5.1. Side-by-Side Propellers Configuration
In this section, the results that were obtained for the side-by-side propellers simulations are presented. In particular, the effect of the lateral distance between the rotor disks is discussed by means of comparison of the performance coefficients and by means of the analysis of the interacting flow field.
Figure 6a shows the time histories of the thrust coefficient
calculated for the counter-clockwise rotating propeller in side-by-side configuration (upper propeller of
Figure 5a) at some different lateral distances
as compared to the results that were obtained from the single propeller simulation.
The curves behaviour shows that after a transient of four revolutions, the results that were obtained for the side-by-side propellers simulations reach a periodic behaviour, while the single propeller simulation reaches a converged steady state value. The periodic behaviour obtained for the side-by-side simulations reflects the physics of the aerodynamic interaction between the propellers that is the object of this study, thus confirming the suitability of the numerical model considered to investigate this problem. The periodicity of the curves is particularly evident in the last three revolutions of the simulations, thus the load coefficients considered in the following discussion were obtained as the averaged values that were calculated over this time interval.
Figure 6b shows the averaged thrust coefficient
, power coefficient
and propulsive efficiency
computed for the propeller in side-by-side configuration normalized with respect to the corresponding parameters evaluated from the single rotor simulation. The average performance of the propellers in side-by-side configuration are negligibly affected by the aerodynamic interaction, as can be observed in
Figure 6b. Indeed, a loss of performance lower than 1% of the single propeller is observed for both thrust, power and propulsive efficiency when the propellers hubs are at a lateral distance
. Increasing the lateral distance
, the propeller resumes the performance of the single propeller configuration. The amount of thrust loss that was calculated in the present activity at high advance ratio is slightly lower than the outcomes of the works by Zhou et al. [
3] and by Alvarez et al. [
16] for side-by-side propellers at similar separation distance but in hover condition. Even if the effects on the average performance of the propellers can be considered negligible, an interesting effect of the aerodynamic interaction between the propellers is the fluctuation of the loads occurring during a rotor revolution. An indication of the loads fluctuations amplitude is provided by the standard deviation of the
and
computed over the last three revolutions plotted as errorbars in
Figure 6c,d. This representation shows that the amplitude of the loads fluctuations is quite high when the lateral separation distance between the propellers is small. Indeed, when the distance between the propellers blades tips are equal to 0.05, a robust interaction between the tip vortices is expected, as will be discussed in the following analysis of the instantaneous flow fields. As the separation distance increases, the thrust and power coefficients for the side-by-side propellers approach the values of the single propeller configuration, while the load fluctuations amplitude decreases.
In order to provide a more detailed analysis of the local performance of the propeller blades at
,
Figure 7 shows the difference of the sectional lift coefficient
and the effective angle of attack
experienced by a propeller blade in side-by-side configuration with respect to the single rotor configuration that was computed during the last revolution.
The polar plot of the effective angle of attack variation
indicates that around
, corresponding to the azimuthal angle where the tip-to-tip distance of the side-by-side blades is 0.05R, the blade experiences a slight increase of angle of attack at the tip region with respect to the single propeller condition (see
Figure 7a). Consequently, the loads that act on the blade tip region increase along the azimuthal range of the rotor revolution, where the side-by-side propeller blades approach each other. Consequently, an increase of the sectional
with respect to the single propeller configuration is observed at the blade tip region around
(see
Figure 7b). On the other hand, a slight decrease of the effective angle of attack is experienced by almost all the blade sections in the range of azimuthal angle between
with a consequent decrease of the blade loading. The local behaviour of these quantities along the blade revolution reflects the fluctuations that were observed in the computed time history of the side-by side propeller thrust shown in
Figure 6a.
Detailed insight regarding the flow physics involved in the side-by-side aerodynamic interaction is provided by the analysis of the propellers wake computed for the configuration characterised by the greatest interaction (
) when compared to the single propeller condition. In particular,
Figure 8 shows the contours of the average freestream velocity component (
u) calculated over the last rotor revolution on the
plane for the single propeller and side-by-side propellers with lateral separation distance
.
Figure 8 shows that the propeller wake in side-by-side configuration slightly expands, starting from a distance of 0.5
R downstream the rotor disk. Consequently, a merging of the propellers wakes occurs at about 3.5
R, thus producing an increase of the resulting flow speed in this region, if compared to the single propeller case. These features were also observed in the experiments by Zhou et al. [
3] performed in hover conditions, but occurring further upstream with respect to the present case. Further details of the flow physics of the side-by-side interaction are obtained analysing the instantaneous flow field calculated at
, corresponding to the azimuthal angle along rotor revolution where the interacting blades axis are aligned and the tip-to-tip distance is equal to 0.05
R.
Figure 9 shows the iso-surface of the instantaneous vorticity magnitude calculated at
for the side-by-side configuration with
. This flow representation clearly shows the interaction between the vortices that are released by the tips of the counter-rotating propellers that leads to the merging of the iso-vorticity tubes in the region of the wake between the propellers.
A more detailed analysis of this vortex interaction can be provided by the comparison of the contours of the in-plane vorticity shown on
plane in
Figure 9. The single propeller wake is characterised by the periodic shed of counter-rotating tip vortices that are dragged downstream by the freestream velocity and conserve their relative distance showing a slow rate of dissipation throughout the entire area of investigation, as can be observed in
Figure 10a. For the side-by-side interaction case, the tip vortices were found to merge starting from the distance
downstream the propellers disks and dissipate much faster with respect to the single propeller case. Indeed, starting from a distance of
downstream the propellers disks, the vortices loose their coherent structures and they are nearly unrecognizable in the region of the wake between the propellers.
5.2. Tandem Propellers Configuration
In this section, the results that were obtained for the tandem propellers simulations are presented. In particular, the effect of the longitudinal distance between the propellers and the effect of the different degree of overlapping between the rotor disks is discussed by means of comparison of the computed performance coefficients and the analysis of the interacting flow field.
Figure 11 shows the time histories of the thrust coefficient
computed for the rear propeller (right propeller of
Figure 5b) in tandem configuration with different lateral distances
and advance ratio
. In particular, the thrust time histories are shown for both the two longitudinal distances
considered in the numerical activity and compared with the results that were obtained for the single propeller.
The curves behaviour clearly reflects that the rear propeller is invested by the wake of the front one at different time instances due to the different longitudinal distance between the propellers disks. In particular, the rear propeller thrust coefficient reaches a periodic behaviour after almost two and four rotor revolutions, respectively, for the longitudinal distance and . This periodic behaviour of the computed thrust reflects the beginning of the aerodynamic interaction between the tandem propellers wakes. In particular, the aerodynamic interaction becomes stronger when the rotor disks are partially overlapped, as clearly shown by the large amplitude of the fluctuations computed for and . On the other hand, the thrust fluctuations are almost negligible when the rotor disks are completely overlapped (). As the periodicity of the loads is particularly evident over the last three revolutions of the simulations, in the following discussion the load coefficients were obtained as the averaged values calculated over this time interval.
Figure 12 shows the averaged thrust coefficient
, power coefficient
, and propulsive efficiency
of the rear propeller as function of the advance ratio
J for both the considered longitudinal distances
and the different lateral distances
between the propellers disks. As can be observed from the comparison of the curves that are shown in
Figure 12, the performance of the rear propeller strongly decrease when the lateral separation of the two propellers is reduced. This behaviour is apparent in the whole range of advance ratio investigated in this activity. In particular, for both the longitudinal distances
the highest loss of performance is obtained when the two propeller disks are completely overlapped (
). By increasing the lateral distance between the propellers, the loss of the rear propeller performance decreases, as for lateral distance
the performance curves resume the behaviour of the single rotor ones, thus confirming that, for this lateral separation, the interactional aerodynamic effects are almost negligible due to the fact that the rear rotor is unaffected by the front rotor slipstream. Moreover, the behaviour of the propulsive efficiency curves shows that the occurrence of their peaks is not affected by the tandem interaction. Indeed, for both the longitudinal distances
, the peak of the rear propeller propulsive efficiency
remains at
for all of the analysed lateral distances
.
A more detailed analysis of the rear propeller performance in tandem configuration is provided in the following for
, the advance ratio corresponding to the freestream velocity considered as the target cruise velocity of urban air mobility eVTOL aircraft. In particular,
Figure 13a shows the normalised thrust coefficient
, power coefficient
, and propulsive efficiency
of the rear propeller with respect to the corresponding parameters that were evaluated from the single rotor simulation. The effect of the rotor-rotor interaction on rear propeller performance is further when the degree of overlapping between the rotor disks increases, while the interactional effects become negligible when the lateral separation distance is equal to the propeller diameter (
). In particular, the higher loss of performance due to the interaction is observed when the propeller disks are completely overlapped (
), where a decrease of about 45% and of more than 30%, respectively, of the thrust and power coefficients is observed for the rear propeller at
with respect to the single propeller case. These losses lead to a reduction of about 20% of the propulsive efficiency of the rear propeller in the same tandem configuration. The effect of a lower longitudinal separation distance between the propellers is a slight decrease of the performance loss in the order of few percents of both the thrust and power coefficients of the single propeller. Indeed, for the tandem configuration with
, a reduction of 15% of the propulsive efficiency is observed. Moreover,
Figure 13a shows that, for both the longitudinal distances between the propellers, the gradient of the performance loss is higher in the spatial range between
and
.
In order to analyse the effect of this aerodynamic interaction on the behaviour of the rear propeller loads over a rotor revolution,
Figure 13b,c show the averaged
and
curves calculated at
for both the longitudinal distances
with errorbars representing the standard deviation of the coefficients computed over the last three revolutions. The amplitude of the loads fluctuations is higher when the lateral separation distance between the propellers is
, as can be observed from these figures. In particular, for this tandem configuration, the loads fluctuation amplitude is an order of magnitude higher than the largest value that was observed in the side-by-side configuration. The loads fluctuations level of the
and
decreases when the degree of overlapping between the propellers disks increases and become negligible when the propellers disks are completely overlapped. Moreover, for lateral separation distances higher than
, the thrust and power coefficients of the rear propeller in tandem approach the values of the single propeller configuration, while the loads fluctuations amplitude decreases.
A better insight of the effects of the aerodynamic interaction on the propeller performance already discussed is provided by
Figure 14 and
Figure 15, showing the distributions of the differences of the axial velocity
, tangential velocity
, effective angle of attack
, and sectional lift coefficient
of a rear propeller blade in tandem configuration with respect to the single rotor configuration computed during the last revolution. In particular, this analysis was performed for the test cases with lateral distances
, showing the greatest interaction effects on the rear propeller aerodynamic performance, as shown in
Figure 13.
For the test configuration with the propeller disks completely overlapped (
) and longitudinal distance
, the rear propeller blade experiences an increase of the axial velocity component with respect to freestream velocity due to the ingestion of the front propeller slipstream. This effect is particularly apparent in the outer spanwise region of the propeller blade, where the variation of the axial velocity component with respect to the single propeller reaches a value of about 5 m/s (see
Figure 14a). The interaction with the front propeller slipstream also provides a slight negative variation of the tangential velocity experienced by the rear propeller blade in tandem with respect to the single propeller condition (see
Figure 14d). These combined effects produce a reduction of the local effective angle of attack seen by a large region of the rear propeller blade along span (see
Figure 14g). Consequently, a large reduction of the sectional lift coefficient is observed in the same spanwise region of the rear blade (see
Figure 14j), thus reflecting the large loss of the average thrust calculated for this tandem configuration, as shown in
Figure 13a. In particular, the axial-symmetrical behaviour that was observed for
along propeller azimuthal angle explains the negligible amount of the loads fluctuation calculated for this tandem configuration. Similar behaviours of these variable distributions are observed for this configuration at
. In particular, due to the larger longitudinal distance between the propellers, the rear blade experiences a slightly larger increase of the axial velocity with respect to the test case with
as the front propeller slipstream is further developed. This effect provides a slight higher decrease of the effective angle of attack seen by the rear propeller blade at
and a consequent slight increase of the rear propeller performance loss with respect to the configuration with lower longitudinal distance (
), as shown by the average loads coefficients comparison in
Figure 13.
For the test configuration with
, the polar plots that are shown in
Figure 5 and
Figure 15 loose their axial-symmetrical behaviour, as the rear propeller disk in partially invested by the front propeller slipstream. For both the longitudinal distances tested, a conspicuous increase of the axial velocity component with respect to freestream component is observed along almost the whole blade span, particularly in the azimuthal region of the rotor revolution between
and
.
This effect is due to the local acceleration of the front propeller slipstream that was provided by cambered shape of the nacelle-spinner, as will be shown later in the flow visualization of Figure 19. On the other hand, a small reduction of the axial velocity is observed on the outer blade span region in the range between
and
(see
Figure 14b and
Figure 15b), where the effect of the front propeller slipstream is negligible due to the relative position of the rotor disks. The effect of the front propeller wake interaction does not provide an apparent modification of the tangential velocity on the rear propeller blade with the exception of a smaller spanwise area of the blade that is interested by the ingestion of the outer region of the front propeller slipstream characterised by high swirl. In particular, due to the lower distance between the propellers, the rear propeller blade at
experiences higher peaks of tangential velocity variations with respect to the tandem configuration with
(see
Figure 14e and
Figure 15e). The more apparent effect of the combination of the axial and tangential velocity distributions is a reduction of the effective angle of attack seen by the almost all of the rear blade sections in the azimuthal angle ranges
and
(see
Figure 14h and
Figure 15h). Consequently, a quite large negative variation of the rear blade sectional lift coefficient distributions is observed in these regions with respect to the single propeller configuration (see
Figure 14k and
Figure 15k), thus reflecting the remarkable amount of the loads fluctuation amplitude calculated for this tandem configuration (see
Figure 13). The small difference between the average thrust losses that were calculated for the different longitudinal distances at
is justified by the quite similar local behaviour observed for the spanwise sectional lift coefficient. Indeed, for this lateral distance the effect of the longitudinal distance between the propellers on the slipstream velocity components ingested by the rear propeller blade is quite small.
For the test configuration with
, the effects of the front propeller slipstream on the rear propeller blade is smaller with respect to the previous analysed configuration due to the lower degree of overlapping between the propellers disks in tandem. In particular, the most evident effects of this interaction is observed in the azimuthal angle range of the rotor revolution between
and
. For both of the longitudinal distances tested, the axial velocity component behaviour shows a concentrated increase in this azimuthal angle range due to the local acceleration of the front propeller slipstream in this areaprovided by the curvature of the nacelle-spinner surface (see
Figure 14c and
Figure 15c), as will be shown later in the flow visualization of Figure 22. In the same region, the interaction of the front propeller slipstream provides a large increase of the tangential velocity (see
Figure 14f and
Figure 15f), thus the combination of these velocity components variations provides a remarkable decrease of the effective angle of attack seen by the rear blade sections in the ranges
and
(see
Figure 14i and
Figure 15i) and a consequent high variation of the sectional lift in the same areas. The behaviour of the sectional lift variation reflects the larger amplitude of the loads fluctuations observed for this tandem configuration (see
Figure 13). Additionally, for this lateral distance, a quite low effect due to the longitudinal distance is observed from the representations of the analysed local quantities reflecting the results comparison in terms of the average rear propeller performance.
Global insight regarding the flow physics that are involved in the aerodynamic interaction for the investigated tandem configurations is provided by the following analysis of the propellers wakes computed at
for the same lateral distances
discussed before. For the test configuration with the propeller disks completely overlapped (
),
Figure 16 shows the contours of the average freestream velocity component (
u) calculated over the last rotor revolution on the
plane. The averaged flow fields clearly show that, for both the longitudinal distances
, the wake of the rear propeller is quite faster at the tip region of the rotor disk with respect to the front propeller one. Indeed, the co-axial configuration of the two propellers provides a combination of the accelerated flow regions passing through the outer regions of the propeller disks.
A more detailed understanding of the flow physics that are involved in the wakes interaction is obtained by the instantaneous flow field shown for the azimuthal angle
in
Figure 17 by means of the iso-surfaces of the instantaneous vorticity magnitude. This flow representation clearly shows that, for both of the considered distances
, the interaction between the propellers wakes does not affect the coherence of the helical structure of vorticity released by the rear propeller. In particular, an increase of the iso-vorticity tubes is observed downstream the rear propeller due to the coalescence of the vortical structures that are released by the two co-axial propellers in tandem.
Figure 18 shows more details of the aerodynamic interaction by means of the contours of the in-plane vorticity calculated on the
from the instantaneous flow field at
.
Because, in the present simulations, the blades of the propellers in tandem are co-rotating and synchronised, the tip vortices shed by the front propeller blades interact with the ones released by the rear propeller providing downstream the rotor disk co-rotating vortical structures that are characterised by higher vorticity and larger core. This feature is observed for both the longitudinal distances analysed, but for
the resulting vortical structures show a higher level of vorticity with respect to the configuration with
. Indeed, the vortices released by the front propeller blades are less dissipated when they interact with the ones released by the rear propeller, due to the lower longitudinal distance between the propellers. This feature is highlighted by the higher intensity of red that characterise the representation of the vortex investing the tip region of the rear propeller blade for
with respect to the test configuration with
(see
Figure 18a,b).
For the tandem configuration with lateral distance
, the averaged flow fields that are presented in
Figure 19 show an asymmetrical behaviour of the rear propeller wake with respect to the longitudinal axis due to the interaction with the front propeller slipstream. Indeed, for this configuration the rear propeller disk is only partially invested by the front propeller slipstream, thus the lower region of the rear propeller wake is accelerated by the effect of the front propeller wake. This effect is particularly evident for the lower longitudinal distance
. Moreover, the upper region of the front propeller slipstream is dragged upward and locally accelerated by the the cambered shape of the nacelle-spinner surface.
The three-dimensional representation of the instantaneous flow field provided by the iso-surfaces of vorticity in
Figure 20 shows, for this configuration (
), a stronger interaction between the vortical structures released the propeller blades with respect to the test case where the propeller disks are completely overlapped (
). Indeed, for both the longitudinal distances between the propellers the helical structures of vorticity released by the rear propeller blades loose their coherence due to the interaction.
More details regarding the interaction of the propellers wakes is provided by the representation of the in-plane vorticity contours that are shown in
Figure 21. A relevant effect of the interaction is that the upper region of the front propeller wake diverges upward due to the presence of the rear propeller nacelle. Therefore, in the upper region past, the rear propeller disk the vortices that are released by the front propeller blades are dragged toward the ones released by the rear propeller, thus producing a pairing of the co-rotating vortices that provides the winding of the shear layer into a series of counter-rotating vortices. This feature is observed for both the longitudinal distances of the propellers in tandem.
For the tandem configuration with lateral distance
, the averaged flow field presented in
Figure 22 shows an asymmetrical behaviour of the rear propeller wake similarly to what was found for
. In particular, for this test case, due to the higher degree of overlapping between the propeller disks, the upper region of the front propeller slipstream is dragged downward and locally accelerated by the presence of the rear propeller nacelle. Thus, an increase of the area of accelerated flow can be observed in the lower region of the rear propeller wake. This effect is more pronounced for the tandem configuration with
.
The instantaneous flow representation that is provided by the iso-surfaces of vorticity shows, similarly to the test case with
, that the wakes interaction produces a break of the coherent helical structures released by the rear propeller blades (see
Figure 23. In particular, the in-plane vorticity field presented in
Figure 24 shows that for this lateral distance (
) the tip vortices shed by the front propeller blades dissipate once they impinge the rear propeller nacelle nose. Indeed, the trace of these vortices is negligible downstream the rear propeller disk.