DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5293/kfma.2012.15.6.

011
ISSN (Print): 1226-9883

***
*

1)

The Design and Analysis of Composite Advanced Propeller Blade for

Next Generation Turboprop Aircraft
Won Choi* , Kwang-Hae Kim*, Won-Joong Lee**
Key Words : Next generation Turboprop Aircraft( ), Composite Advanced Propeller( ),
Computational Fluid Dynamics(), Fluid Structure Interaction(- ), Computational Structure
Dynamics()

ABSTRACT
The one way fluid structure interaction analysis on advanced propeller blade for next generation turboprop aircraft. HS1
airfoil series are selected as a advanced propeller blade airfoil. Adkins method is used for aerodynamic design and performance
analysis with respect to the design point. Adkins method is based on the vortex-blade element theory which design the propeller
to satisfy the condition for minimum energy loss. propeller geometry is generated by varying chord length and pitch angle at
design point. Blade sweep is designed based on the design mach number and target propulsion efficiency. The aerodynamic
characteristics of the designed Advanced propeller were verified by CFD(Computational Fluid Dynamic) and showed the
enhanced performance than the conventional propeller. The skin-foam sandwich structural type is adopted for blade. The high
stiffness, strength carbon/epoxy composite material is used for the skin and PMI(Polymethacrylimide) is used for the foam.
Aerodynamic load is calculated by computational fluid dynamics. Linear static stress analysis is performed by finite element
analysis code MSC.NASTRAN in order to investigate the structural safety. The result of structural analysis showed that the
design has sufficient structural safety. It was concluded that structural safety assessment should incorporate the off-design points.

1.

100

. ,

, ,

, ,

Sweep

, ,

, .

. 80 90

* ()
**
, E-mail : choiwon1@koreaaero.com

, Contra Rotating Open Rotor NASA-GE

, CLEANSKY

:15, 6, pp. 11~17, 2012(: 2012.02.23, : 2012.08.21, : 2012.11.01)

11

.

/

.

2.
2.1


.(1)


. 80
NASA Open
Rotor 90

, . Fig.
1, 2 Open Rotor .
Fig. 3 Bombardier Dash-8-Q400
Dowty R408 .

Fig. 4 HS1 Series Airfoil

2.3 Hamilton Standard

.
Hamilton Standard(2) PF1,
HS1 HS2 . PF1
0.80.85, HS1 0.55 HS2
0.550.7 .
Fig. 4 HS1 .
Hamilton Standard HS1
.

2.4

17000ft,
. Table 1 .

Fig. 1 Open Rotor

Fig. 2 Advanced Propeller

Xfoil .
- (Vortex-Blade element theory)
Adkins(3-5) . Adkins

Fig. 3 Dowty R408 Propeller Blade

2.2
RAF-6,

Table 1 Propeller Design Condition
Parameters

Values

Clark-Y, NACA0016 . RAF-6

Blade Airfoil

HS1

. Clark-Y

Consumed Power(HP)

2150

. NACA0016

Diameter(m)

4.08

Design Velocity(m/s)

142

700HP .

Number of Blades

Propeller RPM

980

12

:15, 6, 2012

. sweep
sweep angle
. Fig. 56
conventional .

sweep angle
conventional 75%
. Fig. 7
sweep angle . Fig. 8 sweep

Fig. 8 Designed Advanced Propeller

angle .

3.
Xfoil

. -


.
CFD FLUENT 12.0.16
(MRF, Multiple Reference Frame)
Fig. 5 Comparison of Advanced with

Conventioal propeller Chord Ratio

,
. SST
.
,
. ,
.
Fig. 9 .
, 8

. 375

Fig. 6 Comparison of Advanced with Conventional

propeller Beta Angle

Hybrid Y plus 1
. Table 2
Conventional
.

Fig. 7 Advanced Propeller Sweep Angle

:15, 6, 2012

Fig. 9 Mesh for analysis

13


Table 2 Results of Aerodynamic Analysis

Diameter(m)
J
Cp
Thrust(N)
Ct
Power(HP)
Efficiency

Design
3.96
2.20
0.50
10060.99
0.21
2161.79
0.89

Conventional
3.96
2.20
0.57
10687.3
0.23
2321.06
0.88

Adv.Prop
4.08
2.13
0.54
10368.41
0.22
2229.54
0.89

Fig. 11 Vorticity of Conventional Propeller

.


. FLUENT(6)

Fig. 12 Vorticity of Advanced Propeller

. ,

conventional

. , 3

Fig. 6,

. Fig. 11, 12 conventional

7 disturbance

potential wake

Conventional

. conventional

(7)

. conventional

4. -

Fig. 10
.

/ Direct Coupled FSI, FSI

, FSI . Direct Coupled

. FSI

. FSI

. FSI


.

FSI(8)
.

Fig. 10 Propeller Efficiency

14

mapping .

:15, 6, 2012

Fig.

13

suction pressure

Fig. 14, 15
.

.
2.13
0.49
.

5.
5.1

/(Glass/epoxy), /
(Carbon/epoxy)
. Fig. 16
.
(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

45

Fig. 13 Translation of Aeroload for Structure Analysis

(Pressure Surface:(a)CFD, (b)CSD, Suction Surface:(c)CFD, (d)CSD)

,
.

Fig. 16 Composite blade Construction

Table 3 Structural Design Results

Fig. 14 Thrust per blade vs. Advance ratio

Station

Skin

all

[ 45,45,0,90,45,45 ]

Table 4 Mechanical properties of UD-HSCFEP

Longitudinal modulus(MPa)

140000

Transverse modulus(MPa)

10000

Shear modulus(MPa)

5000

Poisson ratio

0.3

Longitudinal tensile strength(MPa)

1500

Longitudinal compressive strength(MPa)

-1200

Transverse compressive strength(MPa)

-250

In plane shear strength(MPa)

Density(kg/m3)
UD prepreg thickness(m)

70
1500
0.000125

Fig. 15 Coefficient of Power vs. Advance Ratio

:15, 6, 2012

15

305MPa ,

- . Table

20.9MPa . 196mm

3
Table 4

(9-10)

(11)

carbon/epoxy UD Prepreg
PMI(Polymethacrylimide) .

6.

5.2

NASTRAN

2.13 0.49,

. -

(12),

. Table 5

Fig. 17 2.13, 53.18

0.49, 43.51

FLUENT

disturbance potential wake

0.49 43.51

2.13 53.18

. conventional

. Fig.

15

. ,

. ,

.
-

Table 5 Results of Linear Static Anlalysis

, /
PMI .

J=0.49
(Max. load)

J=2.13

Beta Angle(Degree)

43.51

43.51

48.34

53.18

305MPa , 20.9MPa

Compression stress(MPa)

227

46.7

224

305

Tensile stress(MPa)

15.5

3.15

15.4

20.9

Displacement(mm)

166

18.6

167

196

196mm .



.
-

.

.
(a)

(b)

Fig. 17 (a) J=2.13, beta=53.18 (b) J=0.49(Max.load), beta=43.51

16

:15, 6, 2012

(1) Colman Shattuck, Jon Young., 1993 Modern Propeller

Technology for Advanced Turboprop Aircraft, AIAA/
SAE/ASME/ASEE 20th Joint Propulsion Conference
and Exhibit.
(2) J.A. Lieser, D. Lohmann, C.H. Rohardt., 1997, Aeroacoustic
Design of a 6-Bladed Propeller, Aerospace Science
and Technology, No. 7, pp. 381389.
(3) Adkins, Charles N., Liebeck, Robert H., 1983, Design
of Optimum Propellers, American Institute of Aeronautices
and Astronautics.
(4) , , , 2002. 4,
, 2002
, pp. 286292.
(5) Lee, K.H, Jeon, Y.H, Bae, E.S, Lee, D.H, Lee, K.T,
2004, Implementation of the Numerical Optimization
for the Micro-Air Vehicle Propeller, 10th AIAA/ISSMO
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference,
Albany, New York.
(6) W. Choi, J.S Choi, I.M Jung, J.H Kim, I.W Lee, S.H
Han, Y.S. Won., 2011.5, CFD Analysis of Aerodynamic

:15, 6, 2012

Characteristics of Regional Turboprop Aircraft Propeller,

Proceeding of the 2011 KSCFE Spring Conference, pp.
447452.
(7) W. Choi, J. H. Kim, 2011. 11, Aerodynamic Analysis
on Advanced Propeller Blade for Turboprop Aircraft,
Proceeding of the 2011 KSAS Fall Conference.
(8) Y. G. Kim, K. C. Kim., 2007. 5, FSI analysis on wind
turbine blade, Proceeding of the 2011 KSME Spring
Conference, pp. 23682371.
(9) C. D. Kong, H. B. Park, G. S. Lee, W. Choi., 2011. 4,
A Study on Conceptual Structural Design for Composite
Propeller Balde of Turboprop, Proceeding of the 2011
KSAS Spring Conference.
(10) C. D. Kong., 2005, Structural investigation of composite
wind turbine blade considering various cases and fatigue
life, ENERGY, Vol. 30, pp. 21012114.
(11) www.matweb.com
(12) H. K. Kim, J. H. Lee, S. M. Jang, K. W. Kang., 2010.
7, Structural Analysis and Testing of 1.5kW Class Wind
Turbine Blade, Journal of the Korea Fluid Machinery
Association, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 5157.

17