See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339942277

Toward Optimal Design of Contra-Rotating Propulsion System -Practical

Aerodynamic Analysis

Conference Paper · March 2020

CITATIONS READS

3 1,356

1 author:

Ohad Gur
Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd.
45 PUBLICATIONS 1,091 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ohad Gur on 15 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Toward Optimal Design of Contra-Rotating Propulsion
System - Practical Aerodynamic Analysis
Ohad Gur
IAI – Israel Aerospace Industries, Ben-Gurion Airport, Lod 70100, Israel

Contra-rotating propeller configuration is non-trivial concerning optimal design.

This is due to the complex nature of its aerodynamic analysis. The current scope
suggests a simple and effective method for extending a single rotation blade-element
model to a contra-rotating configuration. The propeller’s interaction model based
on the classic axial momentum theory and assumption of rigid wake. The method is
validated versus results from propeller, hovering rotor, and prop-fan experiments.
The experiments present both single and dual-rotating wing configuration which
share the same blade geometry and test facilities. This enables the isolation of the
single versus dual-rotating configuration influences, thus validating the suggested
model with high level-of-confidence. The validation shows that the same trends of
the single-rotating model appears in the dual-rotating analyses. Moreover, the
difference between single and dual rotating configuration is replicated accurately
compared to the test results. This proves the validity of the suggested model
extension. The model validation also exhibits the differences between the accuracy
of the forward and rear rotating disk in the contra-rotating configuration. The rear
disk contributes by the no-swirled wake and exhibits accurate results compared to
the forward disk which operate similar to a single rotating wing.

I. Nomenclature

A = Disk area
CP = Power coefficient
CP,rotor = Rotor power coefficient
CT = Thrust coefficient
CT,rotor = Rotor thrust coefficient
D = Diameter
dD = Blade element drag contribution
dL = Blade element lift contribution
dṁ = Disk annulus mass flux
dQ = Blade element torque contribution
dQ = Blade element torque contribution
dT = Blade element thrust contribution
FM = Figure of Merit
J = Advance ratio
n = Rotational speed, revolution per second units
P = Power
Q = Torque
R = Radius
T = Thrust
U = Cross sectional total velocity
V = Air velocity
Vtip = Blade’s tip speed
Wa = Axial induced velocity
Wa,1on2 = Axial cross-induced velocity – forward disk on the rear
Wa,2on1 = Axial cross-induced velocity – rear disk on the forward
Wt = Circumferential induced velocity

1
Wt,1on2 = Circumferential cross-induced velocity – forward disk on the rear
x = Axial coordinate
α = Angle of attack
β = Pitch angle
η = Efficiency
Ρ = Air density
φ = Inflow angle
Ω = Rotational speed
Ωt = Wake rotational speed
#1 = Sub index - forward rotating-wing
#2 = Sub index - rear rotating-wing

II. Introduction

Blade-element model (BEM) is used extensively for rotating wing analysis and design. This includes
propellers, open-rotors, wind turbines, axial compressors, fans, etc. The advantage of BEM over many
others elaborate and accurate models, such as CFD based analyses, is the combination of simple model
which contains accurate 2-D aerodynamic database for the blade’s cross-sections. In that way, BEM is very
simple and consumes very low computer resources. The complex effects of viscosity, compressibility, and
stall, are introduced through the 2-D aerodynamic database. This is also the main draw-back of BEM – the
requirement of valid, high level-of-confidence database, which suites large range of operating conditions,
i.e. various Reynolds and Mach number. If such database exists, for axial design condition BEM exhibits
excellent match to experimental results. 1
This enables researchers to use BEM for open rotor analysis and design due to its benefits. Patrao 2
developed BEM particularly for open rotor design and showed some validation of the method for several
propellers and open-rotor from the literature. Extending the BEM for a contra-rotating cases is natural
evolvement which answer the need for accurate and efficient contra-rotating wing analysis.
Economon et-al 3 used only CFD analysis in their design of open rotor. This required careful
implementation of Euler equation in an optimization scheme, which although shows the benefits of CFD,
emphasized the implementation complexity of CFD in a design process. It can be noted that CFD analysis
is still in its initial steps concerning design of rotational wing while BEM probably will maintain its appeal
for such a task.
Contra-rotating propellers were presented from the beginning of flight history with the benefits of
improved efficiency and zero torque. 4 The development of drones and VTOL configurations5 increased the
interest in such configuration which led to a flourishing development of analysis tools.
Hall et-al6 used CFD analysis to explore the impact of various design parameters on the cruise and
take-off for a contra-rotating prop-fan. Then they implemented simplified BEM to further explore the
effects of varying blade pitch and speed. They showed that in certain aspects, BEM can be accurate as CFD
analysis, with only fraction of the required computer resources.
In a similar way, Štorch7 developed model for contra-rotating propellers analysis using both BEM and
CFD methods. Both methods exhibit similar results although the BEM is much simpler.
Beaumier8 developed a simple BEM for single and dual rotating wings. Despite the low level of
modeling he showed some accurate analyses for co-axial rotors and contra-rotating propellers.
Bueno9 also used BEM to analyze a contra-rotating open rotor and validated his method in the light of
current open-rotor designs with CFD codes. The method was found to match experimental results in such a
way that enable to use it for preliminary design and parametric studies.
All of the above mentioned efforts show that using BEM for contra-rotating wing analysis is valid. In
many cases, the BEM was fabricated for a single-rotating wing, thus simple correction is required to solve a
contra-rotating case. In addition, in most cases, the validation of the model is limited, although the model is
then used for vast range of cases. The current effort tries to cover these gaps.

2
 III. Scope

The current effort deals with implementation of simple contra-rotating correction on an existing blade-
element model which was developed for a single-rotating wing. This is done using the basic, single-rotating
simulation in an iterative manner, representing both the forward rotating-wing and the rear rotating-wing
with the appropriate interference velocities. The model for these interference induced velocities will be
driven using simple momentum theory.
The model is then validated for 3 different cases of propeller, hovering rotor, and prop-fan. All
validation cases are experiments done with the same blades for two different configurations: single and
dual-rotating. This enables to learn mainly on the correctness of the contra-rotating extension effort, rather
on the basic BEM accuracy, which might be dependent heavily on the 2-D aerodynamic database. Thus, the
comparison will focus on the differences between the single and double-rotating analyses. In such a way,
all biases due to inaccuracies with the basic BEM or its 2-D airfoil database will be eliminated.
The first validation case is taken from Biermann and Hartman experiment 10 which used 4 and 6
bladed propellers, in a single and dual-rotating configurations. The experiment was held at wide range of
pitch angles, β, up to an angle of β =65 degrees. Note that the pitch angle, β, is defined in the current effort
as the angle between the cross section chord, located at 0.75 of the blade length, and the plane of rotation.
The second validation case shows the applicability of the contra-rotating model for static condition,
i.e. hovering. Hovering rotor experiment done by Harrington 11 using low pitch angles (up to 15 degrees)
with single and dual-rotating configurations.
The third case is the Dunham et-al 12 SR-2 prop-fan experiment. This is an 8-bladed prop-fan, which
was designed for transonic flight conditions, thus requires high pitch angles. In their experiment, the same
blades were tested using single and dual-rotating configurations.

IV. Contra-rotating blade-element model

The single-rotating, SR, configurations are very common in various apparatuses such as propeller,
wind turbine, fan, etc. In what follows, propeller will be considered, although the analysis is relevant for all
rotating wings. Figure 1 shows a single-rotating propeller with an axial free stream velocity, V. In this
figure the propeller equivalent actuator-disk model is also presented. The propeller is replaced with an
infinitesimal thin actuator-disk which introduces axial and circumferential momentum to the flow. The
additional momentum is resulted with axial and circumferential induced velocity components, Wa and Wt,
respectively. The source of these induced velocities is the propeller thrust and torque. According to
Newton’s third law, the thrust and torque that acts on the propeller is reacted by the same thrust and torque
which acts on the flow. Thus, the air is accelerated to the axial direction due to the thrust and the wake is
swirled due to the torque, i.e. axial and circumferential induced velocities are resulted. Note that while the
flow passes the actuator disk, the axial velocity is continuous while the circumferential velocity is
incontinuous and experiences a “jump” from zero to Wt, from both sided of the disk.
These induced velocities are depicted also in Figure 2 which shows a typical blade-element cross
section. The rotating propeller’s blade is sliced to small blade-elements, each dr width. The velocity
components on the blade sections are summed resulting with total velocity, U, and local angle of attack, α.
The blade-element acts as a 2-D wing section, thus it produces lift and drag forces, dL and dD, respectively.
Summing all blade-element lift and drag components is resulted with the total thrust and torque which acts
on the propeller.
In the current effort, the above blade-element model is extended to a contra-rotating case. Figure 3
shows a contra-rotating propeller and its equivalent actuator-disks model. Each of the two actuator-disks
acts the same manner as a single-rotating case depicted in Figure 1. The main difference is the cross-
induced velocities. Except of the axial and circumferential induced velocities which the disk induces on
itself, the disks induce velocities on each other. The rear disk induces axial cross-induced velocity on the
forward disk, Wa,1on2, and the forward disk induces on the rear disk both axial cross-induced velocity,
Wa,1on2, and circumferential cross-induced velocity, Wt,1on2. Note that the rear disk does not induce
circumferential induced velocity on the forward disk – only the wake swirls.

3
 V

V Wt
V+Wa

Figure 1, Single-rotating propeller - schematic of the actuator disk depicting the velocity components.
Supermarine Spitfire’s nacelle and propeller figure is taken from Ref. 13

Chord Line

dL

U r  Blade Element

Wa r  β
1
Wt (r )
2

V


Blade Rotation r dD

Plane
Figure 2, Blade cross-section as used for the blade-element model.

These velocity components are taken into account in the contra-rotating blade-element scheme -
Figure 4. Figure 4 shows the forward and rear blade-elements which are depicted with their velocity
components. The forward blade-element axial velocity components are the free stream, V, the self-induced
axial velocity, Wa,1, and the axial cross-induced velocity which is induced by the rear disk, Wa,1,2on1. Both
axial induced velocities act to the same direction. The forward circumferential components are the
tangential speed due to the blade rotating, Ω1∙r, and the circumferential self-induced velocity, ½Wt,1. Note
that the ½ factor on the self-induced circumferential velocity is due to the swirl discontinuity through the
disk. Thus, the average ½ is taken for the blade-element velocity scheme.
The rear blade-element axial velocity components include the free stream velocity, V, the axial self-
induced velocity, Wa,2, and the axial cross-induced velocity which the forward disk induces on the rear,

4
Wa,1on2. The circumferential velocity components include the tangential velocity, Ω2∙r, the self-induced
circumferential induced velocity, ½Wt,2, and the circumferential induced velocity which is induced from the
forward on the rear disk, Wt,1on2. The circumferential induced velocities are with opposite direction. While
the self-induced ½Wt,2 acts opposite of the propeller rotation, the cross-induced Wt,1on2 acts in the same
direction of the rear-propeller rotation. In this way, the wake of the rear propeller experience very low
rotational velocity which is one of the main advantages of contra-rotating configuration. This also implies
on the low torque of the contra-rotating configuration.
Each of the disks in the contra-rotating configuration is solved separately and is based on the solution
of an isolated single-rotating disk. Each solution influences the cross-induced velocities, Wa,2on1, Wa,1on2,
Wt,1on2 . A convergence is reached after iterative procedure which is presented in Figure 5. First the forward
disk is solved and the cross induced velocities Wa,1on2 and Wt,1on2 are estimated according to the relative
position of the rear disk. Then, the rear disk is solved and the cross-induced velocity Wa,2on1 is calculated.
The convergence of the disks solution is checked and then the convergence loop is closed. The convergence
scheme in Figure 5 is quick and generally after a few iterations both disks are converged. No special
numerical scheme was used except of feed forward scheme which uses the results from the previous
iteration as an input.
The BEM for a single disk solution is the standard BEM as described in Ref. 14. The main
contribution of the current effort is the calculation of the cross-induced velocity components. This allows
an existing single-rotating models to extend easily to a contra-rotating models. In what follows, the model
which estimates these cross-induced velocities is presented.

Front Disk Rear Disk

Wt,1

V V+Wa,1+Wa,2on1
V+Wa,2+Wa,1on2

Wt,2 -Wt,1on2

Figure 3, Contra-rotating propeller - schematic of forward and rear disks depicting the velocity
components. Supermarine Spitfire nacelle and propeller figure is taken from Ref. 13

5
 Chord Line

U r  Forward Blade Element

Wa ,1 r   Wa , 2on1 r  1 r 

1
V Wt ,1 (r )
2
1 r 

Blade Rotation Plane 1  r

Chord Line

Rear Blade Element

 U r 
Wa , 2 r   Wa ,1on2 r 

 2 r  Wt , 2 (r )  Wt ,1on2 r 
1
2

2 r 
V
2  r Blade Rotation Plane
Figure 4, Contra rotating wings. Blade cross-section as used for the blade-element model.

Wa,2on1 =0
Wa,1on2 = 0
Wt,1on2 =0

Solve Forward Disk as a SR

Calculate Wa,1on2, Wt,1on2

Solve Rear Disk as a SR

Calculate Wa,2on1

No
Convergence

Yes

Figure 5, Contra rotating solution scheme

6
 V. Axial cross-induced velocity

The axial cross-induced velocities, Wa,1on2 and Wa,2on1 are calculated using the method described in
Ref. 15. It assumes that the axial induced velocity is constant in the radial coordinate. Although this
assumption seems crude, it is quite accurate. Especially for optimized propellers, which are design to create
a constant-radii axial induced velocity. Using this assumption and simple momentum relation, the axial
induced velocity, Wa, along the axial coordinate, x, can be found - Eq. (1).
Wa x  x
 1 (1)
Wa x  R2
2

where Wa is the induced velocity on the disk plane (x =0), and Wa(x) is the induced velocity in the
axial coordinate x. R is the disk radius. Equation (1) suits negative x values, i.e. inflow, and positive values
– wake. For high values of x, Eq. (1) result with the axial induced velocity in the far wake. It is twice the
value of the disk’s (x=0) induce velocity. This match the classic result of the axial momentum theory
presented by Glauert.16
Due to mass flux continuity, the inflow and wake radius, R(x) can be found using Eq. (2).
R x  V  Wa
 (2)
R V  Wa x 
R(x) is the radius of the inflow or wake according to the sign of the axial coordinate, x.
The assumption of constant induced velocity along the radial coordinate enables using the simple
momentum model which relates the axial induced velocity, Wa, and the produced thrust, T. 16
2
V V  T
Wa       (3)
2  2  2 A
where A is the disk area and ρ is the air density.
Equation (3) can be written using the standard parameters of advance ratio, J, and thrust coefficient,
CT, as depicted in Eq.
2
Wa J  J  2C
     T (4)
nD 2 2 
where D is the disk diameter and n is the rotational speed in revolutions-per-second, rps, units.
Advance ratio, J, and the thrust coefficient, CT, are defined in Eq. (5).
V T
J ; CT  2 4 (5)
nD n D
In that sense, together with the thrust coefficient, CT, two additional parameters are defined in Eq. (6):
power coefficient, CP, and propeller efficiency, η.
P J  CT
CP  3 5  (6)
n D CP
where P is the required power of the propeller.
Biermann and Hartman10 test is used to demonstrate the relations of Eqs. (1)-(4). Biermann and
Hartman10 tested 4 and 6 bladed propellers in a single and contra-rotating (double) configuration. Figure 6
shows the inflow and wake axial induced velocity and diameter as a function of the axial position, x, for
these propellers. Results are presented for a pitch angle of β =35 degrees at 2 different advance ratios J=0.1
and 1.0 . The axial induced velocity increase and the wake contraction are clear. The induced velocity at the
far wake doubles the induced velocity on the propeller disk. In addition, the differences between the two
advance ratios are prominent due to the differences of the free stream velocity. In this case, for advance
ratio J =1.0 the free stream velocity is 28 m/sec, while for J =0.1 it is 2.8 m/sec.

7
 Figure 6, Axial induced velocity and inflow and wake diameter

VI. Circumferential cross-induced velocity

The circumferential cross-induced velocity, Wt,1on2, model is based on simple momentum theory. Main
assumption is that the wake is swirled at a constant rotation speed, Ω t . Again, similar to the constant radial
axial induced velocity, the rigid wake geometry fits for optimized propeller, i.e. most well designed
propellers. Thus, the circumferential induced velocity can be expressed using the wake rotational speed, Ωt,
in Eq. (7).
Wt  t  r (7)
To find the wake rotational speed, the actuator disk is divided to co-centric annuluses of width dr,
each introduces a circumferential momentum, thus increases the circumferential velocity by Wt. this enable
to calculate the contribution of each annulus to the propeller torque, dQ, according to Eq.
dQ  dm  Wt  r (8)
where dṁ is the mass flux through the annulus element. It is calculated using the axial velocity
components through the disk plane – Eq. (9).
dm    V  Wa  2    r  dr (9)
The total torque, Q, is calculated using the integration of Eq. (8) and substituting Eqs. (7) and (9).
R
Q     V  Wa   2    r  dr  t  r  r (10)
   
0 dm Wt

Assuming the axial induced velocity, Wa, is constant along the disk radii, the torque can be calculated
and hence the wake rotational speed can be substantiated – Eq. (11).
2Q
t 
  V  Wa     R 4
(11)

Using the power coefficient, CP, definition in Eq. (6), and Eq. (4), the wake rotational speed can be
presented in a non-dimensional manner – Eq. (12).
t 8 CP
 (12)
  3 J 2  J 22  2C 
T

To demonstrate the use of the above method, Ref. 10 is used for the two flight conditions which appeared
in Figure 6 for the two advance ratios of J = 0.1 and J =1.0 . The propeller in Ref. 10 rotates with a constant
speed of 550 rpm. The maximum wind-tunnel velocity is 110 kn. (56 m/sec). Thus, up to advance ratio of J
=2.0, the rotational speed was kept constant at 550 rpm and tunnel speed was increased. Above advance
ratio of J =2.0, the wind-tunnel speed remains constant (110 kn.) while the rotational speed decreases as
depicted in Figure 7. Thus, according to Eq. (12), for the two curves in Figure 6, the rotational speed of the
wake is Ωt =70 rpm and Ωt =32 rpm, for J = 0.1 and 1.0, respectively. Again the difference due to the flight
conditions is noticeable. As the advance ratio increases, the power coefficient decreases, thus the rotational
speed of the wake weakened. It is typically that the wake rotational speed is order-of-magnitude less than
the propeller rotational speed, as resulted here.

8
 Figure 7, Rotational speed versus advance ratio for Ref. 10

VII. Biermann and Hartman test

Using the speed schedule in Figure 7, the propeller performance maps for the Biermann and
Hartman10 test were calculated and are presented in Figure 8 and Figure 9. Figure 8 shows the performance
maps for the 4-bladed propeller while Figure 9 exhibits the 6-bladed propeller performance maps. The
maps are presented for 3 parameters; thrust coefficient, CT, power coefficient, CP, and propeller efficiency,
η, as function of the advance ratio, J - all are defined in Eqs. (5) and (6).
The Biermann and Hartman’s propellers shared the same blade geometry and had diameter of 120”
(3.05 m). The blade uses Clark-Y airfoil family. The airfoil 2-D aerodynamic database was substantiated
using MSES.17 Then PropSim (same tool used to generate the results in Ref. 1) is used to calculate the
propeller map. Figure 8 and Figure 9 contain data for pitch angles vary from 20 degrees to 65 degrees. Up
to pitch angle of about 50 deg, the curves comparison exhibits a good agreement, both for the numerical
values and for the curve shape and trends. The comparison is considered mainly to the linear regime, i.e. to
the higher values of the advance ratio for each pitch angle. For example, for pitch angle of 40 deg. the
linear regime is for advance ratio of J=1.5 and above. For this regime, efficiency comparison shows a
maximum difference of about 5% efficiency, which is considered good. The thrust and power coefficient
slopes shows a very good agreement. For the low advance ratio, J, regime, comparison of blade-element
method is due to fail, mainly due to the high angle of attack which the blade sections experience. This was
discussed thoroughly in Ref. 18 and a correction model is incorporated to the sectional 2-D aerodynamic
database, used for the blade-element model. Still, some irregularities appear for the very low advance ratio
which is caused due to the stalled airfoil database, as created by MSES.
In most cases MSES over-predicts the maximum lift coefficient, 19,20 thus the thrust coefficient also
being over-predicted. The power coefficient comparison, at the lower advance ratio regime is fair, i.e. drag
is being well estimated by MSES.
For high pitch angles, above 50 degrees, the comparison is deteriorated. Again, this statement is relevant
for the high advance ratio i.e. linear regime. The efficiency difference reaches up to 10%, although the
slopes and general trends of the thrust and power coefficients remain accurate.

9
Figure 8, Test and analysis comparison for Ref. 10, 4 blades, single rotating propeller performance

Figure 9, Test and analysis comparison for Ref. 10, 6 blades, single rotating propeller performance

10
 Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the results for the contra-rotating propeller configurations. The test
used the same rotational speed schedule in Figure 7. Note that the pitch setting was not the same for the
forward and rear propellers and the pitch, as stated by Biermann and Hartman, is presented on the
performance charts. Figure 10 shows the performance of the 4-bladed propeller, thus the front and rear disk
has 2 blades each, and total of 4 blades, i.e. same disk solidity as the single rotating case. Figure 11 shows
the results for the 6-bladed propeller which has 3 blades for the front propeller and 3 for the rear. The
results are given again for the three performance parameters; thrust coefficient, CT, power coefficient, CP,
and propeller efficiency, η. The test results included separate measurement of the power coefficient for the
forward and the rear propellers, thus an additional comparison is given for these measurements. In general,
the comparison of analyses to test results exhibits the same trends as for the single propeller comparison,
presented in Figure 8 and Figure 9. The thrust and power coefficients agrees well with the test results for
pitch angles up to β=50 degrees. Above this pitch angle, the agreement deteriorates although the curve
slopes and the pitch effect exhibit good agreement. For low advance ratios, the agreement is poor due to the
same reasons of the single-rotating case, as shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9. The efficiency curves exhibit
up to 5% difference for low pitch angles and this difference increase to about 10% for the high pitch angles.
Again, the trends are accurate, thus the sensitivity to advance ratio and pitch angle show good agreement to
the test results.
Comparing the separate propeller measurements of the power coefficient teaches that the rear
propeller agreement is excellent while the forward is less accurate. This result is correct also for high pitch
angles well beyond the threshold of β=40 degrees which was concluded from the thrust and power
coefficient curves. Therefore, the separate power coefficient results might hold some insight to this
phenomenon.
The explanation is given through Figure 4 which depicts the blade-element of the forward and rear
propeller along their velocities components. According to this description, the front propeller uses only a
single estimation for the cross-induced velocity, Wa,2on1, while the rear, more accurate propeller uses two
separate estimations for the axial and circumferential cross-induced velocities, Wa,1on2 and Wt,1on2,
respectively. It is expected that the rear propeller will exhibit worse comparison. It is influenced by both
axial and circumferential cross-induced velocities; both are crudely estimated. On the contrary, it seems
that these cross-induced velocities rather improve the model accuracy.
The circumferential induced velocity for the rear propeller contains two contradicting components.
The self-induced circumferential induced velocity, Wt2, acts in the opposite direction of the cross-induced
component, Wt,1on2. In a way, the wake of a contra-rotating propeller might consider as a non-swirled wake,
which implicate on the zero-torque that a contra-rotating propeller produces. Thus, the rear propeller acts in
a non-swirled environment, which the only circumferential velocity component is the tangential velocity
due to its own rotational speed. This cause the blade-element scheme of the rear propeller to be much
accurate than the forward propeller, which includes the self-induced circumferential velocity, Wt1. The
accuracy of the circumferential induced velocity has major influence on the high pitch angles performance.
Thus the forward propeller model is less accurate for high pitch angles. This explains the results of the
separate power coefficient measurement and the exceptional agreement of the BEM model for the rear
propeller. Moreover, it put the blame for the disagreement of the total thrust and power coefficient, on the
forward propeller, which acts similar to a single-rotating propeller and exhibits the same inaccuracies.
To further inspect the correctness of the proposed BEM for the contra-rotating case, a comparison for
5 pitch angles, β=20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 degrees, is presented in Figure 12 and Figure 13. In these figures
the curves are the same as in Figure 8 and Figure 10 for the 4-blade propeller, and Figure 9 and Figure 11
for the 6-bladed propeller. The purpose of Figure 12 and Figure 13 is to present all curves; test, analysis,
single rotating, SR, and contra-rotating, CR, on the same chart. Thus, the trends can be examined using the
differences between the various curves.
The main trend is the difference between the SR and the CR. SR curves are solid while the CR curves
are dashed. One can examine the gap between the solid and dashed curves for both the test results (in red)
and analyses (in blue). Both thrust and power coefficient exhibit decrease in value transferring from SR to
CR. On the same time, the efficiency increases. As the pitch angle increases these trends become more
prominent. The above observations repeat in the same manner for both the test and analysis results, thus
proves the correctness of the current BEM model for the contra-rotating case.

11
Figure 10, Test and analysis comparison for Ref. 10, 4 blades, contra-rotating propeller performance

Figure 11, Test and analysis comparison for Ref. 5, 6 blades, contra-rotating propeller performance

12
Figure 12, Test and analysis comparison for Ref. 5, 4 blades, SR & CR comparison

Figure 13, Test and analysis comparison for Ref. 5, 6 blades, SR & CR comparison

13
 VIII. Harrington test

Further validation of the contra-rotating model is given for hovering rotor, using the results by
Harrington. 11 Harrington’s test involves 2 different, hovering, 2-bladed, 25 ft (7.6 m) diameter rotors in a
single-rotating configuration (SR) and contra-rotating, i.e. total of 4 blades. The rotor blades use NACA-4-
digits symmetrical airfoils. The 2-D aerodynamic database, which was used to analyze these rotors, was
substantiated from Ref. 21. Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the comparison of the rotor thrust and power
coefficients, CT,rotor, CP,rotor, respectively, as defined in Eq. (13)
T P
CT ,rotor  CP ,rotor  (13)
AVtip 2
AVtip 3
where A is the disk area and Vtip is the blade’s tip velocity. The rotor thrust and power coefficients are
equivalent to the propeller thrust and power coefficient, CT and CP, respectively as defined in Eqs. (5) and
(6). Thus, the various coefficients can be related according to Eq. (14).
4 4
CT , rotor  3 CT CP, rotor  4 CT (14)
 
Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the rotors Figure-of-Merit, FM, which is the measure of the rotor
quality at hover and is defined in Eq. (15).
1.5
CT , rotor
FM  (15)
CP , rotor 2
The results show good comparison between the experiment and analyses, both for the power to thrust
coefficient (CP,rotor vs. CT,rotor) chart and for the Figure-of-Merit to thrust coefficient (FM vs. CT,rotor) chart.
The trends are similar and values are close in within 5% error. The charts include both the SR and CR
configuration. The difference between the two configurations is very similar comparing the test results and
analysis. The power coefficient is increased by a constant value from the SR to CR configuration, while the
curve slope and trend remains the same. As expected, the FM curves exhibit decrease from SR to CR
configuration due to the increase of the required power for the same thrust coefficient – as depicted in Eq.
(15). Similar to Biermann and Hartman test (Figure 12 and Figure 13), the contra rotating model predicts
well the differences between the SR and CR configuration, thus it is again validated.

Figure 14, Test and analysis comparison for Ref. 11, Rotor I, SR & CR comparison

14
 Figure 15, Test and analysis comparison for Ref. 11, Rotor II, SR & CR comparison

IX. Dunham et-al test

A third source for contra-rotating test results is available in Dunham et-al experiment.12 They used the
SR-2 propeller blades in a single-rotating 8 bladed propeller and 4+4 blades, contra-rotating configuration.
They used low-speed wind-tunnel, although the SR-2 was designed for high Mach numbers.22 As a
transonic propeller SR-2 has exceptionally thin blades, down to 2% thickness ratio, with relatively high
chord to radius ratios. Sand et-al23 contains a detailed model for the NACA-16 airfoil series, but it is not
applicable for such thicknesses. Thus, a 2-D CFD analyses were conducted to substantiate the 2-D
aerodynamic database, i.e. using EZair RANS code, 24 which was validated extensively. 25 As stated above,
for the current case, the cross sectional Mach number is low due to the test conditions of this experiment.
The Dunham et-al experiment measured the performance of 3 pitch angles for the single-rotating, SR,
configuration (β=30.45, 40.30, 50.15 degrees) and a single pitch angle (β=41.30 degrees) for the contra-
rotating configuration. Unfortunately, for the CR configuration, only the thrust coefficient, CT, was
measured, thus somewhat lean comparison is available. Nevertheless, Figure 16 presents the thrust
coefficient, CT, power coefficient, CP, and efficiency, η, of the SR-2 propeller.
The SR results exhibit good agreement for low pitch angle β=30.45 deg. As the pitch angle increases
the agreement deteriorates - for the high pitch angle of β=50.15 degrees, the agreement is poor. For the
intermediate pitch angle, β=50.15, the agreement is fair, with efficiency difference of up to 5%. The CR
result seems to be good, although it is relevant only to the thrust coefficient. Still, the level of accuracy of
the SR and CR results is similar, which again proves the correctness of the suggested contra-rotating
analysis.

15
 Figure 16, Test and analysis comparison for Ref. 12, SR & CR comparison

X. Conclusions

The paper exhibits the extension of a single-rotating blade-element model to case of contra-rotating
wing. While the single-rotating blade-element model is very common, the contra-rotating model is
somewhat more complicated. Thus, using the simple extension, suggested here, enables legacy single-
rotating models to be easily extended.
A simple model is based on iterative scheme of the single-rotating model with additional induced
velocity components which are induced by one rotating disk on the other. These cross-induced velocities
are estimated using simple axial momentum theory for the axial cross-induced velocities and simple rigid
rotated wake for the cross-induced circumferential velocity which the forward rotating-wing induced on the
rear.
Using this simple model, a well validated blade-element tool was used for the analyses of contra-
rotating wing configurations. Three different test results were used as validation case. These experiments
dealt with propeller, hovering rotor, and prop-fan configurations. All tests used a single-rotating and dual-
rotating configuration of the same blades, thus the difference between the single and contra-rotating
configuration can be focused.
Each validation case was comprised of both single-rotating case comparison and contra-rotating case.
The contra-rotating validations exhibit the same agreements and inaccuracies which were resulted for the
single-rotated cases. Moreover, the differences between the single and dual-rotating configuration was

16
replicated by the analyses, and match in a good manner to the same difference exhibited by the experiment
results. This proved the applicability of the contra-rotating extension which used the same blade-element
model used for the single-rotating cases.
In general, for linear regime, non-stalled blades, the agreement is very good, up to 5% efficiency or
figure-of-merit (for hovering cases). The deterioration of the agreement happens for the low advance ratio
regime or high pitch cases. These inaccuracies are common to the single and dual-rotating configuration,
thus it is an inherit inaccuracy of the blade-element model.
In one of the validation cases, the forward and rear rotating-wings were measured separately. This
enables to learn that the forward disk suffers from inaccuracies more than the rear disk. The latter shows
very good agreement between analyses and test data. This is due to the low circumferential induced
velocity which the rear disk experiences. The circumferential induced model is one of the reasons for
inaccuracies of single-rotating blade-element model, for high pitch cases. Thus, the rear rotating-wing does
not suffer from this issue.
The development of a simple contra-rotating model, paves the way for design suh configuration using
optimization based design methods. While CFD based model might be more accurate, it is still, impractical
considering the design of contra-rotating propeller system. Moreover, due to the complex nature of the
problem, it is doubtful if a CFD model has accuracy advantage over the BEM model.

References

1. O. Gur and A. Rosen, “Comparison between blade-element models of propellers,” The

Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 112, No. 1138, December 2008, pp. 689-704.
2. A.C. Patrao, “Implementation of blade element momentum/vortex methods for the design of aero
engine propellers,” Research report 2017:06, Mechanics and Maritime Sciences (M2) Chalmers
University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2017
3. T.D. Economon, F. Palacios, and J.J. Alonso, “Optimal Shape Design for Open Rotor Blades,”
AIAA 2012-3018, 30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference 25-28 June 2012, New Orleans,
Louisiana.
4. F. W. Lanchester, “Contra-props, recollections of early considerations by advisory committee for
aeronautics a Pioneer's 1907 patent, suggestions for further research,” Flight, 11 December 1941
5. UBER elevate, “Fast-Forwarding to a Future of On-Demand Urban Air Transportation”, 27
October, 2016 [URL: https://www.uber.com/elevate.pdf/, cited 1/1/19]
6. C. Hall, A. Zachariadis, T. Brandvik, N. Sohoni, “How to improve open rotor aerodynamics at
cruise and take-off,” The Aeronautical Journal, Volume 118, Issue 1208, October 2014 , pp. 1103-
1123
7. V. Štorch, “Verified Unsteady Model for Analysis of Contra-Rotating Propeller Aerodynamics,”
Ph.D. Thesis, Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
September 2017
8. P. Beaumier, “A low order method for co-axial propeller and rotor performance prediction,” ICAS
2014, 7-12 September 2014, St. Petersburg, Russia
9. A.A.R. Bueno, “Implementation of low-order aerodynamic model for Contra-rotating open rotor
preliminary design,” M.Sc. Thesis, School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering,
University of Manchester, 2015.
10. D. Biermann and P.E. Hartman, “Wind tunnel tests of four and six blade single and dual rotating
tractor propellers,” NACA Report 747, 1942.
11. R.D. Harrington, “Full-scale-tunnel investigation of the static-thrust performance of a coaxial
helicopter rotor,” NACA TN-2318, March 1951.
12. D.M Dunham, G.L. Gentry, Jr., and P.L. Coe, Jr., “Low-speed wind-tunnel tests of single- and
counter-rotation propellers,” NASA Technical Memorandum 87656, April 1986
13. Military images website, URL: https://www.militaryimages.net [cited: December 2018]
14. Gur O. and Rosen A., “Comparison between blade-element models of propellers,” The
Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 112, No. 1138, December 2008, pp. 689-704
15. The Royal Aeronautical Society, “Introduction to installation effects on thrust and drag for
propeller-driven aircraft,” ESDU 85015, August 2006

17
 16. Glauert H., “Airplane propellers“, in “Aerodynamic Theory” (Vol. 4, Division L), F.W. Durand,
(Ed.), New York, Dover, Third Edition, 1935
17. M. Drela and M.B. Giles, “Viscous-inviscid analysis of transonic and low Reynolds number
airfoils,” AIAA Journal Vol. 25 No. 10, Oct 1987, pp. 1347–1355.
18. O. Gur and A. Rosen, “Propeller performance at low advance ratio,” Journal of Aircraft. Vol. 42,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2005, pp. 435-441.
19. C.P. van Dam, E.A. Mayda, D.D. Chao, D.E. Berg, ”Computational design and analysis of
flatback airfoil wind tunnel experiment,” SANDIA report SAND2008-1782, March 2008
20. G.S. Lakshmi, P. Balmuralidharan, G. Sankar, K. Selvaraj, and N. Balachandran “High lift two-
element airfoil design for MALE UAV using CFD,” 20th Annual CFD Symposium, 9-10 August
2018, Bangalore
21. K.D. Korkan, J. Camba, and P.M. Morris, “Aerodynamic data banks for Clark-Y, NACA 4-digit,
and NACA 16-series airfoil families”, NASA Contract Report No. 176883, January 1986.
22. D.C. Mikkelson, B.J. Blaha, G.A. Mitchell, and J.E. Wikete, “Design and performance of energy
efficient propellers for Mach 0.8 cruise,” NASA TM X-73612, 1977.
23. E. Sand, A.D. Elliott, and V.H. Borst, “Summary of propeller design procedures and data, Volume
III – hub, actuator, and control designs”, US Army Air Mobility Research & Development
Laboratory Technical Report No. 73-34C, November 1973.
24. Y. Kidron, Y. Levy, and M. Wasserman, “The EZAir CFD Solvers Suite: EZAir Theoretical and
User’s Manual - Version 3.54,” Tech. Rep. August, ISCFDC, 2016.
25. Y. Mor-Yossef, “Low Mach number enhancement of the AUFSR scheme,” Computers and Fluids
Vol. 136, 2016, pp. 301–311

18

View publication stats