with a doubt
and did have some very exciting and meaningful discussions which helped me throughout my assignment
at different stages.
In addition, a thank you to Professor Dhwanil Shukla, for challenging us with such and exciting assignment
which was full of learning hands-on engineering throughout.

References:
1. Knight, M., & Hefner, R. A. (1937). Static thrust analysis of the lifting airscrew.
2. Wikipedia
3. Lecture notes AE 667.
4. http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=naca0015-il

Code:
Working code for the assignment has been submitted in the zipped file.