Helios and Tenasi Results for the Workshop

for Integrated Propeller Prediction

Aaron M. Crawford1 and Kidambi Sreenivas2
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN, 37403, United States
Abstract
Initiated in Summer 2018, the AIAA began the Workshop for Integrated Propeller Prediction
(WIPP). Through this program, using the Maxwell x57 as a test bed, the goal was to develop the
CFD prediction capabilities for integrated propeller models. The goal behind this workshop was
to validate CFD prediction capabilities while at the same time providing validation-quality
experimental data that would not be proprietary and would be available to everyone. Additionally,
the data released as part of this workshop would help with the availability of validated CFD solvers
that would keep up with the renewed interest in propellers for electric applications.
Work began at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga in September 2018, generating meshes
and running simulations for the proposed test conditions. Grids were updated as more information
became available and the wind tunnel tests were completed in January 2019. All the simulations
that were carried out used actual propeller geometries with appropriate relative motion. At the
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga’s SimCenter meshes were generated using Pointwise and
run using the in-house flow solver Tenasi. Tenasi is a fully unstructured flow solver developed at
the SimCenter. To complete the simulations with accurate relative motion a sliding interface was
utilized around the propeller and nose of the geometry. Successful simulations were completed
for test conditions shown in Table 1 below. The simulations were run on a local cluster using 48
cores. Each case was started under steady-state conditions in order to setup the general flow
characteristics and to get the flow moving in the correct downstream. Once this was accomplished,
the simulation was continued in a time-accurate manner for at least another five propeller
revolutions.
In the summer of 2019, this project was continued at the US Army Aviation Development
Directorate (ADD) office at the NASA Ames site in Moffett Field, California. Using the tools from
the CREATE-AV suite, including Helios, further CFD simulations were completed. Helios is the
CFD framework developed by the ADD office at Moffett Field for specific use on rotorcraft. The
software allows for several plug-in sections all wrapped in Python. Helios works with several
different flow solvers, allowing for a near body and off body selection as well as having its own
force computing module, Melodi, a hole cutting module, pundit, and a visualization package,
Coviz. The off-body flow solver chosen for all simulations was the Helios developed samcart, a
fully cartesian grid with automatic mesh refinement capabilities. Using Helios, one set of run
conditions was simulated for several geometry configurations: an isolated propeller and nacelle,
an isolated wing, and an integrated wing propeller configuration. Two different near body solvers

1
Undergraduate Student, Mechanical Engineering, and AIAA Student Member.
2
Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and AIAA Senior Member.
were used. FUN3D was chosen because of its long history and extensive capabilities.
Additionally, several cases were carried out with mStrand, the ADD developed strand solver.
Though an integrated wing and propeller configuration mStrand simulation was never completed,
both solvers performed well with mStrand showing promising results. However, for the final paper
the mStrand results will not be included due to lack of comprehensive testing. The details of the
Helios results are shown in Table 1.

During the Fall of 2019 and Spring of 2020, the simulations using Tenasi will be revisited with
new techniques and meshes now that the full set of workshop data has been released. Additional
information matching the workshop will be gathered and included in the final version of the paper.

Preliminary and Expected Results

The results of both Helios and Tenasi simulations aim to duplicate all information shown in the
workshop. This includes the coefficients of lift, drag, thrust, and drag with thrust included. In
addition, pressure coefficient comparisons were compared to experimental data along the
pressure and suction surfaces of the wing. The last major pieces of wind tunnel data that is
duplicated is wake pressure data that taken in vertical and horizontal sweeps at various positions
downstream of the propeller. From this torque and thrust are calculated through the integration
shown below as specified by the workshop.
1
𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝜌𝑢(𝑢 − 𝑢∞ ) 𝑟 𝑟
2
= 2𝜋 ∫ 𝑑
𝑄∞ 𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑄∞ 𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝
0

1 2
𝑇𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝜌𝑢𝑣𝑠𝑤𝑖𝑟𝑙 𝑟 𝑟
3 = 2𝜋 ∫ ( ) 𝑑
𝑄∞ 𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑄∞ 𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝
0

Table 1: Run conditions simulated using Helios and Tenasi

Helios Tenasi
Freestream Mach 0.11 0.08
Angle of Attack 0̊ 0̊
RPM (Prop Cases Only) 8060 5900
Time Steps/ Iterations 5 Revs (7200 steps at ¼ 5 Revolutions steady then 5
degree/step) 10000 Revolutions Unsteady (1
Iterations degree/step)

Tenasi Results
Starting with Tenasi, all values were predicted well except for drag. The primary aerodynamic
force results are shown in the table below.
 Table 2: Tenasi results (Run 117, 180)

Quantity Computation Experiment Difference

Lift .6659 0.699 4.73%

Drag .0520 .0247 110%

Drag Thrust Included -.3021 -.3751 19.5%

As shown in Table 2, most values are predicted well. Thrust-corrected drag, however, is not
predicted well. It is suspected that with improvements in mesh quality and refinement as well as
the addition of a transition model, the computational results will become more accurate. Figures
2 and 3 show the time averaged Cp plots for Tenasi simulations. While the sections lower on the
span are predicted well, the pressure tap lines located directly in the propeller downwash are not
predicted as well. Again, it is expected that improvements in mesh and modeling will result in a
decrease in this error.

Figure 2: Cp plot Y=63 in (Run 117) Figure 3: Cp plot Y=44 in (Run117)

The final version of the paper will include results from Tenasi to the rest of the Priority 1 cases
(Figure 8) and will also include the all Cp plots as well as the torque and thrust integration.

Helios Results
With current DOD allocations more Helios simulations will be completed for the final paper.
Currently the preliminary Helios results based on the test conditions specified in Table 1 are as
shown below. Similar to Tenasi, drag is not predicted well though Helios does yield more accurate
results than Tenasi. With adjustment of turbulence and transition models it is predicted that the
error in drag will be reduced.
Figure 4 below shows is of the FUN3D solution from Run 176 at the fifth pressure line,
approximately 87% span. This solution was time averaged over approximately 1.5 revolutions. It
is in the downwash of the propeller and it matches the experimental data very well. Figure 5 is a
comparison of both the FUN3D and mStrand solution as well as the experimental results for the
isolated wing case (No Propellers). These figures show very close agreement for both FUN3D and
mStrand solutions. This gives a positive indication for the Cp plots of the remaining simulations.
In addition to these figures, the Cp data from all simulations at the other 5 span locations will be
included in the final paper along with the same plots for all simulations yet to be completed.

Table 3: Helios results (Run 03, 176)

Quantity Experiment mStrand Fun3D

Propeller and Nacelle Thrust N/A 151.16 151.72

Isolated Wing CL 0.5806 0.577 0.6005
Isolated Wing CD 0.0302 0.0403 0.0423
Full Model CL 0.7012 N/A 0.6734
Full Model CD Thrust Included -0.3757 N/A -0.3755
Full Model CD Thrust Removed 0.0255 N/A 0.0404

Figure 4: FUN3D Cp Plot Pressure Line 5 Figure 5: FUN3D, mStrand and experiment
(Run 176) pressure line 6 Cp plot (Run 03)

In addition, torque and swirl data is as follows for the Helios FUN3D Run 176. The torque and
swirl were calculated by beginning at a Y coordinate of 70 inches and moving up at 0.25-inch
increments until approximately two times the propeller radius. The upper integration limit is taken
as R/Rprop=1 despite having information beyond this location. This does not exactly duplicate the
experimental tests, however; the computational results allow for the computational rake to get
closer to the nacelle than allowed experimentally. Table 4 details the comparison of computational,
experimental and calibrated results. The results in Table 4 show a slight underprediction of the
experimental integrated values. For thrust the workshop determined the experimental integration
provides an overprediction of thrust. For the case of thrust the calibrated results seem to be more
accurate and result in only an 11% error from the computational results. With the torque the
accuracy of the experimental integration is in question however, computational results produce a
21% error for this metric. At this time only the 1.5-inch rake location has been examined. The
other rake locations of 6.15”, 14.15”, 22.15”, and 42.15” will be included in the final paper.

Table 4: Comparison of integrated quantities (Helios; x = 1.5 in)

Quantity Computation Experiment Experimental Calibrated Results
Torque (ft*lbs) 6.51 8.39 N/A
Thrust (lbs) 29.89 37.28 33.86

Figure 6: Torque and Thrust Distributions x=1.5 in (Run 176)

Both plots show general agreement between computational and experimental results, though while
the computations show an under prediction, the general shape of distributions are well matched.

Above and beyond the experimental results, computationally it is possible to investigate some
things that are otherwise difficult to do experimentally. For example, shown below is a plot of the
oscillation of lift and drag on the wing over the course of one rotation. This gives further insight
into the effect of the propeller on the wing.

Figure 7: Lift and Drag Oscillation on the Wing (Run 176)

Future Results

For each priority 1 shown below, simulation the computational results will be compared directly
with the wind tunnel test data. In addition to the workshop specified results the computational
results will show to what degree computational results can improve upon the wind tunnel tests.
The intent is to show the computational results measured closer to the propeller than a wind tunnel
rake and provide more detailed information about both propeller-wing and wing-propeller
interactions. Finally, a detailed comparison between Tenasi and Helios will be performed
considering meshing process, computational resources required, and overall accuracy of the
results.

Figure 8: Workshop Specified Test Conditions

Acknowledgements

Computing resources were provided by the SimCenter at the University of Tennessee at

Chattanooga, through a grant from the UC Foundation. Images were created by using FieldView
as provided by Intelligent Light through its University Partners Program. Computational resources
and access to Helios have been provided by the ADD office and DOD HPC program. Additional
thanks for the support of the ADD office, particularly Roger Strawn, Mark Potsdam, and Buvana
Jayaraman