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

net/publication/314033938

3D CFD Simulation and Experimental Validation of Small APC Slow Flyer

Propeller Blade

Article in Aerospace · February 2017

DOI: 10.3390/aerospace4010010

CITATIONS READS

83 3,124

2 authors:

Hairuniza Ahmed Parvathy Rajendran

Universiti Sains Malaysia Universiti Sains Malaysia
10 PUBLICATIONS 135 CITATIONS 148 PUBLICATIONS 889 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Parvathy Rajendran on 25 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 aerospace
Technical Note
3D CFD Simulation and Experimental Validation of
Small APC Slow Flyer Propeller Blade
Hairuniza Ahmed Kutty † and Parvathy Rajendran †, *
School of Aerospace Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang 14300, Malaysia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +60-4-599-5963
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Academic Editor: Erinc Erdem

Received: 16 January 2017; Accepted: 22 February 2017; Published: 25 February 2017

Abstract: The current work presents the numerical prediction method to determine small-scale
propeller performance. The study is implemented using the commercially available computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) solver, FLUENT. Numerical results are compared with the available
experimental data for an advanced precision composites (APC) Slow Flyer propeller blade to
determine the discrepancy of the thrust coefficient, power coefficient, and efficiencies. The study
utilized unstructured tetrahedron meshing throughout the analysis, with a standard k-ω turbulence
model. The Multiple Reference Frame model was also used to consider the rotation of the propeller
toward its local reference frame at 3008 revolutions per minute (RPM). Results show reliable thrust
coefficient, power coefficient, and efficiency data for the case of low advance ratio and an advance
ratio less than the negative thrust conditions.

Keywords: APC slow flyer; CFD; k-ω; multiple reference frame; propeller; blade; unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) propeller

1. Introduction
A propeller may be considered as a rotating wing that assembles airfoils collectively, comparable
to the cross-section of the wing of an aircraft. A basic propeller configuration includes a minimum of
two blades, attached together to the central hub [1]. Thrust is generated to push the aircraft forward
through the air, by converting the rotation power from the engine shaft. The chamber shape of the
airfoil causes the airflow in front of the blade to travel at higher speed.
Based on Bernoulli’s principle, due to the acceleration of the airflow, it causes a reduction of static
pressure in front of the blade. Meanwhile, lower speed at the back of the propeller causes the propeller
to experience higher static pressure. Thus, as the pressure is lower at the front, the aircraft is pulled
forward due to the reaction force. The pressure difference between the front and back section of the
propeller creates thrust force in forward directions, allowing it to overcome the drag experienced by
the aircraft [2].
Different methods are available to determine propeller performance, including experimental and
numerical analysis. In the experimental method, the propeller blade is tested in a wind tunnel for both
static and advancing flow conditions. Meanwhile, numerical analysis adopts three-dimensional
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation, utilizing the Reynolds-average Navier–Stokes
(RANS) equation. CFD methods have become significant and highly useful tools for propeller design
and analysis.
Whereas the performance of the propeller for full-scale conventional aircraft has been
well-documented using either of the stated methods, little research has been conducted in the case
of low Reynolds numbers and small-scale propellers [3]. Generally, the propellers used for the

Aerospace 2017, 4, 10; doi:10.3390/aerospace4010010 www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

Aerospace 2017, 4, 10 2 of 11

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have a small diameter, operate at low Reynolds number and low
tip speed [4]. Reynolds number considered in this study is less than 100,000 based on the chord at
75% span location [3,5]. The development and usage of UAVs have increased significantly over the
last decades [4]. Thus, it is very important to investigate the propeller performance to ensure that the
design has led to a reliable UAV performance.
Since the usage of aircraft propellers was pioneered, numerous designs have evolved to cope
with the rapid progress of aerospace technologies. Various propeller designs are available, serving
aircraft with different mission profiles. The quest for a highly efficient propeller performance is the
aim of propeller improvements in airfoil selections, propeller diameters, blade angle, blade twist,
and the number of blades. Most modification parameters revolve around the conventional design of a
propeller blade, which includes a large-scale propeller used in conventional sized aircraft.
In the unconventional design of propeller blades, the size is smaller than 24 inches, operating at
lower Reynolds number, low forward speed and high revolution per minute (RPM) [4]. The reliability
of the unconventional design remains scarce because of limited studies and lack of documented
propeller performance study methods.
The current study aims to provide an extensive investigation of one method to determine the
performance of a propeller blade operating at a low Reynolds number. The current study seeks to
perform flow simulations of a propeller blade using CFD software (FLUENT) to determine the thrust
coefficient, power coefficient, and efficiency with a variation of the advance ratio. This paper intends to
propose a validated method and setup capable of estimating propeller performance using CFD Fluent,
thus further research need not perform a CFD setup study and validation prior to a new propeller
design analysis.
There are several common methods available to determine propeller performance, which include
experimental analysis and CFD. Brandt et al. [5] performed an experimental study utilizing a wind
tunnel to determine the performance of 79 small-scale low Reynolds number propeller blades.
The experiments were conducted at various wind tunnel speeds and ranges of rotational speed
from 1500 to 7500 RPM.
The study shows that propeller performance degrades with reduction of rotational speed.
Deters et al. [3] implemented the same method with a different type of propeller blade.
The performance of 27 small-scale propellers was tested, and the data for thrust, power, and propeller
efficiency for a certain range of advance ratio were collected. The experiments were intended to
understand the Reynolds number effects on a small-scale propeller, as the aerodynamic performance
such as lift and drag have a more pronounced effect at Reynolds number less than 100,000.
Results show that propeller performance improved as the Reynolds number increases.
Merchant [6] also conducted an experimental method study to determine the performance for a
propeller blade operating at a Reynolds number of 30,000 to 300,000. The experimental method used
in the study manages to provide reliable sets of data for low Reynolds number applications.
Some studies used CFD because it is one of the most powerful tools to determine flow properties.
Subhas et al. [7] performed a study on the ship propeller flow by implementing CFD analysis.
The geometry was initially drawn in CAD software, with specific propeller dimensions and blade
angles. A cylinder enclosure was taken as the flow domain, with the inlet at a distance of 3D (with D as
the diameter of the propeller blade) from the blade, and the exit at 4D downstream of the same point.
The meshing was generated for the entire flow domain and propeller. The study uses the k-ε
turbulence model by incorporating a moving reference frame. Thrust and torque coefficient data
obtained from CFD are compared with experimental results, with good matching between the two.
The study concludes that CFD analysis may predict the flow characteristics with reasonable accuracy.
In addition, Wang et al. [8] analysed marine propeller performance using transition sensitive
turbulence modelling for CFD analysis. The analysis provides the method to minimize the discrepancy
between CFD and experimental results by including transitional analysis. The study proved that the
Aerospace 2017, 4, 10 3 of 11

results improved the prediction accuracy for propellers compared with the standard k-ω SST (Shear
Stress Transport) turbulence model.
Morgut et al. [9] studied the influence of grid type and selection of turbulence model for numerical
predictions of a marine propeller. Meshing of hexa-structured and hybrid unstructured meshes were
compared, to study the impact of the meshes. Apart from that, the accuracy of SST and BSL-RSM
(Baseline Reynolds Stress Model) were studied. The analysis exhibited a similar accuracy level for both
meshes and BSL-RSM provides slightly better accuracy than SST with higher computational time.
Benini [10] performed a study to compare the procedures available to determine the
performance of the propeller blade, including combined momentum-blade element theory and fully
three-dimensional numerical RANS using CFD Fluent. The result shows that the numerical method
used give reliable results independent of the advance ratio, with a maximum discrepancy of 5%
compared to experimental results. In addition, the numerical analysis gives better results compared to
the combined momentum-blade element theory.
Morgado et al. [11,12] developed a new propeller and analysis tool that can estimate the
performance of a propeller. The software uses an improved blade element momentum for every blade
section. The results were validated against experimental data referenced in the National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) Technical Report. The capabilities of the software are further
tested to design and optimize a new propeller [13].

2. Methodology
Generally, the propeller used in UAVs is less than 24 inches in diameter. Thus, in the current study,
the advanced precision composites (APC) Slow Flyer propeller is set as the standard design as it is one
of the common blades used for UAVs, and due to the availability in experimental data [14]. More details
on the APC Slow Flyer are found in Section 3. The numerical simulation for this propeller is performed
using the commercially available CFD solver FLUENT 15.0 released by ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA,
USA. CFD simulation was conducted over a range of propeller advance ratios, as summarized in
Table 1. The results obtained from the numerical analysis are compared with experimental data [3,14]
to validate the CFD method used to extract the propeller performance characteristics.

Table 1. Simulation flow conditions.

Advance Coefficient, J Free Stream Velocity (m/s)

0.192 2.4384
0.236 2.9972
0.282 3.5814
0.334 4.2418
0.383 4.8641
0.432 5.4864
0.486 6.1722
0.527 6.6929
0.573 7.2771
0.628 7.9756
0.659 8.3693
0.717 9.1059
0.773 9.8171
0.799 10.1473

3. Propeller Model
The APC Slow Flyer is a two-bladed propeller, with a fixed pitch and a diameter of 0.254 m.
The propeller consists of thin airfoil profiles with a specific combination of a low Reynolds number
Eppler E63 and a Clark-Y airfoil near the tip [15], inserted to form a sharp leading edge blade design,
as shown in Figure 1.
 3. Propeller Model
3. Propeller Model
The APC Slow Flyer is a two-bladed propeller, with a fixed pitch and a diameter of 0.254 m. The
The
propeller APC Slow Flyer
consists is aairfoil
of thin two-bladed propeller,
profiles with a fixed
with a specific pitch andof
combination a diameter of 0.254 m.
a low Reynolds The
number
propeller consists of thin airfoil profiles with a specific combination of a low Reynolds number
Eppler E63 and a Clark-Y airfoil near the tip [15], inserted to form a sharp leading edge blade design,
Eppler
as shown E63 in
and a Clark-Y
1. airfoil near the tip [15], inserted to form a sharp leading edge blade design,
Aerospace 2017, 4, Figure
10 4 of 11
as shown in Figure 1.

Figure Standard
1. 1.
Figure APC
Standard Slow
APC Flyer
Slow 1010
Flyer inches ××77inches
inches inchespropeller
propellerblade.
blade.
Figure 1. Standard APC Slow Flyer 10 inches × 7 inches propeller blade.
Thepitch
The pitchofof0.1778
0.1778mmprovides
providesa apitch-to-diameter
pitch-to-diameterratio
ratioofof0.7,
0.7,which
whichisiscommon
commonfor forananoff-shelf
off-shelf
The pitch
propeller ofThe
type. 0.1778 m provides
Reynolds numbera pitch-to-diameter
of the propeller ratio
is of 0.7, which 50,804,
approximately is common forisandefined
which off-shelf
by
propeller type. The Reynolds number of the propeller is approximately 50,804, which is defined by the
propeller type.
the rotational The Reynolds number of the propeller is approximately 50,804, which is defined by
rotational speedspeed of RPM
of 3008 3008 RPM
and aand a chord
chord at ablade
at a 75% 75% blade
station.station. The Slow
The APC APC Flyer
Slow Flyer
used inused
thisin
the rotational
this study, as speed
shown ofin3008 RPM
Figure 1, and
is a chordusing
modelled at a 75%
CAD blade station.
software The
prior to APC Slow
analysis in Flyer used15.0.
FLUENT in
study, as shown in Figure 1, is modelled using CAD software prior to analysis in FLUENT 15.0.
this study, as shown in Figure 1, is modelled using CAD software prior to analysis in FLUENT 15.0.
4.4.Numerical
NumericalSetupSetup
4. Numerical Setup
The
Thesetup
setupused
usedininthethenumerical
numericalanalysis
analysisisisfurther
furtherexplained
explainedininthis
thissection.
section.
The setup used in the numerical analysis is further explained in this section.
4.1.
4.1.Flow
FlowDomain
Domain
4.1. Flow Domain
The
Thenumerical
numericalpredictions
predictionspresented
presentedininthisthisstudy
studywere
wereperformed
performedusingusingthetheANSYS
ANSYSFLUENTFLUENT
15.0 The numerical predictions presented in this study were performed
15.0 commercial CFD solver. The Multiple Reference Frame model (MRF) approachwas
commercial CFD solver. The Multiple Reference Frame model using
(MRF) the
approachANSYS was FLUENT
used
usedtoto
15.0 commercial
numerically
numericallypredict CFD
predict the solver.
theflow The
around
flow aroundMultiple
thethe Reference
propeller.
propeller. TheTheFrame
domain
domain model (MRF)
is defined approach
andand
is defined illustrated was used
in Figure
illustrated to
2a.
in Figure
numerically
The
2a. domain predict
The domainis split the
intoflow
is split into aaround
a globalglobal the propeller.
stationary
stationarydomain The
domainanddomain is defined
a subdivided
and a subdivided and illustrated
rotating
rotatingregion, in
region,calledFigure
calledthe
the
2a. The
rotating domain
domain. is split
The into
rotating a global
domain stationary
is domain
specified by a and a
smaller subdivided
cylinder rotating
entirely
rotating domain. The rotating domain is specified by a smaller cylinder entirely enclosing the blades region,
enclosing called
the the
blades
rotating
and
andthe domain.
thehub The rotating
hubasasshown
shown ininFigure
Figuredomain
2b. is specified by a smaller cylinder entirely enclosing the blades
2b.
and the hub as shown in Figure 2b.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure2.2.Flow
Figure Flowdomain
domainand
andboundary
boundaryconditions.
conditions.(a)
(a)Stationary
Stationarydomain
domainand
andboundary
boundaryconditions.
conditions.
Figure
The 2. Flow domain
boundary and boundary
conditions include anconditions.
inlet, (a) Stationary
outlet, stationary domain
domain,and
andboundary
rotating conditions.
domain; (b)
The boundary conditions include an inlet, outlet, stationary domain, and rotating domain;
The boundary
Rotating conditions include an inlet, outlet, stationary domain, and rotating domain; (b)
domain.
(b) Rotating domain.
Rotating domain.
The inlet, outlet, and outer boundaries of the stationary region are placed far enough from the
The inlet, outlet,
outlet, and outer boundaries of the stationary region are placed far enough from the
propellerinlet,
to prevent and outer
the full boundariesof
development stationaryand
the upstream placedflow
downstream enough
from affectingthe
the
propeller
propeller toto prevent
prevent the
the full
full development
development of the
the upstream
upstream and
and downstream
downstream flow fromfrom affecting
affecting the
the
results of the analysis. The inlet and outlet boundaries are located 4D, both upstream and downstream
of the origin of the propeller. For the rotating domain, the enclosure is set to be 1.1D and 0.4D.
Proper selection of the flow domain upstream and downstream distance is very important to prevent
recirculation of the flow that will cause convergence problems [16].
downstream of the origin of the propeller. For the rotating domain, the enclosure is set to be 1.1D
and 0.4D. Proper selection of the flow domain upstream and downstream distance is very important
to prevent recirculation of the flow that will cause convergence problems [16].

4.2. Mesh
Aerospace Generation
2017, 4, 10 5 of 11

The grid was generated using a mesh tool in FLUENT 15.0. The grid is important because it
4.2. Mesh the
provides individual representation of the geometry of interest. The quality of the computational
Generation
grid directly influenced the rate of convergence, the performance obtained from the numerical
The grid was generated using a mesh tool in FLUENT 15.0. The grid is important because it
analysis, and computational time to run the analysis. For the current study, the cell sizes of the mesh
provides the individual representation of the geometry of interest. The quality of the computational
were generated to be in a smaller range along the blade in the rotating region and to gradually
grid directly influenced the rate of convergence, the performance obtained from the numerical analysis,
increase toward the stationary region. Ensuring sufficient grid refinements across the interface
and computational time to run the analysis. For the current study, the cell sizes of the mesh were
enhances the accuracy of the results.
generated to be in a smaller range along the blade in the rotating region and to gradually increase
The grid is fully tetrahedral unstructured in both stationary and rotating domains. The selection
toward the stationary region. Ensuring sufficient grid refinements across the interface enhances the
is based on the justifications that unstructured tetrahedral grids have the capabilities to discretize
accuracy of the results.
complex geometries with fast and minimum user intervention. Table 2 shows the details for mesh
The grid is fully tetrahedral unstructured in both stationary and rotating domains. The selection
grid generation. Adaptation of the grid to the physical solution—that is grid refinement or
is based on the justifications that unstructured tetrahedral grids have the capabilities to discretize
coarsening—is easier to accomplish on an unstructured than on a structured grid.
complex geometries with fast and minimum user intervention. Table 2 shows the details for mesh grid
generation. Adaptation of the gridTable
to the2.physical
Details ofsolution—that is grid refinement or coarsening—is
the meshing grid.
easier to accomplish on an unstructured than on a structured grid.
Use Advance Size Function Curvature
Table 2. Details of the meshing grid.
Relevance Centre Fine
Curvature Normal
Use Advance Angle
Size Function 40°
Curvature
Min Size Centre
Relevance 1 × 10−4 m
Fine
Curvature Normal Angle 40◦
Max Face
MinSize
Size 1 ×5.6718
10−4 m × 10−2 m
MaxMax Face Size
Size 5.6718 × 10−2 m m
0.113440
Max Size 0.113440 m
Growth RateRate
Growth 1.20 1.20
Minimum Edge Length 3.9199 × 10−6 m −6
Minimum Edge Length 3.9199 × 10 m

Figure
Figure 33below
belowshowsshowsthethe
surface mesh
surface of the
mesh ofpropeller blade where
the propeller blade Figure
where 3a shows3athe
Figure standard
shows the
mesh, Figure 3b the coarse mesh, Figure 3c mid mesh, Figure 3d the mid-fine mesh and
standard mesh, Figure 3b the coarse mesh, Figure 3c mid mesh, Figure 3d the mid-fine mesh and finally Figure 3e
the fineFigure
finally mesh. 3e
Table
the 3fine
shows theTable
mesh. numbers of cells,
3 shows the nodes andoffaces
numbers cells,for the respective
nodes meshes.
and faces for The cells
the respective
sizes nearThe
meshes. thecells
blade wallnear
sizes are the
smaller
bladeand increase
wall towards
are smaller andthe outer towards
increase boundary. the outer boundary.

(a)

Figure 3. Cont.
Figure 3. Cont.
Aerospace 2017, 4, 10 6 of 11
Aerospace 2017, 4, 10 6 of 12

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Figure 3. Surface mesh of the propeller blade. The cells sizes near the blade wall are smaller and
Figure 3. Surface mesh of the propeller blade. The cells sizes near the blade wall are smaller and
increase towards the outer boundary. (a) Standard mesh; (b) Coarse mesh; (c) Mid mesh; (d)
increase towards the outer boundary. (a) Standard mesh; (b) Coarse mesh; (c) Mid mesh; (d) Mid-Fine
Mid-Fine mesh; (e) Fine mesh.
mesh; (e) Fine mesh.
Aerospace 2017, 4, 10 7 of 11

4.3. Boundary Conditions

CFD simulations were conducted in the flow conditions summarized in Table 1, with a fixed
rotational speed of 3008 RPM. On the inlet boundary, the free-stream velocity is specified, with a
turbulence intensity of 0.1%. The turbulence intensity is set based on the wind tunnel intensity
measured by [3,5,14]. Outflow boundary conditions were set at the flow exits downstream of the
flow domain. A no-slip condition is set on the walls. The domain that enclosed the propeller blade is
assigned with the MRF to incorporate the rotational speed.
The approach is highly suitable for the analysis, which requires the interaction between stationary
and rotating frames. The individual zones will be assigned with discrete rotational or translational
speed. The interface needed between the two zones will undergo a local frame transformation to
enable the flow variable from one zone to be used by the adjacent zones. The moving reference frame
is assigned with a rotational speed of 3008 RPM. The wall forming the propeller blade and the hub
were also assigned as rotational, with a velocity of zero with respect to the adjacent cell zone.
The pressure–velocity coupling is achieved using a Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure-Linked
Equations (SIMPLE). The Second Order Upwind scheme was used for momentum and pressure. The
First Order Upwind for both Turbulent Kinetic Energy and Turbulent Dissipation Rate and the Least
Square Cell-based Algorithm were used for the gradients. First order algorithms provided accurate
results for this study.

5. Numerical Method Verification and Validation

The influence of the grid and turbulence model was analysed on the prediction of the flow around
the propeller to validate the method used in the study. The propeller working condition was selected
based on available experimental data [1,2]. A grid resolution study was conducted to obtain the effect
of the grid on the performance prediction for the propeller. Five grids, referred to as standard, coarse,
mid, mid-fine, and fine, were generated based on the same geometry generation. The numbers of cells
are 0.38 × 106 , 1.06 × 106 , 2 × 106 , 3 × 106 , and 4 × 106 , respectively.
Table 3 shows the details of the grid generated for the domain. The standard mesh was generated
using default meshing in the FLUENT workbench without any modifications. The number of elements
is small. The grid is further refined, which required additional manual adjustments to achieve higher
grid quality. The meshing parameters, such as minimum sizing, were also further reduced, allowing
increments in cells numbers. The selections of suitable meshing for the analyses were evaluated
through numerical accuracy and computational times for the solutions to converge.
Apart from the meshing, three different turbulence models were tested. These include the standard
k-ε, standard k-ω, and SST k-ω turbulence model, which were tested to assess the most suitable model
to predict the propeller performance. The selected turbulence model was used throughout the analysis.

Table 3. Grids for the propeller.

Mesh Cells Faces Nodes

Standard 380,087 775,533 70,738
Coarse 1,060,142 2,161,896 197,907
Mid 2,006,921 4,087,759 371,637
Mid-Fine 3,039,047 6,196,556 564,252
Fine 4,093,554 8,340,019 797,621

6. Results and Discussions

The numerical analysis results were compared with available experimental data to verify the
influence of the grid and the quality of the obtained data. For all the computational analyses, the force
and momentum were resolved in a three-coordinate system, whose parameters are x, y, and z. The axial
force and momentum around the propeller axis define the thrust and torque, respectively. Thrust
Aerospace 2017, 4, 10 8 of 11

coefficient, KT , torque coefficient, KQ , and power coefficient, K P , advance ratio, J and efficiency, η are
defined in Equations (1)–(7).
In these equations, T (N) is thrust, Q (N·m) is torque, n (rps) is the rotational speed of the propeller,
D (m) is the diameter of the propeller, and ρ (kg·m−3 ) is the density of the fluid. The relative percentage
error of the thrust coefficient, KT , and torque coefficient, KQ , can be calculated by the Equations (4)
and (5), as listed below:
T
KT = (1)
ρn2 D2
Q
KQ = (2)
ρn2 D5
P
KP = (3)
ρn3 D5
KTCFD − KTEXP
∆KT (%) = × 100 (4)
KTEXP
KQCFD − KQEXP
∆KQ (%) = × 100 (5)
KQEXP
V
J= (6)
nD
K J
η= T (7)
KP
Table 4 shows the mesh independence study summary. The error indicates the numerical and
experimental discrepancy. All the meshing presented gives satisfactory results, with errors less than
5%. The analysis showed that the thrust coefficient for coarse meshing resulted in the minimum error
and the highest error for the efficiency. Similarly, coarse, mid, mid-fine, and fine meshing implied a
primarily high error for both the thrust and power coefficient.

Table 4. Computational results at different mesh resolutions with a standard k-ω turbulence model for
J = 0.628.

Error (%)
Mesh
KT KQ Efficiency, η
Standard 3.3020 2.7723 0.5010
Coarse 2.3817 4.1530 1.8928
Mid 3.3282 4.0127 0.7574
Mid-Fine 4.4237 4.0175 0.3795
Fine 4.3530 4.2559 0.3795

Utilizing standard meshing is more suitable because all listed errors appeared to be optimized
for thrust, power, and efficiency. Thus, the standard mesh is concluded to be sufficient for the
efficient prediction of the thrust, power and efficiency for this case study; it was thus used during the
entire study.
Table 5 shows the result obtained on the meshes in combination with the three-turbulence model.
In general, the predictions generated from the standard k-ω turbulence model provided slightly more
accurate results than the other models. The standard k-ω turbulence model is more suitable for
aerospace low Reynolds number applications. In addition, the model managed to predict the transition
model, and increase the accuracy of the model [17]. Thus, the analyses in the study were done using
this turbulence model.
 Standard k-ω 2.6997 2.9662 0.3187
SST k-ω 3.4175 3.8805 0.5258

Figure 4 shows the variation of the thrust coefficient, power coefficient, and efficiency with a
range of2017,
Aerospace advance
4, 10 ratios, J, and their percentage differences are tabulated in Table 6. Generally, 9 ofthe
11
accuracy of the numerical analysis depends on the advance ratio, J. For the thrust coefficient, the
results obtained from the numerical analysis indicate under-prediction for an advance ratio ranging
Computational results with a different turbulence model for J = 0.628.
from 0.192 to Table0.659.5. Meanwhile the remaining advance ratio exhibits over-prediction with the
highest discrepancy of 46.27% for an advance ratio of 0.799.
Error (%)
The power coefficient wasModel
Turbulence also plotted against the advance ratio range. The result also showed
a similar pattern, in which under-prediction KT occurs Kin Efficiency,
Q a low advance η and over-prediction
ratio,
occurs for a higher advance Standard k-ε The highest
ratio. 2.3817discrepancy
4.1530 can be observed
1.8928 at the advance ratio of
Standard
0.192 with under-prediction of 10.75%.k-ω 2.6997 2.9662 0.3187
SST k-ω 3.4175 3.8805 0.5258
In addition, the propeller efficiency experienced over-prediction throughout the whole range of
the advance ratios as illustrated in Figure 4. Generally, the discrepancy increases as the advance
ratio Figure 4 shows
increases. Abovethe anvariation of theofthrust
advance ratio 0.717, coefficient,
the differencepower coefficient,
becomes and efficiency
substantial. with
At an advance
aratio
range of advance
of 0.799, ratios, J, result
the numerical and their percentage the
over-predicted differences are tabulated
experimental value byin42.5%.
Table Analyses
6. Generally,
at a
the accuracy of the numerical analysis depends on the advance ratio, J. For the thrust
wider range of advance ratio predicting both the thrust and power coefficients were underestimated coefficient, the
results obtained from the numerical analysis indicate under-prediction for an
at a lower advance ratio, and the opposite behaviour was recorded at a higher value of advanceadvance ratio ranging
from
ratio. 0.192 to 0.659. Meanwhile
This discrepancy the remaining
may be attributed by theadvance ratio exhibitseffect.
three-dimensional over-prediction with the highest
discrepancy of 46.27% for an advance ratio of 0.799.

Figure 4. Comparisons of the thrust coefficient, power coefficient, and efficiency of the APC Slow
Figure 4. Comparisons of the thrust coefficient, power coefficient, and efficiency of the APC Slow
Flyer Propeller.
Flyer Propeller.

Table 6. Difference between experimental and computational analysis for a range of advance ratios, J.

Percentage Difference (%)

Advance Ratio, J Velocity (m/s)
KT Kp Efficiency, η
0.192 2.4384 −10.334 −10.749 0.294
0.236 2.9972 −7.891 −9.204 1.451
0.282 3.5814 −6.250 −8.245 2.198
0.334 4.2418 −4.660 −8.399 3.956
0.383 4.8641 −4.120 −8.512 4.884
0.432 5.4864 −3.063 −8.413 5.623
0.486 6.1722 −1.661 −7.657 6.365
0.527 6.6929 −1.486 −7.608 6.521
0.573 7.2771 −1.747 −7.291 5.820
0.628 7.9756 −0.854 −6.492 6.076
0.659 8.3693 −0.812 −6.776 6.275
0.717 9.1059 3.680 −4.843 8.904
0.773 9.8171 20.484 0.520 19.737
0.799 10.1473 46.265 2.803 42.455
 0.192 2.4384 −10.334 −10.749 0.294
0.236 2.9972 −7.891 −9.204 1.451
0.282 3.5814 −6.250 −8.245 2.198
0.334 4.2418 −4.660 −8.399 3.956
Aerospace 2017, 4, 10 10 of 11
0.383 4.8641 −4.120 −8.512 4.884
0.432 5.4864 −3.063 −8.413 5.623
The power coefficient6.1722
0.486 was also plotted against the advance
−1.661 ratio range. The
−7.657 result also showed a
6.365
similar pattern, in
0.527 which under-prediction
6.6929 occurs
−1.486 in a low advance
−7.608 ratio, and over-prediction
6.521 occurs
for a higher advance ratio. The highest discrepancy can be observed at the advance ratio of 0.192 with
0.573 7.2771 −1.747 −7.291 5.820
under-prediction of 10.75%.
In addition, 0.628 7.9756efficiency −0.854
the propeller −6.492
experienced over-prediction 6.076 the whole range
throughout
of the advance0.659 8.3693
ratios as illustrated −0.812
in Figure 4. Generally, the −6.776 6.275
discrepancy increases as the advance
ratio increases.0.717 Above an 9.1059advance ratio of3.680 0.717, the difference becomes
−4.843 substantial.
8.904 At an advance
ratio of 0.799, the numerical result over-predicted the experimental value by 42.5%. Analyses at a
0.773 9.8171 20.484 0.520 19.737
wider range of advance ratio predicting both the thrust and power coefficients were underestimated at
0.799 10.1473 46.265 2.803 42.455
a lower advance ratio, and the opposite behaviour was recorded at a higher value of advance ratio.
This discrepancy may be attributed by the three-dimensional effect.
Figure
Figure55shows showsthe thepressure
pressurecontour
contourofofthethepropeller
propellerblade
bladeoperating
operatingatatan anadvance
advanceratio
ratioofof
J J= =0.628. Based on the figure, it can be seen clearly that the pressure at the back-side of
0.628. Based on the figure, it can be seen clearly that the pressure at the back-side of the propeller is the propeller
isslightly
slightlyhigher
higher thanthanthethe pressure
pressure at front-side
at the the front-side
of theofpropeller.
the propeller. As in
As in the the aircraft
aircraft wing, thewing, the
pressure
pressure difference between the top and bottom surface of the wing creates lift
difference between the top and bottom surface of the wing creates lift force, allowing the aircraft to force, allowing the
fly.
aircraft to fly. In the case of the propeller, the pressure difference between the front-
In the case of the propeller, the pressure difference between the front- and back-side of the propeller is and back-side of
the propeller
creating force is in
creating force in
the forward the forward
direction, knowndirection, known as thrust.
as thrust.

Figure 5. Propeller blade pressure contour for J = 0.628. (Top) Front-side of the propeller; (Bottom)
Figure 5. Propeller blade pressure contour for J = 0.628. (Top) Front-side of the propeller;
Back-side of the propeller.
(Bottom) Back-side of the propeller.

7.7.Conclusions
Conclusions
CFDsimulations
CFD simulationsused
usedininthis
thisstudy
studysuccessfully
successfullyreplicated
replicatedthe
theexperimental
experimentalresults,
results,which
whichmaymay
significantly improve computational accuracy. The current study opens opportunities to
significantly improve computational accuracy. The current study opens opportunities to investigateinvestigate
different propeller
different propeller blade
bladeconfigurations;
configurations;reliable datasets
reliable maymay
datasets be collected for small-scale
be collected low Reynolds
for small-scale low
Reynolds number propellers. The commercial CFD code, such as FLUENT, was found toin
number propellers. The commercial CFD code, such as FLUENT, was found to be reliable beproviding
reliable
good initial predictions; thus, it can replace experimental analysis, which is time-consuming and
more expensive.
The method proposed in this study utilizes a standard k-ω turbulence model and a Multiple
Reference Frame model to include the rotational effect of the propeller blade. The mesh independent
study investigated the effects of the meshing number on the entire domain, as well as the error and
computational time required for decision-making on the final meshing.
The results for the thrust coefficient showed a slight under-prediction for a low advance ratio,
whereas the result for the power coefficient shows both an under-prediction for a low advance ratio
and an over-prediction for a higher advance ratio. Efficiency was high throughout the advance ratio,
with only a slight over-prediction on the higher advance ratio. Overall results showed a reliable
capability to predict the performance of a low-speed, low Reynolds number small-scale propeller.
 Aerospace 2017, 4, 10 11 of 11

Acknowledgments: This publication was supported by Universiti Sains Malaysia Grant No. 304/PAERO/
60313056.
Author Contributions: Hairuniza Ahmed Kutty and Parvathy Rajendran conceived and designed the experiments;
Hairuniza Ahmed Kutty performed the experiments; Hairuniza Ahmed Kutty and Parvathy Rajendran analyzed
the data; Hairuniza Ahmed Kutty and Parvathy Rajendran wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Delp, F. Aircraft Propellers and Controls, 1st ed.; Jeppesen: Frankfurt, Germany, 1979.
2. Watts, H.C. The Design of Screw Propellers: With Special Reference to Their Adaptation for Aircraft, 1st ed.;
Forgotten Books: London, UK, 1920.
3. Deters, R.W.; Krishnan, G.K.A.; Selig, M.S. Reynolds number effects on the performance of small-scale
propellers. In Proceedings of the 32nd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA,
16–20 June 2014; pp. 1–43.
4. Venkatesh, B.J. Design and Performance Evaluation of a Propeller; LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH
& Co. KG: Saarbrücken, Germany, 2012.
5. Brandt, J.B.; Selig, M.S. Propeller Performance data at low reynolds numbers. In Proceedings of the 49th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Grapevine, TX, USA, 7–10 January 2013; pp. 1–18.
6. Merchant, M.P. Propeller Performance Measurement for Low Reynolds Number Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Applications; Wichita State University: Wichita, KS, USA, 2004.
7. Subhas, S. CFD analysis of a propeller flow and cavitation. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2012, 55, 26–33.
8. Wang, X.; Walter, K.S. Computational analysis of marine-propeller performance using transition-sensitive
turbulence modeling. J. Fluids Eng. 2012, 134, 071107. [CrossRef]
9. Morgut, M.; Nobile, E. Influence of grid type and turbulence model on the numerical prediction of the flow
around marine propellers working in uniform inflow. Ocean Eng. 2012, 42, 26–34. [CrossRef]
10. Ernesto Benini, Ã. Significance of blade element theory in performance prediction of marine propellers.
Ocean Eng. 2004, 31, 957–974. [CrossRef]
11. Morgado, J.; Silvestre, M.Â.R.; Páscoa, J.C. Validation of new formulations for propeller Analysis. J. Propuls.
Power 2015, 31, 467–477. [CrossRef]
12. Morgado, J.; Silvestre, M.A.R.; Páscoa, J.C. A comparison of post-stall models extended for propeller
performance prediction. Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol. 2016, 88, 540–549. [CrossRef]
13. Morgado, J.; Abdollahzadeh, M.; Silvestre, M.A.R.; Páscoa, J.C. High altitude propeller design and analysis.
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2015, 45, 398–407. [CrossRef]
14. Brandt, J.B.; Deters, R.W.; Ananda, G.K.; Selig, M.S. UIUC propeller data site. Available online:
http://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/props/propDB.html (accessed on 1 November 2016).
15. APC Slow Flyer. Available online: https://www.apcprop.com/Articles.asp?ID=262#airfoil (accessed on
10 September 2016).
16. ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Fluent User’s Guide. Available online: http://159.226.251.229/videoplayer/ANSYS%
20Fluent%20Users%20Guide.pdf?ichuri=4430682d62b326e212655a3feab3426a&ichstart=0&ichend=0&
ichkey=1745028923750463592455&ichtype=1&ichdiskid=1&ichunit=1 (accessed on 15 January 2017).
17. ANSYS, Inc. Modeling Turbulent Flows, Introductory Fluent Training. Available online: http://www.
southampton.ac.uk/~nwb/lectures/GoodPracticeCFD/Articles/Turbulence_Notes_Fluent-v6.3.06.pdf
(accessed on 15 January 2017).

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

View publication stats