Influence of Propeller Down Wash on Structural Integrity of Horizontal Tail

Tip Attachment Of C-130 Aircraft

Syed Qasim Zaheer1, Jahangir Shah2 and M. Shehreyar2
1
Department of AEEM, College of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati,
Ohio,45221, USA
2
Department of Aerospace Engineering, College of Aeronautical Engineering NUST, Risalpur, 24090,
Pakistan

Abstract: C-130 is a widely used aircraft for transport purposes both in military as well as
commercially. This research study is carried out to address and ascertain the underlying reasons for
the anomalies related to horizontal stabilizer tip attachment assembly, which were reported during
scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of a vintage fleet of subject aircraft being operated by an
air force of developing country. It was reported during physical inspections that more minor
damages were observed on the left tip attachment assembly than one installed on right side. As first
step, the CFD simulation of subject aircraft is carried out to investigate the flow field of horizontal
stabilizer under the influence of propeller down wash, for different angles of attack and side slips
and cruise flight condition. It is revealed that left horizontal stabilizer and its tip attachment
assembly experiences more aerodynamic and pressure loads for a range of simulated flight
conditions, thereby supporting the physical finding. Later on, to ascertain the structural integrity of
tip attachment assembly, these calculated loads are applied on FEM model of subject assembly and
adjoining portion of horizontal stabilizer. The structural analysis of available repair schemes in
relevant technical orders is also carried out to determine the best scheme which may be applied on
actual vintage so as to avoid future occurrences.

Keywords: C-130 aircraft, propeller downwash, computational fluid dynamics, structural analysis

I. INTRODUCTION
The Hercules C-130 aircraft is four engine turboprop military aircraft which is extensively
used for transport purposes in many air forces around the world. It is undoubtedly used in many
different operations like cargo transport, para trooping, paradropping, emergency air ambulance
etc and has certainly proved its efficiency and reliability in all such military as well as commercial
operations. The airforce of one of the developing countries has been using this reliable machine
since long and is operating a vintage fleet with an average service life of over 50 years. During a
routine post flight inspection on one of the C130 aircraft of this fleet, few rubbing signs were
observed on the left horizontal stabilizer tip attachment and upon further investigation, it was also
found displaced from its original position. The dead weight of elevator moves in the recess or
cavity of the tip attachment of horizontal stabilizer during its operation and any displacement of
tip attachment assembly can severely affect the smooth operation of elevators and consequently
can become a cause of inflight occurrence. The location of horizontal stabilizer tip attachment ,
the elevator and its dead weight is shown in figure 1. Once this incident was reported, the complete
vintage fleet of C130 aircraft was inspected and investigated to ascertain any such trend. A
thorough investigation revealed that maximum defects like cracks on attachments, missing bolts
and screws were noted on the left horizontal stabilizer tip attachment assembly than the right one.
This called for a detailed study to explore and investigate the underlying reasoning for such trend
of failures. Therefore, in this research study, the computational fluid dynamics simulation and
analysis of C130 aircraft is carried out in Ansys Fluent 16.0® environment to ascertain the
influence of propeller wash on the horizontal stabilizer and specifically its tip attachment
assembly. The pressure loads on these tip attachment assemblies are calculated for different angle
of attack configurations and are compared between left and right assemblies. Later on, these loads
are transferred on 1:1 scaled detailed CAD model of tip attachment assembly for structural
analysis using finite element method in Ansys Mechanical 16.0®. This research paper is divided
into two parts, part-I encompasses the details and results obtained from CFD analysis of subject
aircraft whereas part-II describes the detailed structural analysis of tip attachment assembly under
the influence of propeller wash.

Figure 1: The pictorial representation of horizontal stabilizer, tip attachment assembly and elevator of C-130 aircraft

II. Part-I Flow Field Analysis Using CFD

A. Methodology and Computational Setup
The Hercules C-130 aircraft has four turboprop engines, two on each wing, and all four
rotates in clockwise direction when viewed from the rear [1]. Therefore, the uni-directional
rotation of all four propellers produce an inertial effect on the fuselage as well as spiraling down
wash [2]. The yawing moment produced as a consequence of spiraling slip stream and inertial
effect is catered for by 2-degree offset placement of vertical stabilizer. However, the wing tip
vortices and the spiraling slipstreams generated by the propellers travel far downstream and
influence the flow field of the horizontal stabilizers. The influence of wake generated around the
tail and ramp of C-130 aircraft during flight operation has been studied experimentally as well as
computationally, but propeller wash influence was not catered for in these investigations [3,4].
Similar studies were also carried out for paradropping configuration and the impact of wake
generated behind the ramp or tail area of C-130 aircraft on the parachute deployment was
analyzed. These studies also consider a uniform flow field neglecting the influence of rotating
propellers [5,6,7].
The 1:1 scaled simplified CAD model of C-130 aircraft is developed CATIA® software
and the geometrical and aerodynamic features of wing, horizontal stabilizer and vertical stabilizer
are guaranteed by generating them as per the relevant dimensions and included airfoil [8].
Moreover, the tip attachment assembly is modelled separately along with a portion of horizontal
stabilizer having span equivalent to a local chord length to which the tip assembly is attached.
This is done to ensure that proper aerodynamic loads are transferred onto CAD model for FEM
analysis. The propellers are not modelled instead they are replaced with a finite volume
representing the propellers using actuator disc method. The aircraft is placed inside a cylindrical
domain having radius equal to 3 times the length of aircraft and the inlet of domain is shaped like
a semi sphere to accommodate the variation of angles of attack and side slip. A prism layer is
attached to the surface of aircraft and a sphere of influence with growth rate of 1.05 is generated
around the aircraft to make a finer mesh resolution in the region of interest. A total of 6 million
mesh cells are generated for the complete fluid domain including the actuator discs volumes
representing the propellers. The CAD model and resultant meshing of fluid domain is shown in
figure 2.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2: (a) CAD model of surface of C-130 aircraft and volumes representing actuator discs for propellers (b)
Fluid domain for CFD analysis (c) inflation layers of mesh attached to surface of aircraft (d) Sphere of influence
generated around aircraft surface for mesh refinement.
 Pressure far field boundary condition is used for the boundary of fluid domain and the
surface of aircraft is defined as wall boundary with no slip condition. Since the aircraft operates
at cruise flight conditions for majority of its service life, therefore, the flow parameters
corresponding to cruise Mach No of 0.5 is defined at pressure far field boundaries. Spalart-
Allmaras (1-eqn) turbulence model is selected because of its suitability for aerospace and
aeronautics applications. Steady simulations are carried out using SIMPLE velocity pressure
coupling algorithm along with second order accurate discretization technique for momentum and
turbulence quantities. The Interiors that represents the actuator discs are defined as fan boundary
condition and to calculate the parameters for such boundary condition, RPM and engine thrust at
cruise conditions and the swept area of frontal face of actuator disc needs to be input. The pressure
ump across the disc was calculated to be 3002.667 pascals and the tangential velocity came out to
be 223.1955 m/sec. The radial velocity component being very small as compared to tangential.
The clockwise rotational of these actuator discs viewed from behind is incorporated. For
convergence criteria, the lift and drag coefficients are monitored and the residuals are allowed to
converge at values of 1e-5.
B. Results and Discussion
I. Validation Of Methodology
The aerodynamic data set available in the unclassified report of Lockheed Martin titled
“Aerodynamic Data for Structural Loads” published in April 1984 [9] is used for the validation
case. The CFD simulations are carried out for angle of attack of -5, 0 and 5 degrees and the
corresponding coefficient of lift values are recorded. The data set in the mentioned reference is
shown on the right side of figure 3 in which airplane lift coefficient vs angle of attack is plotted
for different flap deflections. The values corresponding to zero flap deflection are taken for
validation purpose and the results corresponding to mentioned angle of attacks from CFD
simulation is plotted from coefficient of lift and AOA on the left side of figure 3. An error of less
than 6% is achieved, signifying the accuracy and validity of CFD simulations.

Figure 3: Coefficient of lift of airplane vs angle of attack (left) CFD results (right) already published result [9]
 II. Flow Field Analysis
In order to understand the influence of propeller downwash on the flow field of aircraft
wing and horizontal stabilizers, firstly the CFD simulation is carried out at zero AOA without
giving swirl velocity at the actuator discs. The streamlines originated from the propeller discs are
shown in figure 4 and the resultant surface pressures on the left and right horizontal stabilizer tip
attachments are also shown. It can be easily inferred that with this flow setup and conditions, the
pressure loads distribution on the tip attachment assembly is similar and symmetric on both left
and right sides. Later on, the swirl velocity at the actuator disc is applied along with the other
parameters and the results are compared with that of no swirl case. It is observed that the propeller
downwash heavily influenced the flow field of horizontal stabilizer and asymmetric flow patterns
are observed across the symmetric plane of aircraft. The surface pressure load distribution on the
left and right tip attachment assemblies are also asymmetric with maximum surface pressure being
observed on the left tip attachment assembly. CFD simulation with AOA of -5 and 5 degrees are
also carried out and maximum surface pressures on tip attachment assemblies are recorded. The
comparison between the maximum surface pressure values is tabulated in table 1 for different
AOA variation keeping the same cruise Mach number and flow conditions. From this data it is
inferred that the maximum difference between the pressure load distribution of left and right tip
attachment assemblies is observed for AOA of zero degrees at cruise conditions. Moreover, the
variation in side-slip angles has least effect on changing the asymmetry of pressure load
distribution. The left horizontal stabilizer and its tip assembly is exposed to higher steady surface
pressure loads than the right one which supports the actual finding of more damages found during
inspection of vintage fleet of C-130 aircraft.

(a) (b)
Figure 4: Streamlines and pressure contour plots on left and right tip attachment assembly for zero degree AOA
case having (a) no swirl condition (b) applied swirl condition
 Table 1: Comparison of maximum aerodynamic and pressure loads on left and right tip attachment assemblies for
different flight conditions

The static pressure contours are also plotted at three different chord wise locations/planes
of horizontal stabilizer of C-130 aircraft of zero-degree AOA flow conditions, figure 5. The larger
pressure difference between the bottom and top surfaces of left horizontal stabilizer is observed
than the right one. These results of pressures contour plots are to be viewed keeping in mind the
fact that airfoil of horizontal stabilizer of C-130 aircraft are inverted NACA 23012 with the
incidence angle of -1.75 degrees. Moreover, these contour plots also show higher pressure values
near the tip attachment assemblies on left side than the right one. The pressure distribution is
asymmetric across the fuselage of C-130 aircraft under the influence of propeller down wash. The
surface pressure loads on the left tip attachment assembly for zero-degree AOA case are then
transferred onto FEM setup for structural analysis.

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 5: The static pressure contour plots on different chord wise planes across the horizontal stabilizer of
C-130 aircraft from leading edge to trailing edge (a) to (c) for AOA= 0 degrees
 III. Part-II Structural Analysis
A. Methodology and Computational Setup
Finite element analysis (FEA) is used to check the structural integrity of the tip attachment
assembly of horizontal stabilizer once the pressure and aerodynamic loads are calculated using
CFD analysis. To know the structural integrity of the model, a complete FE analysis of the model
was carried out. FEA comprises three steps. First is preprocessing in which we make or import
the model from other source give the boundary condition and apply the loads and prepare the
model for next step. Second is to analysis the data setup in first step as the input. FEA governs on
the equation which is:[F]=[K][x] and third is post processing phase, the FEA shows the results in
the shape of colored contours, tables, graphs and plots.
As a first step, the detailed internal CAD model of tip attachment assembly and adjoining
portion of horizontal stabilizer is generated from the available geometrical drawing and
specification in the relevant technical orders of C-130 aircraft. Since there are different variants
of aircraft i.e. B-model and E-model, that are in service and both have different structural drawings
and repair schemes on board and in the respective technical orders, it is deemed necessary to make
different CAD models for each available repair schemes and then decide upon which one is more
safe based upon factor of safety values obtained from FEM analysis. Once the best repair scheme
is ascertained, it may be recommended to maintenance crew to apply that repair scheme on whole
fleet to avoid future occurrences. First of all, the detailed CAD structural models of tip attachment
assembly and adjoining portion of horizontal stabilizer are generated in CATIA® software
separately and are then assembled, cleaned and exported to Ansys Mechanical for static structural
analysis under the influence of loading conditions. There are three different repair schemes
available in relevant technical orders, here they are named 1st, 2nd and 3rd repair schemes [10]. The
CAD models of original structure and with repair schemes are shown in figure 6 and 7 respectively
and detail of these repair schemes is described below.
1st repair scheme: Four additional holding brackets on upper and lower side, and tip is
modeled accordingly. These holding brackets are modeled to share the load and increase
the factor of safety.
2nd repair scheme: An additional L shape attach angle on outer flange of front side of
upper and lower beam caps. These L shape attached angle will increase the strength of the
flange and reduce the chances of the structural failure.
3rd repair scheme: Additional L shape attach angle on outer and inner flange of front
side of upper and lower beam caps to reduce the chances of breakages and failure
One of the most important steps in structural analysis is definition of contacts. Because it
tells us that how a particle solid body or a surface will behave under the application of load. When
body or any part is in contact with either nut or bolt then frictional contact is defined between
them with a frictional coefficient of 0.16 usually, but this value differs from material to material.
In this case the coefficient was 0.16. Similarly, when nut and bolt are in direct contact with each
other, there contact is defined as bonded. So, based on the geometry of this acquired model,
bonded and frictional contacts are used. Moreover, Fixed supports were applied to the end faces
of the part of horizontal stabilizer up to 2nd last ribs
 Figure 6: The FEM CAD model of (a) adjoining horizontal tail portion with attachment points (b) Tip
attachment assembly (c) final assembled CAD model

Figure 7: The FEM CAD models for different repair schemes (colored in orange) (a) 1st (b) 2nd (c) 3rd

After defining the geometrical features of the subject assembly and the boundary
conditions, the next step is to mesh the model for analysis. The element which is selected for
meshing is tetrahedron. Relevance center is kept as fine by ignoring the medium and low option,
because the finer the mesh the more accurate the results are. It is to be noted here that material
properties of Aluminum 7075-T6 is defined for spar and Aluminum 2024-T3 for the skin of tip
attachment assembly and adjoining portion of horizontal stabilizer [10].
B. Results and Discussion.
I. Grid Independence Study
Von-Mises stress is very important when we are dealing with structural problem. It helps
us to find whether the structure is capable to not fail on the given loading condition. The distortion
energy theory for ductile materials is used to evaluate the factor of safety for the assembly. For
the mesh independence study, the analytical loading conditions is extracted from the
“STRUCTURAL LOADS HANDBOOK” written by Pedro Filipe Fernandes de Albuquerque
[11]. The curve fitting of bending moment and shear force distribution curves available in the
book is carried out and the loads for the portion of horizontal stabilizer are calculated from curve
fitted equations. Aerodynamic loads which are shear force and bending moment, are applied at
quarter chord of the airfoil because of lift distribution. Shear force and bending moment is applied
on the geometry by using multipoint constrain technique. Mesh independence was carried out by
varying the various mesh parameters, it is observed that at approximately 0.35 million elements
stress become constant with maximum stress value of 318.37 MPa hence selected for further
analysis to keep the simulation time less.

Figure 8: The FEM model with the applied boundary conditions from analytical data set along with the meshed
model and graph displaying the variation of max von mises equivalent stress with no of mesh elements

II. FEM Analysis based on CFD Results

Once the grid independence is done, now the aerodynamic loads from the CFD results are
imported to Ansys Mechanical and are applied on to the geometry as direct loads. The loads
corresponding to zero degree AOA are used and it is to be noted that for FEM analysis, the leading
edge of adjoining horizontal stabilizer is not modelled because it is not a load carrying member
for the tip attachment assembly. The surface pressures are applied on the 1:1 scaled model and
under the influence of this loading condition, all the cases are simulated for structural integrity
including the without repair scheme model and with 1st, 2nd and 3rd repair schemes. The
comparison between the results obtained for without repair scheme model under the application
of analytical loads and CFD results is carried out and the results are shown in table 2. It is evident
that analytical loads are estimated less than the CFD loads and consequently, the maximum shear
stress is calculated to be less for analytical loads. It may be due to the reason that uniform flow
conditions were considered for analytical loading condition whereas the CFD prediction of loads
incorporate the influence of propeller down wash and hence are more realistic.
 Table 2: Comparison of equivalent stress and factor of safety for with and without repair scheme FEA analysis
MAXIMUM EQUIVALENT
MODEL MINIMUM FOS
VON MISES STRESS (MPa)

Without repair scheme (Analytical Loads) 318.37 1.5799

Without repair scheme (Loads from CFD

426.81 1.1786
results)

1st repair scheme (Loads from CFD results) 324.117 1.533

2nd repair scheme (Loads from CFD results) 118.558 4.19

3rd repair scheme (Loads from CFD results) 90.87 5.52

The maximum Von-Mises equivalent stress contour plots and minimum Factor of Safety
(FOS) are calculated for each repair scheme. It is observed that maximum equivalent stresses for
all the model with and without repair schemes, is found on the front top attachment point of the
tip assembly, hence making it a critical attachment point. It is also observed from the results that
3rd repair scheme provides the safest attachment scheme between the horizontal stabilizer and tip
attachment assembly. The contour plots of equivalent Von Mises stresses and the resultant factor
of safety for the third repair scheme is shown in figure 9.

(a)

Max stress = 90.97 Min FOS = 5.52

(b) (c)

Figure 9: (a) Imported loads from CFD simulation (b) Maximum Von Mises equivalent stress contour plot (c)
Factor of Safety Contour plot

IV. Conclusion
In this research study, the underlying reason for the anomalies on horizontal stabilizer tip
attachment assembly reported during scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of a vintage fleet
of C-130 aircraft is investigated in details using numerical methodology including the steady
computational fluid dynamics simulation of complete aircraft for ascertain the pressure and
aerodynamic loads and then subsequent static finite element analysis. The CFD simulation
dictates that propeller down wash greatly influenced the flow field of horizontal stabilizer of
subject aircraft and the left horizontal stabilizer is subjected to more aerodynamic and pressure
loads. Subsequently the tip attachment there also experiences more pressure and aerodynamic
loads than the right one, hence the physical finding of more anomalies on left tip attachment on
vintage fleet of C-130 aircraft is supported by CFD results. Later on , these loads corresponding
to zero degree AOA are then imported onto FEM model and the analysis for with and without
repair schemes is carried out to ascertain the best repair scheme which may be applied on actual
aircraft fleet to avoid future such occurrences. The finite element analysis revealed that 3rd repair
scheme provides the best factor of safety margin than the others.

References
[1] https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1555054/c-130-hercules/
[2] Hunsaker, J. C. "Progress in Naval Aircraft." SAE Transactions 14 (1919): 236-277.
[3] Claus, Malcolm, Scott Morton, Russell Cummings, and Yannick Bury. "DES turbulence
modelling on the c-130 comparison between computational and experimental results." In 43rd
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, p. 884. 2005
[4] Serrano, Matthieu, Elliot Leigh, William Johnson, James Forsythe, and Scott Morton.
"Computational aerodynamics of the C-130 in airdrop configurations." In 41st Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, p. 229. 2003.
[5] Schroijen, Marcel, and Ronald Slingerland. "Propeller slipstream effects on directional
aircraft control with one engine inoperative." In 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and
Exhibit, p. 1046. 2007.
[6] Bergeron, Keith, Mehdi Ghoreyshi, and Adam Jirasek. "Simulation of C-130 H/J troop
doors and cargo ramp flow fields." Aerospace Science and Technology 72 (2018): 525-541.
[7] Schmidt, S., 2010. Detached-Eddy Simulation of the Dynamic Loads of C-130H with
Open Cargo Bay.
[8] Lage, Yoann Eras. "Structural Analysis for Lockheed Martin C-130H Wing." (2009): 10.
[9] Dickinson R.A., Cathaway R.G., “Aerodynamic Data For Structural Loads” , Division
of Lockheed Corporation, report No LR9062, 1953.
[10] Technical Order 1C-130-A-3
[11] https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/395143117996/58159%20-
%20STRUCTURAL%20LOADS%20HANDBOOK.pdf