AD-A109 846 MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH CAMBRIDGE DEPT OF OCEAN E--ETC F/A 13/10

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS FOR THE PREDICTION OF THE EFFECT OF VISCOS-ETC(U)

JUN a1 S KOBAYASHI NOGOAA76 -C-0357
UNCLASSIFIED OE-8-7
ANL

I IIIII////I/hh
II/////II/IIllfllffl
EEEEEEEEEEEEEE
LEEEEEEEEE
 11
1.0U,8 ~2

C P
-IR I TO 3l f T H R
 &~LEVIL

June the Effect ofinern

Preicio ofatmn
Viscosity,
on013
 MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF OCEAN ENGINEERING
CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 02139

Technical Report

Report No. 81-7

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS FOR THE PREDICTION

OF THE EFFECT
OF VISCOSITY ON PROPELLER PERFORMANCE

by

Sukeyuki Kobayashi

June 1981

Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted

for any purpose of the United States Government.
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

This research was carried out under the

Naval Sea Systems Command
General Hydromechanics Research Program
Subproject SR 009 01 01, Administrated by the
Naval Ship Research and Development Center
Office of Naval Research Contract N00014-76-C-0357
MIT OSP 83456

TE
JN 20 1982
 -1-
SECU RITY C L ASSIFIC ATION O F T HIS P AG E ( h e D
REPORT DOCUMENTATION atePAGE
nireod) R
READ INSTRUCIONS'
REPORT________________PAGE_ BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
1. NtPORT NUM9ER .GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

81-7 i9-,6/0' Y _ __ _ _ _

4. TITLE (nd Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS FOR THE
PREDICTION OF THE EFFECT OF VISCOSITY Technical Report
ON PROPELLER PERFORMANCE s. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR. ) I. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERe.)

Sukeyuki Kobayashi N00014-76-C-0357

9- PERFORMING ORGANIZATIC"N NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT.TASK
Department of Ocean Engineering AREA A WORK UNIT NUMBERS
MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139 SP 009-01-01

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT OATE

June 19J 1981
Office of Naval Research 13. NUMBER OA*GES
153
14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(if different from Co trolflng Oflfce) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)
David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research
and Development Center Unclassified
Bethesda, MA 20084 Isa. DECLASSIFICATION/OOWNGRAOING

,o. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Repot)

This document has been approved for public release and sale;
its distribution is unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abetract misted In Block 20. it ditffernt
fim Report)

1. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

1. KEY WORDS (Contlne as ravares aide It neoseary Md Idetifir by block mobwr)

Propeller Blade Profile Drag

Vortic ity

\LaserBoundary Layer
Doppler Velocimeter
20.SO|TRACT (Contine a reveree ieSI csceeey .mdIdetif by Nook mionk)
A Laser Doppler Velocimeter (LDV) was used to perform a pro-
peller wake survey for DTNSRDC propellers 4381 and 4383. Three
components of the velocity were measured and from this, the
velocity field and the vorticity field were constructed. Througli
a coordinate transformation, the vorticity field was separated
into two parts i.e., trailing vorticity and boundary layer type
vorticity in the viscous wake.

DO IJA 7 1473 EDITION or I ,OV,

IS
10SOLETR
IN 010 014- 66011 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF TIMIS PAGt (lan370
a
 -la-
rry CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGErhofm Dae Eneqd*,

"The data was used for the prediction of propeller blade

profile drag (viscous sectional drag). The idea of
hypothetical flow by Betz was extended to propeller flow
and a formula for the profile drag was derived in terms of
velocities, which is suitable for LDV application. The
radial distribution of profile drag was computed using the
velocity data. It was shown that the value of Cd is close
to that of 2-dimensional section at mid-radius range, but
becomes substantially lower at inner and outer radii and
that it goes up again near the tip and the hub. This trend
is consistent with the behavior of profile drag of a finite
span wing.

Ae,9,,
t'0n r:.r

T' .

; 1lty Codes

.6CUmgTY CLAWIPICATION OF TIS PASR(lhft De e

 -lb-

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS FOR THE PREDICTION

OF THE EFFECT
OF VISCOSITY ON PROPELLER PERFORMANCE

by
Sukeyuki Kobayashi

This report is essentially identical to the thesis submitted

by the author in May, 1981 in partial fulfillment of the reauire-

ments for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Thesis Supervisor: Justin E. Kerwin
Professor of Naval Architecture

ABSTRACT

A Laser Doppler Velocimeter (LDV) was used to perform a

propeller wake survey for DTNSRDC propellers 4381 and 4383.
Three components of the velocity were measured and from this,
the velocity field and the vorticity field were constructed.
Through a coordinate transformation, the vorticity field was
separated into two parts i.e., trailing vorticity and boundary
layer vorticity in the viscous wake.
The data was used for the prediction of propeller blade
profile drag (viscous sectional drag). The idea of hypothetical
flow by Betz was extended to propeller flow and a formula for
the profile drag was derived in terms of velocities, which is
suitable for LDV application. The radial distribution of
profile drag was computed using the velocity data. It was
shown that the value of Cd is close to that of 2-dimensional
section at mid-radius range, but becomes substantially lower
at inner and outer range, but becomes substantially lower
at inner and outer radii and that it goes up again near the
tip and the hub. This trend is consistent with the behavior
of profile drag of a finite span wing.
 -2-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis project was supported by The U.S. Navy GHR

Contract No. N00014-76-C-0357.

I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis

supervisor Professor Justin E. Kerwin for his continuous

support and advice given during my graduate study at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I also would like to express my appreciation to my

thesis committee members; to Professor Eugene. E. Covert

who gave many important suggestions as an aerodynamics

expert, to Professor Patrick Leehey who stimulated my energy

to attack the problems through the questions and to

Professor Robert J. Van Houten whoes deep understanding on

the topic often encouraged me.

Special thanks are extended to Mr. S. Dean Lewis, in

charge of the Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratory, for his

advice and assistance which often made the experiments more

efficient, and to Dr. Keh-Sik (Peter) Min who taught me

everything about the LDV and motivated me into this thesis

work.

I would like to thank my friends and colleagues who

helped me out in various ways

David S. Greeley and James S. Uhlman Jr. often joined

me in the discussions of the experimental results and gave

me useful suggestions and sometimes were willing to give me

the computational results to compare with the experiment.

Dave also offered a kindness to check the wordings and
 -3-

expressions in this paper which was written by a non-native

speaker of English.
Elwyn S. Baker spent a considerable amount of time to

discuss with me the flow around a moving source.

Robert B. Schoenberger worked hard one summer to add

the LDV the third degree of freedom. Without his work, the
vorticity measurement would have been impossible.

Eduardo Moas' experiment with 2-D hydrofoil was a great

help to prove the validity of the formula for the profile

drag.

Jens P. Kaalstad's help in the experiment with the 3-D

hydrofoil saved my time during the rush toward the

completion of this thesis.

Dr. A. Bruce Dunwoody's and Dr. R. Brad Campbell's
efforts to initialize the digital plotter which was used to

draw the nice graphs in this paper are greatly appreciated.

Mr. Raymond E. Johnson and .his colleagues'

professional skills were great back-up in the experiments.

Especially, I was lucky to use the newly polished plexiglass

(optical) window done by his team for the LDV measurements.

Miss Joanne M. Sullivan's secretarial ability (in

arranging the thesis committee meetings, etc.) saved me a

great amount of time and I could concentrate more on my

thesis work.
I also owe many other people who directly or indirectly

helped me through the whole process toward the degree.

My gratitude goes to my parents who gave the strength

and confidence in me to accomplish the work toward the

 -4-

degree and who gave supports to me in various ways.

My appreciation is given to my parents-in-law (Mr. and

late Mrs. Yoshio Ando) who showed deep understanding in me

and gave continuous support.

I have to confess that without the continuous support

and encouragement of my wife Eiko, the life as a student

here at MIT would have been impossible. I owe her forever.

Finally, my wife and I would like to thank Dr. and

Mrs. Ralph Katz for having been our host family. Their
hospitality has made our life here very much enjoyable.

Sukeyuki Kobayashi
May 1981

I;•I
* jo
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

Report Documentation Page 1

Abstract Lb

Acknowledgements 2

Table of Contents 5

List of Tables and Figures 7

Nomenclature 11

1. Indroduction 15
2. Experimental Facility 18

MIT Water Tunnel 18

LDV System 18

Data Acquisition 18

Propellers 19
Wall Effect 19

3. Experiments and Results 21

3.1 Field Point Velocity and Vorticity 21

Coordinate Systems 21

Construction of Velocity Field 22

Vorticity Field 25

3.2 Discussion on Velocity and Vorticity Field 26

Velocity Field 26

Comparison with FPV-1O Output 31

Vorticity Field 32

Error in Vorticity 35
 -6-

Title Page

4. Profile Drag of Propeller Blade 38

4.1 Derivation of The Formula 39

Momentum Theorem 39

Introduction of Hypothetical Flow 41

Decomposition of Force and Moment 47

The Force and Moment computed in Hypothetical Flow 49

Construction of Hypothetical Flow 51

4.2 Application to 2-D Hydrofoil 53

Formula 53

Construction of Hypothetical Flow 55

Experimental Results 57

4.3 3-D Hydrofoil 59

4.4 Application to Propeller 61

Formula 61

Construction of Hypothetical Flow for Propeller 69

Induced Velocity 71

Profile Drag Coefficient 72

Results 76

5. Conclusions 81

References 84

Appendix A 88

.......- -
 -7-

List of Tables

Title Page

Table 2-1 Data Acquisition System 90

2-2 Geometry of The Propellers 91

3-1 Distance from T.E. along Helical Line

to Each Measurement Point 93

4-1 Experimental Conditions (2-D Hydrofoil) 58

4-2 Dimensions of the Model and Experimental

conditions (3-D Hydrofoil) 59

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Experimental Set-up for Velocity Measurement 94

2-2 Schematic Representation of

Data Acquisition System 94

2-3 Result of Open Water Test DTNSRDC4381 95

2-4 " 4382 95

2-5 4497 96

2-6 4383 96

2-7 4498 97

3-1 Coordinate systems 22

3-2 Restriction to the LDV measurement 24

3-3 Measurement Stations for Vorticity 26

3-4 Coordinate Transformation 33

3-5 Field Point Velocity Measured by LDV 97

 -8-

Title Page

Figure 3-6 Field Point Velocity (3-components) 98

Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R
3-1 and at various radii 114

3-17 Field Point Velocity (3-components) ilA

Prop.4383 at x=-0.488R

3-24) and at various radii 126

3-25 Vorticity Distribution

Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r=O.7R at Design J 126

3-26 Velocity Component Parallel to Viscous Wake

Prop.4381 127

3-27 Prop.4383 127

3-28 Geometry of the Two Wakes

Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R 128

3-29 " Prop.4383 at x=-O.488R 128

3-30 Field Point Velocity Prop.4381

at x=-l.OR, r=O.7R 129

3-31 " at x=-2.OR, r=O. 7R 130

3-32 FPV-10 Output at x=-0.333R, r=l.OR Prop.4381 132

3-33 Field Point Velocity (Measured)

Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r=l.OR 132

3-34 PSFFPV Output at x=-O.333R, r=1.OR

Prop.4381 133

3-35 FPV-10 Output at x=-0.333R, r=O.7R

Prop.4381 133
 -9-

Title Page

Figure 3-36 Field Point Velocity (Measured)

Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r=0.7R 134
3-37 FPV-10 Output at x=-O.470R, R=0.924R

Prop.4383 134
3-38 Field Point Velocity (Measured)
Prop.4383 at x=-O.470R, r=0.924R 135

3-39 Transformed Vorticity 135

Prop.4381 at x=-O.333R,

3-48 and at various radii 140

3-49 Transformed Vorticity 140

Prop.4383 at x=-0.488R
3-561 and at various radii 144

3-57 Slope of Bound Circulation 144

4-1 Formulation of the Problem 39

4-2 Hypothetical Flow 43

4-3 2-D Hydrofoil 53
4-4a Velocity Distributions

NACA 0012 at 0 angle of attack 145

4-4b Vorticity Distribution 145

4-5a Velocity Distributions

NACA 66-309 @4.5deg. Re=900000 146
4-5b Vorticity Distribution " 146

4-6a Velocity Distributions

NACA 66-309 @4.5deg. Re=2000000 14.7

4-6b Vorticity Distribution " 147

 -10-

Title Page

Figure 4-7 Coefficient of Profile Drag Obtained at

Several Measurement Points 148

4-8 3-D Hydrofoil and the Coordinate System 60

4-9 Velocity in the Wake

SNAME Keel Model No.3 (z=-0.625c) 148

4-10 " (z=-0.125c) 149

4-11 (z=-0.063c) 149

4-12 (Across the Tip Vortex) 150

4-13 (f in z) 150

4-14 Spanwise Distribution of Profile Drag

SNAME Keel Model No.3 151

4-15 Control Volume 62

4-16 Expanded View of Velocity Diagram 75

4-17 Hypothetical Velocity Constructed from

Measured Velocity and Vorticity Prop.4381 151

4-18 Hypothetical Velocity obtained from

Constant Pressure Assumption Prop.4381 152

4-19 Cd obtained at different locations

Prop.4381 at Design J (0.7R) 152

4-20 Coefficient of Profile Drag

Prop.4381 and 4383 at Design J 153
 NOMENCIATURE

c chord length
Cd coefficient of profile (viscous sectional) drag
= o L.a/Ue2 C- for hydrofoil

Dit, /P(VA',WS ')c for propeller

C1 coefficient of lift (sectional)

D propeller diameter
DRi sectional drag force on the propeller blade

ES force on the solid body in the flow

FS. lifting force on the body

Es drag on the body

IFwoy buoyancy force

IF force on the singularities in the
hypothetical flow
I, lifting force in the hypothetical flow
0. drag force in the hypothetical flow

Fs.c sectional force

M section camber
I acceleration of gravity

G potential of gravity

i,j,k indices for x,r,e

J advance coefficient - AD
--

j =

K number of propeller blades

K -r thrust coefficient

KQ torque coefficient
moment on the body in the flow
 -12-

kilL lifting moment on the body

LA drag moment on the body

0uo, buoyancy moment on the body

moment on the singularities in the

hypothetical flow

14 lifting moment in the hypothetical flow

14D drag moment in the hypothetical flow

Mtse sectional moment

n propeller revolution
I normal unit vector
P propeller section pitch

p static pressure

q strength of the source

Q total flux from the source distribution

R propeller radius

Re Reynolds nunber, = LJ..C/A) (hydrofoil),

= / C-v (propeller blade)

r position vector

r radial position

S control surface fixed in space

s' control surface moving with the fluid material

S8 surface of the body

s control line (in 2-D flow)

Sw a part of the contzol surface which is in the wake

t time

t maximum thickness of propeller blade section

U1. inflow velocity

UV, reference velocity , - /VA' +(0.7Ra) 1

 -13-

V control volume fixed in space

V* control volume fixed in space for the hypothetical

flow

VI control volume moving with the fluid particle

V ' control volume moving with the fluid particle for

the hypothetical flow

VA inflow velocity to the propeller

VI, volume of the solid body

VIE infinitesimal volume

VS volume of the source distribution
Z) velocity vector

e hypothetical velocity
induced velocity

angle of attack

8 hydrodynamic pitch angle without induced velocity

hydrodynamic pitch angle with induced velocity

r circulation

C error

propeller efficiency
8s projected skew angle at radius r

v kinematic viscosity

0 density of the fluid

time (dummy variable)
velocity potential for the source

angular velocity of propeller rotation

' vorticity vector

9
 -14-

L 1 vorticity of the trailing vortex

vis vorticity of the viscous wake

Coordinate systems Unit Vectors

o-xyz space fixed Cartesian coordinates t, ;, I-

o-xy'z' propeller fixed" Cartesian a, ,

o-xre space fixed cylindrical 6, ey, a.

o-xre' propeller fixed cylindrical a, e.re"

o'- ,nr transformed coordinates (Propeller fixed)

 -15-

1. Introduction

Marine screw propeller is relatively new in the long

history of ships which is comparable to the history of

mankind itself. It was only a hundred years ago when the

propeller took the present style[l]. Since then, through

various evolutionary stages, it has been used almost

exclusively as a mean of ship propulsion.

During last two decades, rapid growth of computer

technology has made it possible for theoretical and

numerical methods to analyze various problems in science and

engineering. The field of marine propeller hydrodynamics is

not an exception. More than a few computer programs have

been or are being developed using numerical lifting-line or

lifting-surface theory.

At MIT, there has been a continuous effort for over 20

years by Kerwin and his colleagues to develop computer

programs for the design of propeller blades and for the

prediction of propeller performance, based on numerical

lifting surface theory[2]. The effort has produced some of

the best propeller programs around, such as PUF-2[3],

PUF-3[4], PBD-10[5] and FPV-10[6].
At almost the same period of time, Laser Doppler

Anemometry was introduced as a powerful tool in experimental

fluid dynamics. In certain areas of experiments, it enabled

us to read flow velocity directly with a very good accuracy

and spatial resolution without disturbing the flow. At the

Department of Ocean Engineerig, MIT, Laser Doppler
 -16-

Velocimeter (LDV) has been in operation since 1977. Mini7]

was the first to set up the Laser apparatus and bring it

into work. He showed various posibilities of the flow

measurement around a propeller, thus proving the

powerfulness of LDV. After having successfully shown its

capability, the LDV is now being used to back up those

computer programs as well as in various experiments.

This thesis is intended to extend the work done by Min.

Among several things to be done, the author has been

particularly interested in the prediction of the profile

drag (viscous sectional drag) of a propeller blade, using

the velocity data obtained by LDV, which has never been

tried so far.*

The current versions of the programs use a constant

value for the coefficient of the profile drag (Cd) over the

radius of the propeller blade. By feeding the actually

measured values of the drag distribution, it is expected

that the accuracy of the programs will improve, especially

of the design program (PBD-10). One of the objectives of

this paper, therefore, is to supply such information using

the experimental data obtained by the LDV.

In this paper, the method of Betz[8 for the prediction

of profile drag which uses the concept of hypothetical flow

*)There have been some examples of LDV application to lift

measurement such as Sayre[9) or Orloff[10]. But as far as

the author knows, there is no example of profile drag

measurement by LDV.
 -17-

will be generalized first and a formula will be given in

terms of velocities as opposed to in terms of pressures

which was given by Betz. A method to obtain the

hypothetical flow from measured velocity data will also be

discussed.

The measured velocity field, and vorticity distribution

which is derived from the velocity data will be presented

also, and the flow field in the propeller wake will be

discussed. The propellers tested are DTNSRDC research

propell t7s 43-l (no blade skew) and 4383 (with 72 deg skew).

1
 -18-

2. Experimental Facility

MIT Water Tunnel The experiments were done in the Variable

Pressure Water Tunnel of the Marine Hydrodynamics

Laboratory, Department of Ocean Engineering, MIT.

As Min[7) mentions, this water tunnel is ideal for

Laser measurements. The tunnel is a closed circulating

channel, having a square test section with transparent

plastic(plexiglass) viewing windows on four sides. The size

of the test section is 20" x 20" and the viewing window is

44" x 16" x 2" thick. The tunnel operates in the speed

range of 0 to 30 ft/sec.

LDV system The LDV system is manufactured by Thermo Systems

Inc. with Spectra Physics 15mW He-fle Laser and has Dual
Beam Forward Scatter Mode. The LDV mount has a traverse

system which has 3-degrees of freedom. Traversing is done

by turning the handles by hand, and the position of the

Laser beam crossing point is obtained by reading the scales

attached to the mount. This traverse gear is rather simple.

However, careful reading of the scales can give as much as

0.1mm resolution.

Data Acquisition Data acquisition and reduction is done by

a mini-computer (Digital Equipment MINC-ll) through an A/D

converter. Data sampling is possible at a rate as high as

20kHz. If the propeller rotates at 900rpm, for instance,

this gives a resolution of 0.27 degree in angle. The

$
 -19-

characteristics of the MIT Water Tunnel LDV and Data

acquisition systems are summarized in Table 2-1. The

experimental set-up is illustrated in Figure 2-1 and the

diagram of data acquisition system is illustrated in Figure

2-2.

Propellers The propellers tested are DTNSRDC 4381 and 4383

research propellers of 12 inch diameter, out of a series of

5 propellers with systematically changing skew and

rake[ll,12). Propeller 4381 is the parent propeller of the

series and has no blade skew. Propeller 4383 has 72 degree

blade skew and also skew induced rake. The principal

dimensions are given in Table 2-2. They were designed to

give the same performance characteristics (KT,Ko,n) at the

design condition of J=.889. Figures 2-3 through 2-7 show

the result of open water tests done in the MIT Water Tunnel

recently. The propeller efficiencies at design J are

similar to each other except for Prop.4381 which has lower

efficiency than the others. This is due to the fact that,

as the parent propeller, it has been used more than any

others in the series and has been wearing and getting

roughened leading edges.

Wall Effect For experiments in the water tunnel, there is

always a propblem to be kept in mind. That is the tunnel

wall effect or so-called blockage effect. The presence of

the walls give a restriction to the flow. The streamlines

on the wall have to be parallel to it, since no flow into

 -20-

the wall is possible. This distorts the flow from what it

would be in an unbounded fluid flow. The significance of

this effect varies depending on the kind and size of the

test model one uses, as well as the flow conditions. For

the propeller 4381 operating at the design condition, the

magnitude of the wall effect was checked using FPV-10. By

replacing the walls with the images of the propeller, it is

possible roughly to know the wall effect. At J=.889 and at

0.7R, for example, this effect is about a few per cent at

most. Hence it can be said that the wall effect is

negligible in this particular case. In the computation of

profile drag, the flow is assumed to be unbounded.

I
 -21-

3.Experiments and Results

3.1 Field Point Velocity and Vorticity

Coordinate Systems Four coordinate systems are used

i) Cartesian coordinates o-xyz

where the x-axis is along the propeller shaft center line,

pointing upstream. The y-axis is set horizontally toward

starboard and the z-axis is vertically downward. The y-z

plane corresponds to the center plane of propeller rotation.

ii) Cylindrical coordinate system o-xre

where r is radially outward, 6 goes clockwise when looked

from downstream, and the r-e plane is identical to y-z

plane. 8=0 corresponds to the y-axis.

There is a relation between the two systems, which is

y= rcose
(3-1)
z= rsine

The above two are space-fixed (or tunnel-fixed) frames of

reference. The following are blade attached coordinate

systems
iii) Cartesian coordinates o-xy'z'
iv) Cylindrical coordinates o-xre'

Each of the two moving systems is defined to be in the same

way as i) or ii) at time 0.

The relations between the coordinate systems are

0'= 0- qt
y' = rcose' = ycosat + zsinat (3-2)

z' = rsine' = zcosnt - ysinnt

 -22-

where a is angular velocity of the propeller rotation,

which is constant in this paper.

The unit vectors are also defined as shown in the

figure below.

-EVA9
A-,

Figure~6a~
Corintesyte 3-

Construction of Velocity Field The Laser system in the MIT

Water Tunnel is a one component Laser which reads one

component of the velocity at a time. Therefore, to get

three components, three identical running conditions have to

be repeated. The axial component is taken essentially at

any location as long as the beam crossing point is visible

iI from the photo-multiplier. But it is convenient if the

measurement point is on the z-axis where the radial

cononent can be also measured The radial component is

taken as the vertical component on z-axis, and the

tangential coment can be measured as the vertical

velocity component along the y-axis ne velocity field can

be constructed from the 3 velocity coonents thus obtained.

Teis
clr technique is only valid when the fl around the
 -23-

propeller is steady, in other words, constant propeller

rotation in a uniform flow or in an axisymmetrical flow.

The phase lag between the velocity components measured at

different places will be taken care of by shifting the phase

of the data in the computer.

The propellers were run at 900rpm most of the time,

which gives blade Reynolds No. of 0.5 xl' to 1.5 x101. A

few data were taken at 600 and 1200rpm also. One limitation
is that we can not get broad range of Reynolds No. in MIT

Water Tunnel if we are to run the propeller at one fixed J.

The Laser signal usually contains noise from various

sources as mentioned by Mini7]. Removal of noise from the

real signal is necessary. One possibility is averaging

(ensemble average). If the flow is laminar, this technique

gives good results. If the flow contains turbulence,

however, this will eliminate the tu-Dllencr component

together with the noise. Taking rms turbulence may be

satisfactory, but discrimination of noise from turbulence

remains a problem. Although it is said that turbulence

measurement is possible by LDV[13], the author is not quite

convinced of that, at least with the propeller flow. When

calculating drag from wake survey data, velocity comes in

quadratic form in the momentum flux. If there is 10%

turbulence in the flow, for example, this becomes a 1%

fluctuation in momentum. Fortunately, in most of the

conditions discussed in this paper, the turbulence level in

the propeller wake is considered to be relatively small.

Hence, turbulence is neglected and only mean velocities are

• "*
I'
.......
... . ....
. ......
"": ...
. . :" '',b -.. ihir . .. . .. ' a
" '
" I "j,.
 -24-

measured.

Figure 3-5 shows an example of ensemble average of the

velocity for 360 degrees.

Figures 3-6 a,b,c to 3-24 a,b,c show the field point

velocities taken at various radii on the x=-0.333R

(downstream) plane for Prop.4381 and on the x=-0.488R plane

for Prop.4383. Each of these positions (in x) is almost the

closest possible to each propeller in the downstream

direction.

3 caos~e.emts take"
i/ at doWinSitYM
p12--s O"1y"! tO tk#e

Upstmam II

! I

Figure 3-2 Restriction to the LDV measurement

In table 3-1 is shown the distance of each measurement

point from the trailing edge, along the helical line

constructed with uniform inflow and propeller rotation.

Data sampling frequency was either lOkHz or 20kHz and

ensemble average of 1000 or 2000 was taken for each

component. Only one blade passage is given here.

In these figures, sub number a is for x-component

(axial), b is for r-component (radial) and c is for

e-component (tangential). Note that the frame of reference

is fixed in space so that o-component does not include

 -25-

virtual velocity due to propeller rotation which will be

observed from propeller-fixed frame of reference. The angle

in the abscissa corresponds to -e', since the measurement

point moves in the negative o'-direction against the
propeller. Smaller angles correspond to the pressure side
of the blade.

Note : The propeller rpm for these figures is 900rpm except

for Figures 3-12, 3-22 (600rpm) and Figure 3-13 (1200rpm).

Vorticity Field Vorticity of the flow is given by

W =vx V (3-3)

Since the velocities are easily obtained, the computation of

vorticity can be done through the formula (3-3) numerically.

If we discretize Eq.(3-3), we have

r2rr 2Ae J

(
=. - - 1i _ "Ui, -Lj.-, I
%r (3-4)

Where i is the subscript for x, j is for r and k is for e.

To do this computation, four more measurement stations
were set around the field point of interest and velocities

were measured.

.1
- , - -- !----~
 -26-

a .ies as the propees'. tw-mis

Figure 3-3 Measurement stations for Vorticity

Figure 3-25 shows an example of thus computed vorticities at

the measurement point x=-0.333R, r=0.7R for Propeller 4381.
For the convenience of coordinate transformation which will
be discussed later in drag calculation, the frame of

reference is set to the propeller blade and the computation

of vorticity was done in xre' coordinates. Therefore, twice

the propeller rotation, 2n, is introduced into x-component.

To distinguish the vorticity in blade attached coordinates
from that in fixed frame of reference, the notations c, w'

and W9e' are used. If (Ajx , W, and we represent the

vorticity in space fixed coordinates, the relation between

the two vorticities is

U'X- 22 , o = .r, WVe'

3.2 Discussion on Velocity and Vorticity Field

Velocity Field The three components of the velocity

and vorticity tell us various things. First of all, if we
look at the radial component of velocity, we find that the
 -27-

velocity jump across the trailing vortex sheet is there.

(In the real flow, of course, the sheet is not really a

sheet of zero thickness, but has a finite thickness. The

velocity jump has a width for transition as a consequence.

However, the word 'sheet' will be used in this paper for

convenience.) Although this component is not all for the

flow due to trailing vortex, it is considered to be very

close to it, especially for the no skewed propeller

(Prop.4381). Vortex core type flow is well represented

there as we expect (Figure3-llb for example).

This velocity jump switches its sign (the shape becomes

the other way) as we go along r-direction. For Prop.4381,

ZY at r/R=0.6 and above are different from that at r/R=0.5

and below. The implication is that the slope of the bound

circulation changes its sign and consequently the sign of

trailing vortex sheet changes at a point between the two

corresponding radii. This occurs on Prop.4383 between

r/R=0.6 and 0.7 (Figures 3-20b and 3-21b).

As the measurement point moves radially outward toward

the tip, the influence of tip vortex becomes pronounced.
Since vorticity in the tip vortex is much stronger than the

trailing vortex sheet, the velocity jump becomes much

larger(Fig.3-15b and 3-24b). 7V, and V. also pick up the

influence of tip vortex. The large hump in ZJ, (Fig.3-15a

and 3-24a) is the flow due to the tip vortex. Since this

measurement point is still inside the slip stream (0.91R for

Prop.4381, 0.95R for Prop.4383 at these measurement

locations), it appears as strong negative x-flow (in other
 -28-

words, the same direction as freestream). At a point

outside the propeller wake, the tip vortex gives positive

x-flow as shown in Figure 3-16a. When this comes to U.O, it

is a little confusing, because it appears as a dent as shown

in Figs. 3-15c and 24c. The first (i.e. at smaller angle)

of the two dents in either figure is considered to be the

wake which is due to the boundary layer and the second is

the flow due to tip vortex. It is interesting to see that

this component (0-component) hardly picks up the influence

of tip vortex once outside the wake (Fig.3-16c).

The wake of the blade (which comes off the boundary

layer on the blade) appears as velocity defect (or dent)

typically in x- or e-component at most of the radii of

measurement. (Let us call this 'viscous wake'.) However, by

carefully examining the radial velocity component, we find

that it is also there. The little hump on top of the

velocity peak on pressure side of U. in Figure 3-11b for

example, is considered to be a projection of viscous wake.

Across the sign change of trailing vortex, it then appears

on the suction side as in Figure 3-9b. Since the flow field

is under the strong influence of slipstream contraction, we

can not say that the hump always has outward velocity.

However, it consistently shows a tendency to go outward

compared with the other part. This can be explained by

centrifugal force. Due to the no-slip condition, the fluid

in the boundary layer on the blade tends to move together

with the blade. When it leaves the blade to form the wake,
it tries to flow along the tangent line to that radius,
 -29-

giving radial component to the velocity. It is also

consistent with the idea of centrifugal force that the

radial speed of the little hump increases toward outer

radii. The magnitude of outward velocity may not change in

proportion to r. It is expected that at some radii on the

blade, there is a transition from laminar to turbulent flow.

Once it is turbulent, the flow should have less influence

from the blade[14J, changing the magnitude of outward flow

in the wake.
In Figures 3-26 and 3-27 are shown the projection of

the velocity defect, at each radius of measurement, to the

direction of the flow in the viscous wake (&-direction,

say). The coordinate system here is blade attached. Hence,

the velocity is larger at outer radii. Note that the

abscissa is blade passage (in non-dimensional

distance, r/Rde') and not in angle, consequently giving

different lengths to one blade passage between different
radii. The velocity defect is deeper at mid-radius range
(in the vicinity of r/R=0.6), where the flow is considered

to be reasonably 2-dimensional. Near the blade tip, or near

the propeller hub, the velocity defect becomes shallower.

This is particularly so for Prop.4383. One of the possible

reasons for this is that there is a nontrivial 3-dimensional

effect. At outer radii, relatively large centrifugal force

and roll-up of the tip vortex may be causing cross flow.

Near the propeller hub, where the distance between the

blades becomes smaller and where blades go into the hub,

strong interactions between them possibly exist, creating

 -30-

another 3-dimensional effect.

One interesting thing is that the two sheets - trailing

vortex and viscous wake - are not in the same location, as

might be noticed when looking at the little hump in Zr,. The
hump is clearly off the center of velocity jump. This is
not surprising at all since the origins of the two wakes are

different. The trailing vortex is created by the presence

of tip vortex while viscous wake comes from the boundary

layers on the blade. Figures 3-28 and 3-29 illustrate the
geometry of the two sheets and also in-plane velocity of

each point on the sheets for the two propellers observed on

the measurment planes (x=-0.333R for Prop.4381 and x-0.488R

for Prop.4383). These graphs were obtained by finding the

angular location of the viscous wake and the center of the

velocity jump using the graphs of 74 and V.. The graphs

clearly show the different locations and motions of the two

sheets. The sheets for Prop.4383 have larger curvature than

Prop.4381, implying the effect of large skew of the blade.

At outer radii, the trailing vortex sheet is fairly far away

from the viscous wake, toward suction side. At the inner

radii, the two sheets almost line up(.4R and below).

Correspondingly, the viscous wake does not show itself in
VT.

Field point velocities were also measured at x=-l.OR

and -2.OR at r=0.7R for Prop.4381. They are shown in
Figures 3-30 and 3-31. Two blade passages are shown in

these figures. At x--l.OR, the velocity defect and velocity

jump are still there although becoming shallower and smaller
 -31-

because of diffusion. But at x--2.OR they seem to have

disappeared. It would be interesting to examine what is

going on between these two points by taking finer spacing in

x and getting more data.

Comparison with FPV-10 output As a byproduct of PUF-2, a

field point velocity program (FPV-10[6]) was written and has

been in use to predict field point velocities around the

propeller. It is now possible by using the LDV to map the

velocity field and back up the program.

At some measurement points, velocity components were

compared with FPV-10 output. Since the program uses a

potential flow model, we should not expect the velocity
defect in the wake. First, comparisons were made in the
potential flow region i.e. outside the wake. They are

shown in Figures 3-32 and 3-33. There is some D.C. offset

between the two, especially in the x-components. The

amplitudes in the radial components are a little discrepant.

Tangential components are close to each other. Phases in

each velocity component are in good agreement. A

modification to this program is being made as PSFFPV by

Greeley[15]. An output of this program for the same field

point is shown in Figure 3-34. Although there is D.C.

offset, the amplitude of each component is closer to the

measured velocity.

Once the field point is in the wake, there is some

difference (Figs. 3-35 and 3-36). While the measured
velocity shows a velocity defect in the wake of the blade,
 -32-

the computed velocity does not. Since both velocities

(measured and computed) must satisfy the continuity

equation, discrepancy between the two is larger to
compensate the velocity defect in the wake.

Figure 3-37 for the computed velocity (Prop.4383

x=-.47R, r=0.924R) shows the influence of tip vortex fairly

well as compared with Figure 3-38, the measured. The peak

in VL (influence by tip vortex) in the computed velocity

field is sharper than that measured. The difference is

presumably due to the presence of the boundary layer in the

real flow. It is considered that the boundary layer smears

the tip vortex to some extent.

Vorticity Field The author tried to separate the vorticity

in the wake of the propeller into two, corresponding to the
two different types of wake, namely trailing vortex wake and

viscous wake. This idea is also used by Tan[16] in the

analysis of the wake of gas turbine rotor. The vorticity

distributions obtained by Eq.(3-4), one example being shown

in Figure 3-25 were transformed to a new coordinate system

o'-Cc, where C-axis is parallel to the flow at the center

of trailing vortex wake. The second axis n was made to lie

on the trailing vortex sheet. Consequently, the third axis

C points normal to the trailing vortex sheet. The

transformed vorticities are shown in Figures 3-39 through

3-56.
Since C-axis is set parallel to the trailing vortex,

W should represent trailing vorticity. This seems to be

~flw-a..
-

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 V

-33-

almost successful at most radii. However, as discussed in

the previous section, there is a component of viscous wake

projected to r-direction and thus to the direction of the

trailing vorticity. Therefore it is not completely possible

to separate trailing vorticity from the others only by

coordinate transformation. This projection appears as a

small bump at the foot of large hump of trailing vorticity

as shown in Figure 3-44 for instance. Except for that, W9

is a fairly good even function of e.

n-component shows typical vorticity distribution in the

viscous wake. Since the wake comes from the boundary layers

on both sides of the blade, this vortex component has two

vortices with opposite signs. Hence the vorticity is an odd

function of e. The third component ( W) shows very little

vorticity as is expected through the coordinate

transformation. Due to the curvature of the wake sheets and

also due to the fact that the two wake (trailing vortex and
viscous) sheets are a little apart, this couponent does not

become completely zero, or flat except at a few radii.

'Tva~ilIilortex shieet

Figure 3-4 Coordinate Transformation

• . - .- t
 -34-

The vorticity plot becomes more noisy at inner radii

toward the propeller hub. This is presumed ma'nly due to

the finer spacing of data sampling. Since the sampling

frequency was kept constant, in other words angle interval

was constant, it gave smaller spacing between the data

points at smaller radii. The smaller the interval between

the points is, the larger the error in discretized vorticity

becomes. But 64 comes out as a nice even function of e

there.
At r=0.875R for both propellers, the vorticities show
fairly complicated aspect, especially in n and

components. This is considered to be due to the strong

influence of the tip vortex. In certain region on the blade

near the tip, a part of the boundary layer is pulled

laterally (radially) toward the tip vortex and enters the
swirling flow just outside the tip vortex core. And it

makes 'roll cake' type structure together with the vortex

core. This phenomenon was observed more distinctly in the

wake of a hydrofoil. (See Section 4.3)

Aerofoil theory tells us that the strength of the

trailing vorticity is proportional to the slope of bound

circulation on the blade. The area under W4 has a

dimension of circulation/length and corresponds to the slope

of circulation. At each radius, the integration was done

and thus obtained slopes are plotted in Figure 3-57 for the

both propellers. From the analogy to an airplane wing, one

might expect for these curves to decrease monotonically from

inner radii to outer radii. However, in the case of these

 -35-

propellers, there is a decrease of the value toward the hub.

This trend is considered to be due to the presence of the

hub.
In the same figure are also plotted the slopes (dr/dr)
obtained by PUF-2 program. They are shown by a solid line

and a dashed line. Agreement between the two (measured and

computed) is good at mid-radius range. But near the
propeller hub, PUF-2 overpredicts the slope. This is
partially because PUF-2 neglects the hub. If the hub gives

some 2-dimensional effect as does the water tunnel wall on a

2-D hydrofoil, the slope should tend to approach zero. The

measured data implies that. Near the tip on the other hand,

PUF-2 is underpredicting the slope.

Error in Vorticity The vorticity field was obtained by

numerically differentiating the velocity. Differentiation
usually enlarges the error (or noise) which is contained in
the original signal. Aside the discretization error, the
followings are the possible sources of error

Error in positioning

Error in velocity reading.

Let us discuss how these come into the error of the

vorticity. Take the radial component as an example.

Discretized vorticity is written as

2e- 2

AV
 -36-

Now suppose that each element contains an error, like

&'X° ( I * Ee
Ae== 4,01-
A9Ck E .-x))

where superscript 0 represents true value and E with

subscript is the error. Expand the velocity components in

terms of errors. We have

0 + 0 +

+ ,
,-
= V11,., ,A-I
0 a& A "

where the second term on the right of each equation is the

reading error and the third is the positioning error. Other

quantities can be expressed in the same way. The vorticity

then becomes

i o.
0 - a __

o+

0. ra 0A + 0
0

4 A_

ZAXZ6 'i 4x A
 -37-

If we make rms error, we have

ir 0 7. 0 2. * Z 0
.weo
=Ze Y- ae \+) -c/p OX

What we need at this point is an estimate of error in

each element. The error E, is due to the positioning.

That is about 10% with the current traverse system. E'e is

mainly due to the error in the computer clock which is

negligibly small. The error in velocity reading can be

small also.

A rough estimation showed an error on the order of- 10%

which mainly comes from the positioning. The current

positioning system is rather crude as mentioned in Chapter

2. A modification to the traverse and positioning system is

being planned. It is expected that the error is reduced by

this.

Fluctuation of the vorticity itself (so-called vortex

wandering[17]) may also cause an error. This might be a

matter of reproducibility rather than error, however.

A I
 -38-

4.Profile Drag of Propeller 3lade Section

The velocity and vorticity data obtained from the

experiments and shown in Chapter 3 will be used in the

computation of propeller blade profile drag (viscous

sectional drag). To do so, a formula for the drag

coefficient has to be developed.

A handy formula for the profile drag of an aerofoil was

first derived by Betz[8]. To get the force on a body in a

flow, momentum theorem has to be used. To do so, one has to

measure velocity and pressure all over the control surface

which surrounds the body. Noticing the fact that the flow

outside the aerofoil wake is practically inviscid

irrotational, Betz introduced a hypothetical flow which is

inviscid and irrotational and which has the same pressure as

the real flow all over the control surface and the same
velocity on the control surface except in the wake. Thus he

eliminated the need of measuring the flow except in the

wake. His formula is expressed in terms of pressures. This

was adequate because what one measured then was pressure

(total and static).

With the rapid development of Laser Doppler Anemometry,

direct velocity measurement is now possible. Unlike the

pressure probe such as Pitot tube, LDV does not disturb the

flow. High frequency response of LDV is also suitable for

measurements of rapidly changing flow such as propeller

flow.
 -39-

The author's intention here is to derive a formula

which gives profile drag of propeller blade, and which is

written in terms of velocities, thus suitable for LDV

appl icat ion.

In this chapter, a formula to give viscous drag on a

solid body in a uniform flow is derived by extending and
generalizing Betz's method. Then it is applied to

hydrofoils and propellers.

4.1 Derivation of the Formula

Momentum Theorem The force and moment which act on a solid

body in a flow are obtained by considering a momentum

balance. Suppose there is a solid body moving in an

incompressible fluid flow. Place a control volume V1

(material volume) around the body at a particular time, t

say.

co tro
S4-ce.

Figure 4-1 Formulation of the problem

A %
 -40-

Newton's second law of motion gives

'"" (4-1)

~r S~
.71'~A~kL (4-2)

where
p density of the fluid

velocity vector
': surface of control volume V'

ss: surface of the body

static pressure

72 : normal unit vector on S and So

pointing outward the control volume

: acceleration of gravity

r : position vector
F : the force which the body receives from the flow
t the moment ....

The fluid receives a reaction from the body as -IF and

Here, shearing stresses on the control surface S' due

to viscosity of the fluid were neglected because they are

considered to be small even in the wake of the body at most

of the conditions in which we are interested in.

Since the flow measurement is done at points fixed in

space, it is advantageous to use space fixed control volume.

If use is made of transport theorem[18 on Equations (4-1)

and (4-2), the material volume is replaced by space fixed

volume. And if we rearrange them to get expressions for
 -41-

force and moment, we have

F8= SS(P v +PWI) Cd'S -t iv f VV.5ci'

and

where V and S are fixed in space.

For a solid body, surface integrals over SB in both

equations are zero since there is no net momentum transfer

across SB. Thus, we obtain

Fs= (4-..3)

These two equations are the ones which basically give

the force and moment from measured velocity and pressure.

However, these formulas are not so practical. The reason is

obvious. Velocity and pressure have to be evaluated all
over the control surface. And if the flow is unsteady, the

acceleration term has to be evaluated everywhere in the

volume. At this point, it is necessary to introduce

hypothetical flow.

Introduction of Hypothetical flow The presence of the solid

body introduces two different types of flows. Downstream

the body, there is a strip of flow in which the influence of

the body and of the viscosity of the fluid are not

* iT
 -42-

negligible. This is called wake. Vorticity which is

generated in the boundary layer on the body is convected

downstream and forms the wake. Therefore, the wake is

highly rotational. If one dimension of the body

perpendicular to the flow is small, like a hydrofoil, the

wake is usually confined to a narrow region. Outside the

wake, the flow remains almost the same as is in the incoming

flow. For example, if the inflow is uniform, then the

outside flow is inviscid and irrotational. There,

Bernoulli's theorem holds.

Betz extended inviscid irrotational flow into the wake

of the aerofoil as hypothetical flow in order to use

Bernoulli's theorem. However, in a 3-D flow such as that

around a loaded airplane wing or propeller, Bernoulli's

theorem may not hold because the flow in the wake is

rotational due to trailing vortex. Therefore, the author

does not claim that the hypothetical flow is irrotational.

Even so, it is still advantageous to introduce inviscid

hypothetical flow.

Let velocity V*L and static pressure > be those in

the hypothetical flow. This hypothetical flow is to be

created by placing distribution of singularities such as

sources and vortices in the incoming flow. As previously

mentioned, the idea is to eliminate the need of measuring

velocity and pressure all over the control surface.

Therefore, it is necessary that the hypothetical flow has

the same velocity and pressure distribution on S as the real

flow at least in the inviscid flow region.
 -43-

The requirements for the hypothetical flow are:

The hypothetical flow is inviscid flow.

On the control surface S, pressure IP is everywhere

identical to pressure P of the real flow and velocity

e is identical to ) everywhere except in the wake.

The two flows become different in the wake because one

is viscous flow and the other is inviscid. This means that

there is extra flux in the hypothetical flow.

slow 'S'

Figure 4-2 Hypothetical flow

The force and moment on the singularities due to the

flow are obtained by again applying momentum balance

argument,
I~kSS Jv=-SS€r, ~ -- ! , -- ,-

Pldv -V
_ ' V (4-5)

d i 46
ld*cst..
 -44-

where F and W are the force and moment on the source and
vortex distribution. V " represents the control volume for

the hypothetical flow, which is a. little different from V'

in that V' does not have the solid body in it but the
singularities instead. The outer surface of V ' is taken to

be identical to S' here.

It is necessary to bring Equations (4-5) and (4-6) into

the same form as Equations (4-3) and (4-4). Since the
velocity has singularities, care has to be taken in

manipulating the integrals which involve velocity.

The hypothetical flow consists of 3 different types of

flows; free stream U.*, flow from the sources W and flow

due to vortices

$ (4-7)

For the vortex part of the flow, vortex core type

representation is desired rather than vortex line. As will

be mentioned later, the hypothetical flow is asked to

simulate lifting problem of the body. This means that the

vorticity pattern in the hypothetical flow which is related

to the lifting problem has to be the same as that in the

real flow. One possible place where this vorticity pattern

is seen is the wake on the control surface S, where the

trailing vortex passes through toward downstream. As Figure

3-11b shows, it is typically vortex core type flow, which

makes sense since there is no vortex line (i.e. zero

diameter) in the real flow. althen becomes continuous and

 -4.5-

is not singular. The only singularity comes from )s. Hence

special care is needed when integrating ). The integral

is of Cauchy type and is determined by first excluding an

infinitesimal volume(usually sphere) which contains the

source, and taking the limit of zero radius, like

Here, VE represents infinitesimal volume (sphere)

surrounding the source at (Io, 1, Es).

Using this, the left side of (4-5) becomes

'fifl~V = pcS (v*41V* 4 V

=p.2 j(w),+Wz.4)dV +± V V

e7
V.V
= 4.PJ(Wi+)U.AAc

where is the velocity potential for the source

distribution. The velocity potential does not exist for

*L Here, the transport theorem and Gauss' theorem were

used in the manipulation.

The third term on the right reduces to

|S
A
V:
 -46-

This relation is derived if we use space-fixed surface S in

(4-5) and compare the result with that obtained by using

material surface.
Th en, Ae~o v PS (U VV-)d -VVd

Finally, Equation (4-5) reduces to

cOiW - O*ndSj d~(s dgs4Fs (4-9)

The moment (Equation (4-6)) can be handled in a similar

way.
Fd)&r
~%(v Y Wrr4U.,-Vs*4-- L4 )dV
?Y %~S
vW 7.'

But

and

- ~ v~r5d *SS25A'cX
ZO'
46rr1)dbs 'JS dd

can be shown by vector calculus. And if we use the relation

PO AWS 'Xd

which is obtained again by comparing the formulas for

angular momentan with 2 different types of control surfaces,

 -47-

one moving with the fluid, the other fixed in space. Then,

we get

Pth$(r
+ we havde + fow

~~~ 3 d -Sc1d

We end up with

S|
O= -d ?X (4-10)

Decomposition of Force and Moment The forces and moments

are decomposed as follows.

For the real flow, we have

Fe8 L Fo,,+ Tr,, (4-li)

ILI = M, M.. M. (4-12)

where 1JFS
is the- lifting force produced by inflow + induced

velocity, V-, is the drag force and F..is the buoyancy

force. These notions also apply to moment. Note that

'lift' here means the force which circulation distribution

around the body produces against inflow and induced

velocity. Consequently, this includes so-called induced

drag. This convention is the same in the hypothetical flow.

The force w Lch the source distribution receives is not

 -48-

called 'lift' in this paper even though the force may happen

to be parallel to the lift.

It is clear that

-SP~%Av(4-13)

C=fPII (4-14)

For the hypothetical flow we can write

= I-+ Fo(4-15)

iii 1% (4-16)

where is the lifting force and IF1 is the drag. There is

no buoyancy force in the hypothetical flow.

Since we arc interested in the drag, it would be most

convenient if F and f = Kr were true. One

necessary condition for this is that the vorticity

distribution in the hypothetical flow is equal to that which

contributes to lift in the real flow. This will be discused

later with each specific case.

Subtracting Equations (4-9) and (4-10) from (4-3) and

(4-4) respectively and taking into account the relations

(4-11) - (4-16), we have

-(4-17)
SIt

- - -d
 -49-

and

IhfL +1t1BO iMCr0

-I drv-

+ (4-18)
where Sw represents the part of the control surface S which

is in the wake of the body.

The Force and Moment computed in Hypothetical Flow The net

flux from the sources is not zero because velocity v is

different from V in the wake. The real flow satisfies the

continuity equation. The net flux produces a non-zero force

on the sources (Lagally force). If we write the flux Q in

terms of source strength, q( , ), we have

If the sources are moving and also changing their

intensity in time, q becomes a function of time. But in

this paper, let us just assume no time variation of

intensity and no relative motion between the sources (or

source elements), which are suitable assumptions for the

hypothetical flow simulating that around a solid body in a

uniform stream. The integral (4-19) then becomes time

independent.
 -50-

The flux is also expressed by the velocity on S as

Q - U,- V2nds (4-20)

Lagally's theorem for the force on singularities gives

- Y))'Ah~
,dV f r))fA..
0ytS& (4-21)

and

=~( rx-)
x wx 0) ~cIVs (4-22)

where DU.. is incoming flow and V4 is velocity induced by

other singularities (vortices) and by sources if any at

outside S. O is the position vector of the source. The

second term on the right of each equation is due to the

motion of the sources. The forces which act between the

sources inside S cancel out and do not remain in the total

force.

Substituting Equations (4-21) and (4-22) into (4-17)

and (4-18), we get

FIL+~~~
Iva FW.)d$I)' g- (.
JFLS +~L aqs- - -+ (-3

and
SL t , ((r71*(V1 m

-% Irs%(6j. U,) ot'i (4-24)

V5
 -51-

Construction of Hypothetical Flow Different from Betz's

method where measured pressure automatically gives the

hypothetical flow, it is necessary to construct the

hypothetical velocity in the present method.

As mentioned in the previous section, most convenient

is that the hypothetical flow gives the same lift as the

real flow. This requires that the trailing vorticity be

identical in both flows. Hence there is a possibility that

we are able to get the hypothetical flow by measuring the

trailing vorticity and using Biot-Savart's law. However, it

may be tedious and time consuming to do so.

The author has come up with an idea to use

Navier-Stokes equation provided that the real flow is

satisfying it. The equation is written in a form with

vorticity expressed explicitly,

SXt UP* (4-25)

where G is potential of gravity. Here, the viscosity term

)j") was neglected, because it is presumed to be small.

This is consistent with the assumption stated in

Equations (4-1) and (4-2). This approximation makes the

equation appear to be identical to Euler's Equation.

However, note that the vorticity has difference as will be

mentioned later.

The hypothetical flow is supposed to be inviscid and to

satisfy Euler's equation,

i 1
 -52-

afi. 2~ (4-26)

,,low, the real flow in the wake is considered to have

two types of vorticity. One is boundary layer type

vorticity, which originates in the boundary layers on the

body surface. The other is trailing vorticity which can be

modeled by inviscid flow.

Write

up = ear+ £l (4-27)

where W,, = vorticity which constructs trailing vortex

system, hence contributes to circulation
and hence to the lift,
eaLb = vorticity other than ",

originating in the boundary layers

on the blade.

The vorticity in the hypothetical flow is just trailing

vorticity. There are no vorticity which originates in tIe

boundary layers.
W4? -- u.r (4-28)

Subtracting Equation (4-25) from Equation (4-26), we obtain

5F at - z -- l') = (Ul--v), r- E*D (4-29)

This is now a differential equation to give ej the boundary

condition being v= V on the edges of the wake.

It is not advantageous to solve this in an ordinary way

for three unknowns of the velocity components. By making an

assumption, things can be greatly simplified.
 -53-

That is:
The difference of the two velocities is parallel to

the trailing vortex,

or V 1 -va // rD •

This assumption is essentially the same as Betz made in his

hypothetical flow, and is necessary to maintain the same

lift.

Equation (4-29) then reduces to

=a aI *(LI
-t 1I 2 ) - V9x ed (4-30)

4.2 Application to 2-D Hydrofoil

Formula To check the validity of the method described

above, experiments were conducted first with 2-D hydrofoils

so that the results could be compared with other data.

UM

Figure 4-3 2-D Hydrofoil *

For a steady 2-D hydrofoil or aerofoil, in a uniform

 -54-

flow of unbounded fluid, Equation (4-23) reduces to

IF9L + Fso - IFL ( )

where Z)& is the induced velocity due to vorticity

distribution (foil) in the hypothetical flow. Since the

vorticity distribution in the hypothetical flow is intended

to be identical to that which contributes to lift in the

real flow, 1rF contains the same force as 1F6L. Besides, it

has the lift due to the induced velocity from the extra

source distribution. But this lift exactly cancels out with

the last term on right side as internal force, even if there

are extra sources, provided that those extra sources are

inside the control surface S. Therefore, we have

$W '75

For unit length of span (or for 2-D foil), the surface
integrals reduce to line integrals. Also, making use of the

relation (4-19) and (4-20), we have

IF.0 = 9 (VZ - V*UL )d) -

9 ~i1 WU~
CS
AIV W

The drag acts parallel to x-axis. Taking x-component,

we have

FBD~ -?Su~v~UuV )S -

*) Note that the coordinate system is defined differently

from the propeller case.

 -55-

If we take x=const. line as a part of the control

surface(line) downstream the foil, we have

U

Hence,
--

4 Feo ---r - pu

-4 -(4-31)

The drag coefficient Cd is given by

CdO

Construction of Hypothetical Flow Equation (4-30) becomes

"I z - ,o,&. 2 2

In 2-D steady flow, there should be no trailing or shed

vorticity in the wake. All that is there is the boundary

layer type vorticity in the viscous wake. Therefore, there

is no need to discriminate one type from the other.

Taking y-component, we have

Integrating with y,

where is one of the edges of the wake. The integration

 -56-

should be only in the wake of the foil, since the vorticity

is zero outside it.

Transform the coordinates from x,y to Cn in which

C-axis is parallel to the streamline at the center of the

wake. Since there is no relative motion between the two

systems, the absolute velocity does not change through the

transformation, giving

The equation then becomes

The equat ion still has two unknowns Vi and 2J. To solve

this, we need one assumption. The assumption stated before

should be appl.ed.
In this particular case, it comes as

This is explained from the following reasoning.

The trajectory of the wake near the trailing edge is bent

due to the presence of lift (bound circulation). To keep

the same lift, the geometry of it has to be the same.

This means that the difference in the velocity between the

two types of flow is permitted only in in other

words, V= - U, has to be maintained.

The equation simplifies to

(4-3)
=W1
 -57-

Since the right side is known (given from the experiment),

U is determined. Through the inverse transformation,

and 74 are now given.

To reduce possible numerical errors, a further step

should be taken.

Since

the integral on the right becomes

zucodg 2 ,(a aU

Iw
and

q~~ v ZV,
~~~d1j -u+z
z

Experimental Results Wake surveys were conducted in the MIT

Water Tunnel using two hydrofoils :

A) NACA 0012 Basic Thickness form

and

B) NACA 66-309 a=0.8 with modified L.E. *)

Both foils have the dimensions of 9"(chord) x 20"(span) and

completely span the water tunnel. The experimental

conditions are shown in Table 4-1 below.

* The wake survey for Foil B was done by Moastl]9.

 -58-

Table 4-1 Experimental Conditions

Angle of attack Reynolds No.

Foil A 0 1 XI0
Foil B 4.5 deg. 9 x 10
and 2 x 106

The wake surveys were done by traversing the laser

along midchord plane at sevral x-const. lines. Figures 4-4

through 4-6 show measured and hypothetical velocities

(x-component) and vorticity distribution computed from the

velocity data. Figure 4-7 show the values of the profile

drag obtained at various measurement points in x direction.

Ideally, Cd value should be independent of the measurement

point, unless large dissipation takes place. In fact, the

results shown here give fairly constant Cd along x.

For the NACA 0012 foil, Cd at zero degree of angle of

attack is somewhere between 0.006 and 0.01 from reference

[201. The values measured by the LDV are considered to be

fairly reasonable.
For the NACA 66-309 foil, the author has not found the

curves for Cd. However, extrapolating from the chart for

NACA 66-209, the angle of attack 4.5 degree gives Cg=0.6.

Then the corresponding Cd is somewhere between 0.008 and

0.011, to which are comparable the values obtained by the

LDV.
The above examples have well demonstrated the validity

of the present method.

 -59-

4.3 3-D Hydrofoil

Wake survey was also done with a 3-D (i.e. finite

span) hydrofoil. SNAME Keel Model No.3 was attached to the

side window of the water tunnel and the velocity

distribution behind the foil was measured. The

characteristics of the foil and the conditions of the

experiment are listed in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2 Dimensions of the Model

and Experimental Conditions

Identification SNAME Keel Model No.3

Span (or Height) 7.320"

Chord length 8.000"

Sweep angle 40deg

Section NACA 63-010

Angle of attack 4deg

Reynolds No. (chord) 1 x l0

The measurement points were taken at z=-5.0, -1.0 and

-0.5 inches at x=-0.4", the origin of the coordinates being

at the trailing edge of the tip. Along the line parallel to

y-axis the velocity was measured. (See Figure 4-8 for the

difinition of the coordinate system.) Also the velocity was

measured across the tip vortex core center, traversing the

LDV parallel to y-axis and also parallel to z-axis.

 -60-

-'.el side w,;naow ,

I,

I Orjfj oi O-'x%1 at 'TipTE.

Saxs peYpC..4ij'a1 "o t:Oe
pafer, CoAiI

Figure 4-8 3-D Hydrofoil and the Coordinate System

Figures 4-9 to 4-12 show thus obtained velocity

distributions. At z=-0.5" (Fig.4-9), the velocity defect is

shallower than others. This is because this measurement

point is further than other points from T.E. due to the

sweep of the foil.

It is interesting to see that the velocity distribution

across the tip vortex core shows double dents (Fifure 4-12).

This also appears in figure 4-13 which corresponds to the

traverse parallel to z-axis. These two figures are

revealing that a part of the boundary layer on the blade is

'sucked in' the tip vortex and swirl around the vortex core,

which was also observed in the propeller flow. If we follow

the swirling path of the velocity defect, on these figures

(4-12 and 4-13), we see that the defect becomes shallower

and wider as it turns.

The profile drag was computed at each point using the

measured velocity defect.* The spanwise distribution of the

drag (coefficient) is shown in Figure 4-14. At the mid-span

... .. ..I lllli... ... ...

 -61-

range, Cd is constant. Near the tip, it decreases once and

then in the tip vortex, it becomes larger. The drag

coefficient obtained at the tip vortex may not be so

accurate, because the drag is calculated as sectional drag

(in other words, 2-dimensionally) there. To obtain more

accurate value, the momentum defect has to be taken for the

whole tip vortex area. However, there should be no doubt

about the fact that tip vortex region contains considerable

amount of momentum loss - drag. Even at zero lift (i.e.
without tip vortex), it was shown that the sectional drag

decreases toward the tip and then increases. This 'tip

effect' could give substantial amount of difference to the

drag value from 2-D case [211.

4.4 Application to Propeller

Formula To manipulate Equations (4-23) and (4-24) we need

to be more specific about the control volume and the

singularity distribution.

As a control volume, choose a circular cylinder of

radius Rc whose axis (center line) lies on x-axis. Name the
three surfaces which surround the control volume as S, ,S

and S3 as shown in Figure 4-15. The radius Rc is to be

taken large enough so that the propeller is inside this

*) The formula for the profile drag of a 2-D hydrofoil can

be also applied to a finite span foil if we assume

i) Induced velocity is perpendicular to the inflow

ii) Streamline in the wake is parallel to x-y plane.
 -62-

control volume.

Figure 4-i5 Control volume

For the case of constant speed rotation of the

propeller in a uniform stream, more modifications are
possible on some of the terms in Equations (4-23) and
(4-24).

If we write WMV xr et) ;t (E.~r

then

- = .' r.. _, 4 ea
azt ae
From blade fixed frame of reference, the flow looks steady.

This gives = o-..

Hence
AV_ " '- (4-35)

The second term on right side of Equation (4-23) becomes

?%-au O -R ff rYd e'd~o-dX

Xr oye
1'

But
,.,2M
 -63-

due to periodicity if no blade is in the way of integration

path. Or, if the blades are in the way, it becomes
M = ,
C
+C -V *.e,,-*

- - Ve -t 0-0 -4- 0

= 0

where e designates the angular location of the surface of

one of the blades, Aet is the thickness of the blade in
angle in 8' direction at radius r and K is the number of
blades. This result is obtained from the no-slip condition

on the blade surface and from periodicity. Hence the

integral is zero in any case.
The first case applies to fg5fjdv- and this

integral becomes zero. is zero because the inflow

is uniform.)

"Ao~ uv]-, Y-rdx o

x r

Similarly,
9SSSK A2 F
iQ M 2 (rcx''
V, I

= - ]e'=~rdr = o

and

Now, let us discuss the fourth term, p5s dS on the

 -64-

right of Equation (4-23). The integrand takes different

forms depending on the surface along which the integration

is to be done, since the normal unit vector becomes

different.
On Si , the normal unit vector is
a

on S. , it is
n =-z
and on S3 , it becomes

'f1 = e = cose' '+ Sino'l/'

To see if the integral vanishes (which is the most

convenient for us), we need a more specific expression for

The velocity potential for the source distribution

which corresponds to K-bladed propeller is given by

=,.,~'d-,X (4-36)

where (xs, rs, es') is the location of the source element and

q(x3,r,e5' ) is the intensity. The integral is over the

volume of the source for one blade. Note that this is the

potential in the fixed frame of reference, xre, although

expressed in terms of xre'.

Then,

-"'., -4
,-'X,)' r+ r' - 2rr,cos(W-e,- A
/2)

If we expand the denominator, we have

 -65-

' ' v.• -mrs' --ol (e'-6 I- 27COL

[ c'-'x) /

where CL s 2 was used for convenience.

And, if we use the following formula,

{i'(l CosCY20)c +-:eveVI

0 Q_

, Cos cn--a) f oad

we obtain

-r' s Cos ce'-e, ,,.- )

Then,
K V,

t 'is shown that

x<S;,o~;
VI-e- e)" deojr X
is t s h i w
o t h a t2
7C'
.S
 -66-

and K

0 otv-wise

(See Appendix A.)

Hence, we obtain

a~ . r E (e(x eii;s2J
d 60 rS IX.
:SUC6 that VI-2 9 <

Together with the normal unit vector, the integral becomes

On S, and S 2

Change the order of integration and execute the integral

with 0' first. We have

S sin jc '-')de'- 0
Therefore,

OnS. ,

(cose''
(cs sie'
i ' ) rde'c r

7F[Csin~r(eL-;](o eej' sin elh )die'dsdddr

By orthogonality of trigonometric functions, we get

- o
Sin k(e'-e,; ,cos e'E8'
%)
21t~ '.o'sve'e
!i0
 -67-

Hence, we have

Si
The term which corresponds to this in the >oment

equation, S5 .(jr$#)d , is handled similarly.

Since

r x u- = -fe' = f(-s;e'j Co5o'/k') on S1 or Sz,

and 01/ = "05 (9(-svie'I*co$e"r')

on S 3 ,

the integral is similar to f5( d, • The same argument

as was used to handle that can be used.

Then it is obvious that

~0

Equations (4-23) and (4-24) reduce to

FSL1 ~DFL =(V uiJ:'. 55(-v,-* Vi dci'c1X

,Vw

In examining the components of lifting force in the

hypothetical flow, the same argument as that used in 2-D

hydrofoil can be used. In this case however, there is

trailing vortex extending to downstream. This has to be

taken into account.

The lift is decomposed as

Fr- +, F.
IO
 -68-

where & is the extra lift due to extra sources. This term
is cancelled by the force on the extra sources due to bound

vortices inside S. The force equation reduces to

where tij now represents induced velocity due to trailing

vortex.

For the case of moment, the extra sources give rise to

extra moment. The moment in the hypothetical flow is
decomposed as

tI=ir, 5 + AU

This time, the last term does not cancel with the moment on
the extra sources, but produce coupling moments. If we

segregate those moments as AMs, the moment equation becomes

where 2J is the same as the force equation.

Since the wake is divided into K-identical wakes from

the blades, we can redefine Sw as the wake on S for one
blade only. Then, each surface integral will change to the

sum of K integrals.

Define Sw : a part of control surface S which lies in the

wake of one blade

Vs : volume of source distribution for one blade.

We can choose the radius Rc of the cylinder (control

volume) large enough so that Sw lies on Sz. If this is the
 -69-

case, we have =Z- and - -69 .

Henc e,

And we obtain

- (4-37)
%S

kilo ~ v.-v~, -eKVA JJrdVS

- pKI( IS x mV)d's + " k4~ (4-38)

The axial component of the force and moment will be

used later in the drag calculation. They are given by

?kSS(Xzh2"A- dS S>- -. "-u)c,

SW

aM (4-40)

Construction of Hypothetical Flow for Propeller The

measurement point of velocities is fixed in space while the

propeller turns. If looked from the propeller attached

frame of reference, the measurement point draws a circle.

The direction of rotdtion of the measurement point along

this circle is opposite to the direction of propeller

 -70-

rotation. The following discussion applies to the arc drawn

by the measurement point.

If we take 9-component of Equation (4-30), we have

The time derivative is now replaced by that w.r.t. 0, if

we make use of (4-35).

- - ae' ' a -we a

And also partial differentiation w.r.t. e is replaced by

that w.r.t. 0', giving

r j& Z x .,,.+r f

Ve = VI+ used. The

Here, the relation was also

equation reduces to

2 Ur2
+- + ' j -rL~ Ie 1
J ,} (V 8 Y4r

Integrating with respect to 6' and multiplying by 2, we

obtain

U1 +2- r . = V,).i
+ , -2 ,(t-z ,Wcv0(44)

This equation still seems to have three unknowns. But if we

use the assumption stated previously, which is

it-v ///a., , we only need to solve for one component in

the transformed coordinates.

Let us define a coordinate system ol-C, , t-axis being

 -71-

parallel to trailing vorticity C(Dp. n and axes are

rather arbitrary as long as the three axes make an

orthogonal system. This coordinate system should be

considered locally, or at each point of interest, since the

orientation of the trailing vorticity may vary with radius.

The transformation is done by first shifting the origin o'

from o to the point of interest and then rotating the axes

so that &-axis be parallel to the trailing vorticity. There

is no relative motion between o-xre' and o'-Enc systems,

which gives

W+= ); +V, + V (4-42)

Hence Equation (4-41) becomes

!
it2 2 t7 2

But from the assumption, we have

Then we obtain

7 U and 5' -~7

Finally, we have

V = .5- z uJ-
0' Ucog, y-de' (4-43)

Once 19 is obtained, then through inverse transformation,

Z, r and U., can be obtained.

Induced "'elocity The presence of trailing vorticity gives

rise tc induced velocity which changes the inflow to the

 -72-

blade.

To fully evaluate the forces in Equations (4-39) and

(4-40), the induced velocity anq Lource distribution q have

to be obtained. Since the induced velocity is caused by the

presence of trailing vortices, the strength of them has to

be first obtained. This information is then fed into the

Biot-Savart law to calculate the velocity on the blade.

FPV-10 by Kerwin[6] and PSFFPV by Greeley[15] are ones

which do such computations. These programs were designed

for the computation of field point velocity due to a

propeller. They are also capable of separating each element

of velocity, like velocity due to trailing vortex only.

The source distribution is more difficult to get. To

know it exactly, one has to solve a boundary value problem,

which is fairly involved. Since it is not the main theme of

this paper to solve for source distribution, a reasonable

approximation is to be used to simplify the computation.

One such approximation could be to use the mean values of

the induced velocities, assuming that the variation of them

across the source distribution is relatively small. The

third term of Eq.(4-39) and the second term of Eq.(4-40), on

right sides, are then approximated by

-PKVSSOIVS and -

Profile Drag Coefficient The most convenient way for the

drag coefficient to be specified would be to have it given

at each radius. This requires strip theory assumption, in

 -73-

other words, flow on the blade is 2-dimensional along the

radius. While it is said that the flow on the blade is

fairly complicated in 3-dimensional way[14], it is still

considered to be convenient to define Cd at each radius. Of

course we could deLine Cd for the whole blade. However,

this will not give much detail on the distribution of drag

along the radius.

Let the drag be DRi(r), which is, according to

propeller convention, parallel to the resultant inflow.

Then profile drag coefficient Cd is given by

DR Cr)
Cd(r) = , (4-44)
- PC (Va-t-V'SZ)
where c is the chord length at each radius.

Assuming the drag to be a function of r correspondingly

requires that force and moment be given as functions of r.

Suppose

r- Sec secteoa(-

Me M"" ('Y cy-" (4-46)

then

F,,=P VK V, CI-V
)S - KVA CV,#-ZP.,)O(s

ZPitKV,
(i
w (
(4-e7)
 -74-

Mie= PKYj(V.v,- v.*l4,)ds t

Sw
K Y U1r)
SW
5U-Z)dS (4-48)

The surface integral in Sw was replaced by line integral.

The approximation stated on the induced velocity is used

here, and the extra moment 4M3% is neglected. It has to be

kept in mind that the radius of measurement does not

necessarily correspond to the radius in question on the

blade. Proper correction has to be made for the actual

trajectory of the viscous wake.

DRi(r) is given by

- -i . 4 (
Cr)(Sry3O~t cos s3 Siil'
1

where =

and
: hydrodynamic pitch angle without induced velocity

with induced velocity

included
 -75-

VA

Figure 4-16 Expanded View of Velocity Diagram

But,

CO'S.
+

= VA__ _ _ _ _

where ~ A~,advance coefficient.

Write Z/Tj Ythen

cos Sin__ __

Q C +i(

Hencei,
 -76-
"I"¢sY S;,A Y

( i.')'- ( T'Srvi) '/

and hence

Cdor) =

pc 2 Q.(i ., r

Substituting Equations (4-47) and (4-48), we have

' + "-
( i'o[:b, .,,t(V
U-2 "v +);Y
'a"))(UeU
(I- lJ $] (7'(-9
where tZ is given by

Results The velocity and vorticity distribution obtained

 -77-

from the experiment and shown in Chapter 3 were used to

compute profile drag. First, it was tried to compute the

hypothetical velocity using Eq.(4-43). Finding the edges of

the wake from vorticity distribution, integration was done

with boundary conditions Vj = V4 at the both edges of the

wake. One successful (which means that the integral started

one edge and arrived at the other edge) example is shown in

Figure 4-17.
This hypothetical flow seems wiggly. From the

comparison with 2-D hypothetical flow, it is suspected that

this is due to the noise in the vorticity which was used in

the computation. As the vorticity is given by

differentiation, it becomes very sensitive to the error in

the data. Often at other radii, the computation of the

hypothetical flow failed presumably due to the accumulation

of error from vorticity.

To improve the situation, it is desired to further

modify the integral in Eq. (4-43), or to improve the accuracy

of the vorticity measurement.

A first approximation of the boundary layer theory

tells us that static pressure is constant across the

boundary layer or wake. For a moderately loaded propeller,

this assumption is considered to be valid. If this is the

case, the hypothetical velocity is also obtained as constant

across the wake.

To see this,- a few points along a streamline of vi-ous

wake were picked up as control points in the drag

calculation. At far downstream, the above assumption is

 -78-
NW-
considered to be more realistic. If the values of the drag

obtained at points closer to the blade do not differ so much

from the, one obtained at the furthest point, then the

validity of this assumption is implied.

Figure 4-18 shows an example of straight line

hypothetical flow. In figure 4-19 are plotted the values of

the profile drag thus obtained at three different positions

along the viscous wake streamline for Prop.4381. The

agreement of Cd value between the points is quite good,

proving the validity of the assumption.

Figure 4-20 illustrates the coefficient of profile drag

computed from the measured velocity, under above mentioned

.ssumption, at various radii for the two propellers.

Toward the end of the series of experiments, the author

had an opportunity to test Prop.4381 with smoother surface

condition than before. This was due to re-surfacing.

Hence, the conditions of the blade surfaces are

Prop.4381 Relatively smooth, marked by x
" " With rough L.E., marked by

Prop.4383 Relatively smooth, marked by '.

The two different surface conditions of the Prop.4381 give

considerable difference to Cd.

The propeller rpm for these points is 900rpm. At 0.7R,

however, the results at 600rpm and 1200rpm are also added.

The radius vs. Cd curves show fairly complicated

behavior. At mid-radius (about 0.6R), the Cd values are not

so much different from what they would be in 2-D flow. But

toward the outer or inner radii, they become lower. And

 -79-

this '2-D like' region is narrower at Prop.4383 than

Prop.4381, which may imply the skew effect. And at further

outer or inner radii, the values go up again. This is

particularly so at Prop.4381, but not so distinct at

Prop.4383.

This trend of Cd reduction toward the tip is consistent

with what we observed in 3-D hydrofoil. Since the aspect

ratio of a marine propeller is much smaller than airplane

wing, the region of influence by the tip may be larger.

Toward the propeller hub, a similar effect could occur,

since the hub corresponds to the tip on the other side of a

wing. Besides, the flow in this region may be more

complicated due to the presence of the hub and interactions

between the blades.

The low Cd at outer radii (>O.7R) for Prop.4383 may be

partially due to possibly nontrivial turbulence level of the

flow. If so, the present method will give an error to Cd,

since that is neglecting the turbulence components which

appear as Reynolds stress type terms in the Cd calculation.

From the analogy to a swept back wing, it is likely that the

transition from laminar to turbulent flow is taking place

there in the thickened boundary layer due to spanwise

(radial) flow[22].

Since the flow is quite 3-dimensional at the both ends

of the blade, it may not be adequate to define sectional

drag there. For a more accurate estimation of the drag, it

is desired first to take the whole drag which is counted in

the tip (or hub) vortex and redistribute that over the (part
 -80-

of the) radius.

The drag coefficient is based on undisturbed inflow to

the blade. But near the hub, it could be possible that the
inflow is already retarded due to the presence of the

propeller shaft boundary layer. If this is the case, the

actual inflow velocity should be used. This will increase

the Cd values near the hub.

e
5. Conclusions

The following conclusions were obtained.

1) LDV has proven itself to be a handy and yet powerful tool

in the analysis of the flow around a propeller.

2) The wake from a loaded propeller blade is categorized

into two, trailing vortex wake and viscous wake. Trailing

vortex wake is created by the tip vortex, whereas the

viscous wake comes from the blade boundary layers. Since

the origins are different, they have to be considered as

separate. Trailing vortex wake appears on the suction side

of viscous wake. This is particularly so at outer radii.

They almost line up at inner radii.

3) Relating to 2), the vorticity in the wake is also

separated into two, trailing vorticity and boundary layer

type vorticity. By finding the orientation of the trailing

vorticity from the velocity components, new coordinate

system o'-Cnc was constructed in which -axis is parallel

to the trailing vorticity at the locus. This method works

fairly well to separate the two vorticities. C-component of

the vorticity ("y) appears to be an even function of e'

which we expect it to be, and the second component (u)
shows a typical vorticity distribution in the boundary
layers. It was also found that, at some radii, the complete

separation of the vorticities is not possible only by the

 -82-

coordinate transformation. This is due to the

'contamination' of the viscous wake vorticity into the

trailing vorticity.

4) The Propeller Field Point Velocity Propgram (FPV-10)

predicts velocities fairly well within the limit of

potential flow. Also, it can be expected that the modified

version of it (PSFFPV) improves the ability of FPV-10.

5) A formula for the profile drag (viscous sectional drag)

was derived in terms of the velocities (real and

hypothetical). And a method to obtain the hypothetical

velocity was suggested. It was shown that the formula

worked perfectly with 2-D hydrofoils. For propeller case,

however, due to the accuracy problem in vorticity

measurement, the hypothetical velocity sometimes has a

problem. It is desired either or both to improve the

measurement accuracy of the vorticity and to further modify

the formula for the hypothetical velocity so that it can use

the velocity itself rather than the vorticity. It was also

shown that a simple assumption for the hypothetical velocity

(Z4= straight across the wake) could be used for the

computation of the profile drag.

6) Radial distribution of the profile drag obtained from the

velocity data showed fairly complicated behavior. At

mid-radius range, the value is cl-iser to what it would be in

2-D flow. But toward outer r inner radii, Cd becomes

 -83-

substantially low. It was implied that considerable amount

of momentum defect in the blade boundary layer is pulled

into the tip vortex, thus making the drag appear lower in

its vicinity. The same trend is reported in aerofoil flow

even at zero lift.

7) The concept of profile (or sectional) drag may lose its

validity near the blade tip (or the propeller hub) since the

flow there is fairly 3-dimensional due to the swirling of

the tip vortex (or hub vortex). It is therefore desirable

to establish a way to estimate the total momentum and

pressure loss (drag) which is involved in the tip vortex

(hub vortex) and redistribute that over the (part of the)

radius (or span) to get correct profile drag distribution.

8) In this paper, the turbulence of the flow (in the wake)

was assumed to be small and was neglected. However, for

more detailed study of the flow around a propeller, and for

more accurate estimation of the profile drag especially for

a skewed propeller, it would be desirable to know the

turbulence level. To that end, the author feels it

necessary first to establish a method to segregate the noise

in the Laser signal from the turbulence component of the

flow. A flow visualization technique using oil film on the

propeller blade would supplement the LDV measurement to get

the turbulence level[23).
 -84-

REFERENCES

1. Lap, J. W. and Van Manen, J. D., Fundamentals of

Ship Resistance and Propulsion pp.119 - 121 NSMB

2. Kerwin, J. E. and Lee, C-S "Prediction of Steady and

Unsteady Marine Propeller Performance by Numerical

Lifting-Surface Theory" SNAME Annual Meeting, New York,

1978

3. Lee, C-S "Documentation of the Program for Propeller

Unsteady Force Calculation" Department of Ocean

Engineering, MIT December, 1977

4. Lee, C-S "User's Manual of MIT-PUF-3 Program for the

Prediction of Cavity Extent and Volume Variation on

Marine Propellers" September, 1979 MIT

5. Kerwin, J. E., PBD-10 in preparation at MIT

6. Kerwin, J. E., "Propeller Field Point Velocity Program

FPV-10 User's Manual" Department of Ocean Engineering,

MIT December, 1979

7. Min, Keh-Sik "Numerical and Experimental Methods for

the Prediction of Field Point Velocities Around
Propeller Blades" Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Ocean
Engineering, MIT, 1978

S- -
 -85-

8. Betz, A. "A Method For The Direct Determination Of

Wing-Section Drag" (Translation) National Advisory
Committee For Aeronautics, Technical Memorandom No.337,

1925

or, Schlichting, H. Boundary-Layer Theo

7th Edition pp.759 - 761 McGraw-Hill, New York 1979

9. Sayre, H. C., "Laser Doppler Anemometry and The

Measurement of Loading Characteristics of Lifting

Sections" Presented at The SNAME New England Section
Meeting, December, 1980.

10. Orloff, K. L., "Spanwise Lift Distribution on a Wing

from Flowfield Velocity Surveys" Journal of Aircraft,

Vol.17, No.12, December, 1980

11. Boswell, R. J. "Design, Cavitation Performance, and

Open-Water Performance of A Series of Research Skewed

Propellers", DTNSRDC Report 3339 March, 1971

12. Nelka, J. J. "Experimental Evaluation of A Series of

Skewed Propellers with Forward Rake Open Water

Performance, Cavitation Performance, Field-Point
Pressures, And Unsteady Propeller Loading", DTNSRDC

Report 4113 July, 1974

 -86-

13. Goldstein, R. J. and Hagen, W. F. "Turbulent Flow

Measurements Utilizing The Doppler Shift of Scattered

Laser Radiation", Phys. Fluids 10, 1349 1967

14. Meyne, K. "Investigation of Propeller Boundary-Layer

Flow and Friction Effect on Propeller Characteristics"

Jahrbuch der Schiffbautechnischen Gesellshaft Band 66

pp.317 - 399

15. PSFFPV by Greeley, D. S. under progress at MIT

16. Tan, C. S. "Vorticity Modelling of Blade Wakes Behind

Isolated Annular Blade-Rows: Induced Disturbances in
Swirling Flows" Presented at Gas Turbine Conference &
Products Show, New Orleans, March, 1980

17. Baker, G. R., Barker, S. J., Bofah, K. K. and Saffman,

P. G., "Laser anemometer measurements of trailing
vortices in water" Journal of Fluid Mechanics,

Vol.65, part 2, pp.325 - 336, 1974

18. Newman, J. N. Marine Hydrodynamics pp.57 - 59 MIT

Press 1978

19. Unpublished paper by Moas, E. "Drag Coefficient

Determination for a NACA-66 Hydrofoil in 2-D Flow"
MIT UROP Project, 1980

&
w ... L , . l~ . .. .. ,, . . . .. . .. . - .. . .. . . % • .. .
 -87-

20. Abbott, I. H. and Von Doenhoff, A. E., Theor of Wing

Sections Dover, New York

21. Hoerner, S. F. Fluid-Dynamic Drag pp.6-4, 6-20

Published by The Author, 1965

22. Hazen, D. C. "The Rebirth of Subsonic Aerodynamics"

Astronautics & Aeronautics pp.24 - 39 November, 1967

23. Unpublished paper by Baker, E. S. and Kobayashi, S.

about the flow visualization on the propeller blade

using oil film, MIT Department of Ocean Engineering,

1981
 -88-

APPENDIX A

1 O oth1evwi J "

[Proof]
CO5(&lI-29)Cc0- *)Sn(0~-

Then,

l< K

Write A-2A 4 = and write _ Z.

OWL
Then,

( e" + .. + e-.'- e_ . -,@ ).

-: ' -
-= e - *e''") - a

-eu= -e
Since e i (n~integer), the right hand side is zero.

!11
Hence,

,, = =.
-O if -

- t, -
linteger, j say.

, _r i - , ' , - ,- '' . - --
 -89-

If -- j, then

Ze F.i - K

The same is true with the second term,

It is only when K=2 that n-2 +1=jK and n-2q -I=j'K hold

simultaneously. Otherwise, we have

Cos I V ,,,, - 1f(1.. )

t-f

I%.--

K
iiYnC-~- =0
[Proof]
This corresponds to the case when n-2 =0 in the above

* ( i ). Since jKl 0, this is the second case. Hence, the

sum is zero.

*Q.E.D.

S - 4
 -90-

4.)
-0
- U)>

0 "0 00

-1~
1 00 D %0DH
to)4 AI e4 O ~ 0
CDO' .10
W LnLn
4 -4 0 0 n0 *0 -$
I0 M DCD)4 -1 0 0

'-4.4ZW MWOMv 0 tw0 uow):

0 ord
0u) 0 0 0 0

4.)

U)

0
"-4
41)

4.) 4.)

H H)
go U) >,= z 04 0
0 4 E0 W -I "
C4 g.) >4J 544.4

4-4 E-4 -1
04 I- 43 -4

ED 0 0

00

0 04
4.) 04
0 to
C) u 14 ) $)04
o 14 -r4 (D 1qV
4 0 r 4
.-4 0 4J. P j.- 0 ) 14C00
> - 4 - r 4w *14 4104 w140
r4 0 43 04 (A04 -4 S:$4 04)

o1 r- 0. 4J 0 r4 C r -4 4)$4 0 0
94 r. "-4 -A 4.,4 40 40 000 4.I 0 0-4 4J
0540 4J.4 0 W 0W4 $140r. u >0 '
m41 410~0. C:z0Ila ON4 a'~.
E4 -CO 0) - g -4 -4- 0. a 0C)0-4M
4)14 U) > to t 6$ 404
1 rv0 4
*'4
4J 1 0 -0 00*.:4-4 .. 4g
U) 4 ) kw4 14 u0"41/z
A 40 g C- 1r
0a a $-' 0 E- 2 Ow40( 4 r

1V 11 64 F4 0 1
 -91-
Table 2-2 Geometry of The Propellers

Number of Blades 5
Expanded Area Ratio 0.725
Section Meanline NACA a=0.8
Section Thickness Distribution NACA 66 with NSRDC modi-
fied nose and tail
Design J 0.889
Design K 0.213

r/R tan c/D t/C

0.2 1.8256 0.174 0.2494

0.3 1.3094 0.229 0.1562
0.4 1.0075 0.275 0.1068
0.5 0.8034 0.312 0.0768
0.6 0.6483 0.337 0.0566
0.7 0.5300 0.347 0.0421
0.8 0.4390 0.334 0.0314
0.9 0.3681 0.280 0.0239

Propeller 4381(Skew=0 deg)

r/R (deg) P/D f /c

0.3 0.0 1.3448 0.0368
0.4 0.0 1.3580 0.0348
0.5 0.0 1.3361 0.0307
0.6 0.0 1.2797 0.0245
0.7 0.0 1.2099 0.0191
0.8 0.0 1.1366 0.0148
0.9 0.0 1.0660 0.0123

Propeller 4382(Skew=36 deg)

r/R (deg) P/D f /c

0.3 4.655 1.4332 0.0370

0.4 9.363 1.4117 0.0344
0.5 13.948 1.3613 0.0305
0.6 18.378 1.2854 0.0247
0.7 22.747 1.1999 0.0199
0.8 27.145 1.111i 0.0161
0.9 31.575 1.027J 0.0134
 -92-
Table 2-2 (Continued)

Propeller 4497(Warps36 deg)

r/R (deg) P/D f /c

0.3 4.655 1.4332 0.0370
0.4 9.363 1.4117 0.0344
0.5 13.948 1.3613 0.0305
0.6 18.378 1.2854 0.0247
0.7 22.747 1.1999 0.0199
0.8 27.145 1.1117 0.0161
0.9 31.575 1.0270 0.0134

Propeller 4383(Skew=72 deg)

r/P (deg) P/D f /c

0.3 9.293 1.5124 0.0407

0.4 18.816 1.4588 0.0385
0.5 27.991 1.3860 0.0342
0.6 36.770 1.2958 0.0281
0.7 45.453 1.1976 0.0230
0.8 54.245 1.0959 0.0189
0.9 63.102 0.9955 0.0159

Propeller 4498(Warp=72 deg)

r/R (deg) P/D f /c

0.3 9.293 1.5124 0.0407
0.4 18.816 1.4588 0.0385
0.5 27.991 1.3860 0.0342
0.6 36.770 1.2958 0.0281
0.7 45.453 1.1976 0.0230
0.8 54.245 1.0959 0.0189
0.9 63.102 0.9955 0.0159
AD-AXOg A46 MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH CAMBRIDGE DEPT OF OCEAN E--ETC F/G 13/1 0
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS FOR THE PREDICTION DF THE EFFECT OF AISCOS--ETCI
JUN Al S KDAAYASHI N0001A 76-C 0357
UNCLASSIFIED OE-81-7 N
HBUI
I '"_____
.4l 111
111111.25 111112 .6

'ICi
 -93-
Table 3-1 Distance from T.E. along Helical Line
to Each Measurem~ent Point
r/R Distance/Chord
Prop.4381 Prop.4383
(X=-.0.333R)- (X=-0.488R)

0.30 0.462 0.860

0.40 0.412 0.688

0.50 0.428 0.567
0.60 0.502 0.483
0.70 0.639 0.427
0.80 0.880 0.407
0.875

0.90 1.396 0.483

 -94

WATER TUNNEL TEST SECTION

RECEIVING OPTICS

TRANSMITTING OPTICS

FIGURE 2-1 EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP FOR VELOCITY MEASUREMFNT

-LASER

TRIGGER PC-)rWATER TUNNEL TEST SECTION

LIE N IEASUREENT POINT

IHT-ML ILI l

SINA MII IIA

 -95-

1.0S-

II

S. °.S

5.55 5.5 1.O9 t.Se

Advance Coefflcient J

Figure 2-3 Result of Open Water Test

Prop. DTNSRDC4381 Run at 9Orpm MIT MHL SeptS.1980

I.OI

II

I I I[ II!-I I I

Advance CoffIelnt J
FIgure 2-4 Result of Open Water Test
Prop. DTNSRDC4382 Run at 900rpm MIT MHL Sept., 1980

- I. 6161- " - .-
 -96-

A 9g

Advance Coefficent J

Figure 2-S Result of Open Water Test

Prop. DTNSRDC4497 Run at 9O0rpm MIT MHL Sept5A1980

.w

*dwm Coffcen6
Fiue28 Rsl o pnWtrTo

Prp TSD48 u t9armMTMLSpS18

MEN-_:..
 -97-

Advane
FCue Oen27 aterTes
Reultof
Coffic
Pire 2-7RC49 Runt f Op MaTTeLS pS1

4 .19

.672.0 144.0 216.8 26.0 0.

Angle Ccleq.)
Figure 3-S Field Point Velocity Measured by LDV
Prop.4 3 8 1 at Design J x--.33R, rin.7R Average of SOO
 -98-
I.696-

1.490-

1.306-

9.S 14.4 28.6 43.2 67.6 72.6

Angle (dog.)
Figure 3-6o Field Point Velocity (Axial component)
Prop.438I at x=0.333R, r=0.250R at Design J

6. 2M6

6. 0 .91. 664. 787.

Angle Cdoe.)
Figure 3-6b Field Point Velocity (Radial component)
Prop.4381 at x-B1.333R, r-e.2SeR at design J.
 -99-

-0.t446 432 S.67.

Angto (dog.)

Figure 3-6c Field Point Velocity (Tangential component)

Prop.4381 at xw-0.333R. r=0.2SeR at Design J

1. 4ft

Angle Cde..
Figure 3-7o Field Point Velocity (Axial component)
Prop.4381 at xn-0.333R, r=0.3OR at. Design J
 -100-

9.'.

* . a"m

6.6 14.4 26.6 43.2 57.6 72.0

Angle (dog.)
Figure 3-7b Field Point Velocity (Radial component)
Pi-op.4381 at x=-0.333R, r=0.30eR at Design J

-0. 4ft

AnI. Cdee.) 7.
Figure 3-7c Field Point Velocity (Tangential component)
Prop.43811 at xi-B0.333R, r-e.3SeR at Design J
 1.400-

8.~ see],.r

Figure 3-8a Field Point Velocity (Axial component)

Prop.4381 at xm-.333R, r=0.4OR at Design J

-0. 4W-

9.0 14.4 23.0 43.2 57.6 72.0

Figure 3-8b Field Point Velocity (Radial component)

Prop.4381 at x--0.333R, r-0.40OR at Design J
 -102-

9.0 14.4 26.6 43.2 S7.6 72.0

AnieI (deg.)
Figure 3 -8c Field Point Velocity (Tangential component)
Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r=0.40OR at Design J

Angle Cdee.)
Figure 3-9o Field Point Velocity (Axial component)
Prop.438t at xi-e0.333R, re0.5eeR at Design J

- . * . - -Alf
 -103-

-9.4M.

.914.4 298 43.2 S7.6 72.0

Angle Cde.)

Figure 3-9b Field Point Velocity (Radial component)

Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r=0.5eOR at Design J

4ft
-0.8

9.9 4.4
0.9 3.2 7.872.9
Angle Cdeg.)
Figure 3-9c Fiel d Point Velocity (Tangential component)
Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r-0.5OR at design J
 -104-

I _t. Me i t

Angle Cdeq.)
Figure 3-10o Field Point Velocity (Axial componentd)
Prop.4381 of. x=-0.333R, r=0.600R at Design J

S .2W

S.

I go- I I I I I I I

S.S 14.4 26.6 43.2 57.6 72.0

Angle Ccleo.)
Figure 3-10b Field Point Velocity (Radial component)
Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r-0.6eGR at design J
 -105-

NC.-ease

6 0 I*S I f I I f I I I
9.6 f4.4 26.8 43.2 S7.6 72.0
Angle Cdeg.)
Figure 3-10c Field Point Velocity (Tangential component)
Prop.438t at x=-0.333R, r-=e.60GR at design J

II

0 14.4 26.6 43.2 57.6 72.9

Angle Cdeg.)
Figure 3-fto Field Point Velocity (Axial component)
Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r-0.700R at Design J
 -106-

I1 1 1 I I I I I I I I
0.0 14.4 .26.8 43.2 S7.6 72.9
AngleC(og.)
Figure 3-1|b Field Point Velocity (Rodiol component)
Prop. 4 381 at x=-0.333R, r=0.70OR at Design J

0.

-0. 4M6

6.6 14.4 ".8 43. Z7.6 72.0

AngIe Cdee.)
Figure 3-11 Field Point Velocity CTangential component)
Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r-0.700R at Design J

-. ~r
 II."

9 .900 - F I-T
1 1 1 1 1-1 I~ - r T-

An~gle (dog.)
Figure 3-12a Field Point Velocity (Axial component)
Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r=0.700R at Design J

9.200

At DOI.Po

6.9 14.4 211.41 43.2 17.6 72.6

Amaio (Joe.>
Figure 3-12b Field Point Velocity (Radial component)
Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r-ue.70R at Design J
 -108-

-At SOOrpi.

-0. 4W6

-0.1.29. 4. S . 7.

-1.466

.S 14.4 266 43.2 7.6 72.6

Figure 3 -13a Field Point Velocity (anenta componenL)

Prop.4381 at x-e.333R, r-107eeW at Desig
- Jr
 -109-

-At 120rpo

.0 14.4 20.6 43.2 17.6 72.6

Angle Cdeg.)
Figure 3-13b Field Point Velocity (Radial component)
Prop.4381 at x-S.333R, r-0.70OR at Design J

M 1Z8pm
At

0. 44 604329.87.

Ang.266g.

Figue 31cFedPitVlcty(agnilcmoet
-6o.438 txW.3R -07O tDsg
 1.400-

I.Me6

ef.. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
e.g 14.4 29.6 43.2 S7.6 72.e
Angle Cdeg.)
Figure 3-14a Field Point Velocity CAxioI component)
Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r=0.8OR at Design J

-0.12t

-0. 4

I U
I 111111IO ill.. I

Figure 3-14b Field Point Velocity (Radial component)

Prop.4381 at x--0.333R, rin0.SOOR at Design J
 Angle (ding.)
Figure 3-14c Field Point Velocity (Tangential component)
Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r=0.80OR at design J

9.4

Angle Ceing.)
Figure 3-ISa Field Point Velocity (Axial component)
8
*Prop.43 1 at x=-0.333R, r-0.87SR at Design J
 Angqla C4%9.)
Figure 3-ISb Field Point Velocity (Radial component)
Prop.4381 at x=-e.333R, r=0.875R at Design J

Aneie Cde@..)
Figure 3-lSc Field Point Velocity (Tangential component)
Prop.4381 at x-60.333R, rin6.87SR at Design J
 -113-
1.2S-

I.Me.

G.Me

72.

Angle Cdeq.)
Ftqt.re ~-taField Point Velocity (Axial component)
Pr~rj 4381 at x=-e.333R, r=0.9SOR at Design J

-0. 2W5-

. .. 442. 4. 787.

.mg. Anl
Fiue31bFedPitVlct eilcmoet
-telse3R
Prp.38 -. 9O a esg
 9. 442. 4. 767. An114- es.

.014.4 26.6 43.2 S7.6 72.0

Angef Us.)
Figure 3 -17a Field Point Velocity (Axianl component)
Prop.4383 at xw-0.333R, r-0.0R at Design J
 6.266--115-

0. 1.4266 3.57.6 72.6

Angle (de..
Figure 3-17b Field Point Velocity CRadiol component)
Prop.4383 at x=-0.488R, r=0.30OR at Design J

-0. 4ft-

-a-

-G.ows
6.6 14.4 26.6 43.2 57.6 72.0
Angle C469.)

Figure 3-17c Field Point Velocity (Tangential component)

Prop.4383 at x=-e.488R, r-0.30OR at Design J
 -116-

.444084.2S
0. .67.

Angle (clog.)
Figure 3 -18o Field Point Velocity (Axial component)
Prop.4383 at x=-0.488R, r-0.40OR at Design J

S. 235

.814.4 26.6 43.2 S7.6 72 .9

Figure 3-18b Field Point Velocity (Radial component)

Prop.4383 at xi-0.488R, r-0.400R at Design J
 -117-

Q.90 14.4 26.6 43.2 57.0 72.6

Angle (dog.)
Figure 3-18c Field Point Velocity (Tangential component)
Prop.4383 at x=-0.488R, r=0.400R at Design J

1. 3ft-

1. 0 1. 664. 767.

A.66
Sm..- . ,-..

-118-

0. to

O. Ow-

.f.

-0.29-

-040

-e iI I I n I "1 o
I I I I I oI I I
9.0 14.4 26.6 43.2 57.6 72.0
Angle Cd"O.)

Figure 3-19b Field Point Velocity (Radial component)

Prop.4383 at x=-0.488R, r=O.SeeR at Design J

I.e..-

-6.296.

- .. 14426643 6 .- 7 .

-e , e I I Ii i I I i I ,IiI'I I I I
6.i 14.4 26.6 43.? 57.6 72.6
Angle Cdeo.)
Figure 3-19c Field Point Velocity (Tangential component)
Prop.4383 at x=-0.488R, r-0.SOOR at. design J
i -119-

1.480-

e .g.. I i I i I I I I I i I I I I I I I '[ i I I i

0.S 14.4 28.6 43.2 S7.6 72.0

Angle (dog.)
Figure 3-20a Field Point Velocity (Axial component)
Prop. 4 3 8 3 at x=-O.488R, r=g.60OR at Design J

II

- .280-

e.g 14.4 28.6 42.2 S7.6 2.0

Angle Cdg.)
Figure 3-20b Field Point Velocity (Radial component) i
Prop.4383 at x=-0.488R, r-O.600R at Design J
 -120-

-0.288-

-0.600 I I I I I
0.0 14.4 286 43.2 S7.6 72.0
Angi. (dog.)

Figu.re 3-20c Field Point Velocity (Tangential component)

Prop.4383 at x=-0.488R, r=0.60eR at D~esign J

SS14.4 26.6 43.2 57.6 MO.

Anl* Cck.)
Figure 3-21o Field Point Velocity (Axial component)
Prop.4383 at xin-0.488R, rine.7eeR at Design ~J
 -12 1-

0
9.2 1. 684. 767.

Figure 3-21b Field Point Velocity (Radial component)

Prop.4383 at x=-0.488R, r=0.70R at Design ~J

S-0. 4W-

-BSe46

3.3 14.4 26.6 43.2 S7.6 72.8

Angle (dog.)
Figure 3-21c Field Point Velocity (Tangential component)
Prop. 4 38 3 at x--0.488R, r=0.70OR at Design J
 -122-

-At @WOW

1.

0914.4 286 43.2 57.6 72.9

Anglo Wa~g.)
Figure 3-22o Field Point Velocity CAxiol component)
Prop.4383 ot x=-0.488R, r-0.70OR at Design J

0. 2"9
* At OWPi

0.9"-

8. 4.4 26.6 43.2 57.8 72.0

Anoi. U6.1.
Figure 3-22b Field Point Velocity (Radial component)
Prop.4383 at. xw-0.488R, rine.70R at Design J
 -12 3-

At 60grpm

9.9 14.4 26.6 43.2 S7.6 72.8

Angle (dog.)
Figure 3 -2 2 c Field Point Velocity (Tangential component)
Prop.4383 at x=-0.488R, r=0.70R at Design J

1. 3W-

1.400t

1.100-

1.S00-

F ~I . I 14.4 '2 8 I 143.21 I 67. 72.0

* . Angle (dog.)
Figure 3-23o Field Point Velocity (Axial component)
Peop.4383 at x=-0.488R, r-G.8OOR at Design J
 -124-

-' 144.26 3. 7.

-0. 4We

Angle (deq.)
Figure 3-23a Ftlld Point Velocity (Tandntl component)
Prop.4383 at x--0.488R, r-e.8013R at Design J
 -125-
I.568-

1.490-

28.6 4?.2 57.5 72.0 66.4

Angle Cdeg.)
Figure 3-24a Field Point Velocity (Axial component)
Prop.4383 at x=-0.488R, r-0.87SR at Design J

2S. 432 S76 7.988

.908. Anl

Fiue3-4 ildPitVeoiy(Rda omoet

Lrp48 tx-.8Rr06S tDsg
 -126-

Ntie shifted X-.-a4I

28 43.2 S7.6 72.0 86.4

Angle (dog.)
Figure 3 -2 4c
Field Point Velocity (Torngerdiol component)
Prop.4383 ot x=-0.488R, r=0.875R at Design J

29.0-

15.9-

6.6 14.4 28.6 43.2 57.6 72.6

AMgt* Cdeq.)
Figure 3-25 Vorticity Distribution
Prop.4381 at x--0.333R, r-0.700R at Design J
 -127-

",--' Vg. /VA

0 -

b.0
,- V
0 -<

w- 3

<UN

40

.U '3.
.3
b"O
'.i

-.--

vo
 -128-

r/R
0e

- I
N0
0 c

C_

.7-

(D -4

o? .

o -
x to
I ~ _ _

I , a xpI

~Ic

0
)r
 -12 9-

0.0 14.4 26.8 43.2 67.6 72.0 66.4 1008 116.2 129.6 144.0
Angle (dg.)
Figure 3-310a Field Point Velocity (Axial component)
Prop.4381 at x=-1.GGOR, r=0.70OR at Design J

1 1 I'
1 if11 I 1I 1 11 1 '11it 1
1' 1 1111 11 1
0.0 14.4 26.6 43.2 17.6 72.0 68.4 100.8 115.2 129.8 144.0
Angle Cdog.)
FIgCurea 3-30b Field Point Velocity (Radial component)
Prop.4 381 at xi-lI.OOOR, r-0.7e0R at Design J
 -130-

6.8 14.4 28.8 43. Z 57.6 72.0686.4 100.8 115.2 129.6 144.0
Angle Cdeq.)

Figure 3 -30 c Field Point Velocity (Tangential component)

Prop.4381 at x=-1.O0OR, r=0.70OR at Design J

I..5M

9. 44 2..4. ?4 20 6. 106 162 2. 4.

Ange Ceq.

Fiur 3-1 iedPin2eoct6Axa omoet

Prp48 tx2020,r07N EDsg

.........
 -131-

-9. 2f0

-0.34W-

-8.400- I II

0.8 14.4 26.8 43.2 S7.6 72.9 86.4 198.8 115.2 129.6 144.9
Angle (dog.)
Figure 3-31b Field Point Velocity CTodio~l component)
Prop.438t at x=-2.OOOR, r-07OR at Design J
 -132-

PRWELLCI MELD POSWE VM V~.T POMM g(PP-18 Oft 3*em DATE 12411/ 74 RUN DATC 21111/4 1 1I9 e.4 1 1111

BSS

CAM.-
CL PI4ACE !Cn --

meb;4. eS.

semi .G

-7 6.0 m
seemel~g I

CL PI4AGE

lot" 44.C
inie *4.

of 1. OZE 114 e. so 2WSG 7

Tl~~~~e01.
E ei
PrL 23 i~ of .J5. eMQL

Figure 3-32 FPV-10 Output at~ x=-0.333R.. r1 .OR Pr-op.4381

-9.2M

0.0 0.0 12.0 10.0 24.0 30.0 38.9 42.0 48.0 S4.0 69.9 86.0 72.0
Angle Cdsg.)
Figure 3-33 Field Point Velocity (Mesured)
Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, rml.000R at Design J
 -133-
0.299

9.199-

GS m

9.9 6.9 12.0 ic.e 21.9 30.0 36.0 42.e 46.0 54.9 69.9 66.9 72.9
Anigle (dog.)

Figure 3-34 PSFFPV Output at x=-.333R. r=1.OOR

Prop.438l at Design J

pPE'fLM ".D P0731?V.MlZV P*OftAM CFP-103 AELEASE SAVE 1I0M'i 76 mm5 DAV 3.Ai 6l U

S7NI 6.0 e

11194 43.7

lABL-

lis 0.0

at". 90e l.

a Ilt to 312400. IN 9 6 i s ON
syMiin PNWCLI.o 491 2m EEw WSI J.111

Figure 3-35 FPV.-10 Output at x-e0.333R, r-0.7B0R Prop.4381

 -134-

G.We

I I I I I
-.C. 291. 463. 68 264. 488. 687.
Fiur
3-6FedPitVeoiy(esrd
-0Angle Cdg.

3 8
Pr0. 1a -. 30,rG.OR a Dsg

PULURPZD PD-9~.0-zyP66w(3-O E3O1 UU 3 mw3~ ~'Im3e 6

9-9--
9.6

-. 8.0 129 1. 03. 684.9 4. 406 . 60 7.

Z2Angl (d-og.)

17 6.0

logos 47.9 .
%gels 3.7

WL Po11C6
.1141 6.6
6644 71.,
6131
3.6 .4.9
1144 0.4e 0.

'3314 3.

gIin (mu -8 73 633) tow so 13 0111. so..o

Figure 3-37 FPV-10 Output at xu'8.470R. rine.924R Prop.4383

 -13 5-

9.4 t

4v

>

0.9 6.9 12.0 16.0 24.9 30.0 36.0 42.0 48.0 S4.9 60.9 f6.8 72.9
Angle (dog.)

Figure 3-38 Field Point Velocity (Measured)

Prop.4383 at x=-0.470R, r=0.924R at Design J

26.9-

16.9-

0 . -

2,,

9.6 14.4 26.6 43.2 S7.6 72.0

Angle Cde.)
Figure 3-39 Transformead Vorticity
Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r=0.2SGR at Design J.
 -13 6-

-29.9-

.... Ange

Fiue34 TasomdSotct

0. 44 26.6 43.2 57.6 72.0

Mogle ("G.)

F Igure 3-41 Transfor-med Vorticiity

Prop.4381 at x--0.333R, r-0.30OR at Design J
 -137-

.814.4 26.6 43.2 S7.6 72.0

Aunglo (dea.)
Figure 3-43 Transformed Vorticity
Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r-0.60R at Design J
 - -----------

4c
>

to difretI-"

.314.4 28.6 43.2 S7.6 72.9

MgI.o (dog.)
Figure 3-44 Transformed Vorticity
Prop.4381 at x=-0.333R, r-0.7e0R at Design J
 -13 9-

At 2trpm

mF

6. 14.4 26. 43.2- 57. 72.0

Angle Cdeg.)

Figure 3-47 Transformed Vorticity

Prop.4381 at x-e.333R, r-.eGR at Design J
 -140-

23.2684.25.67.

Ans..ds.

-141.11

14.4 26.2.6 43.2 $7.6 72. 2.

Mogle C%@.)
Figure 3-48 Transformed Vortiesty
Prop.4383 at x=-0.433R, r-0.875R at Design J
 9.0144 2.6 43-14.61-.

.014.4 26.6 43.2 67.6 72.0

Angie (dog.)
Figure 3-50 Transformed Vorticity
Prop.4383 at x=-0.488R, r-O.400R at Design J
 -142-

9. 44 26.6 43.2 97.6 72.0

Angle (dog.)
Figure 3-52 Transformed Vorticity
Prop.4383 at x=-0.488R, r=0.60OR at Design J

II

6.0 14.4 26.6 432 57.6 72.0

A"SlI. (ds.>
II Figure :3-S3 Transformed Von laity
tProp.4383 at x-10.488R, rin0.70OR at Design ~J
 -143-

2 .- 14. 26. 43. .62.

Ii i iI I I I
-F II I I I I III

9014.4 26.6 43.2 57.6 72.0

Angle Cdea.)
Figure 3-S4 Transformed Vorticity
Prop.4383 at. x-e0.488R, r-0.80OR at Design J
 -144-

-20.9-

266 43.2 57.6 72.0 66.4

Anal* Cdeq.)
Figure 3-S6 Transformed Vorticity
Prop.4383 at x=-0.488R, r=0.875R ot Design J

-Wi drldr x CI 96/2KtU)

C-

I 3
 -145-

ata

0 ...0 U
C 4-
0

I N4 4j 0
a . G

IN

' I I I I
3 I ' I
0
I I I
0'
0
"

0 a
,v CD

ICY
-0

I
~C
"1 1 10 0
*-

A £0u

o'

, -- -D
 -146-

S
S

-
I 5
Sc
.0

ix
o0)"
4>
L C
*o

-U!
10 0 IT

•0~- 0. ... >D 0C'V05

. . -N SC :)LZ

o 0 0

CD

S-,CD
L0)

IAu -0
0 LO)

>
00)-
LI C

SO

:3A
C C.)
*/A N

LN
 -147-

0CD
- - 2
t -

> -

- -L
a 0)
.a- -Z

LN

>6
>

0 LI

a>
0 0 0 00)

cCD

.33
ti
 -148-

0I.

4-

8 0

* ~ ~~~ A( c
3 0

0a 0.
 -149- 0

I, 0

S 3.

I - .4J
*'J
-z
0

*
0-
-,
>0
2:
a
IL --
- I.
4
*
_________________________________________
II I I I I U I I * I I I I I I I
-S
*
*
LW
S S S
S -z04
0 3/A 7 1A(O

S
U,

S
-x
0
3 .
£

I
-

(V)

-z
30
0-
S-U
>0
2:
Q
I.
4
-r .- ! S
' ~ I I I I I j * Liii
I I
o * *3/A a
1 S
I IL

9
.4
 -150-

~0

~~ 3

> 0

L W

L W

> 0

-4.

5F Z
A £
K a

'a " , ,' 0

'

- b, C
,.
 -151-

MI"q Cd

0 40
4 C

-,

(I, z3-
* £z0
~06

w 0
6C

-e;i 0 3

ft
e c

26.1)

38.8 1

.4i 24.

0.3 14.4 26.6 43.2 67.8 72.0

PU Anal% (des.) I

Figure 4-17 Hypothet ical Velocit~y Constructed from

Measured Velocity and Vorticfty Prop.438!
 -152-

36.8-

34.8-

32.8-

-1

O.O 14.4 26.6 43.2 S7.6 72.9

Ang le Ccdog.)
Figure 4-18 Hypothetical Velocity obtained from
Constant Pressure Assumption Prop. 4381

-'I Cd
0-
Ci
ac .1i iS

* I -I

%4W
• 1 S .
 -153-

- 0 E

i L

"tic

'U Lo
4k X 0c

di di3 00
P3 CL