Comparison of aerodynamic planform optimization of non-planar rotors using blade element momentum method and a vortex cylinder model. Issue 3 (1st May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Li, Ang; Gaunaa, Mac; Lønbæk, Kenneth; Zahle, Frederik; Pirrung, Georg Raimund
• Is Part Of: Journal of physics. Volume 2265:Issue 3(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-05-01
• Subjects: Physics -- Congresses; 530.5
• DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/2265/3/032055
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1742-6588

Abstract

Abstract: The present work compares non-planar rotors designed using the blade element momentum (BEM) method and a vortex cylinder model. In a previous work, it is shown that blade element theory coupled with the superposition of the vortex cylinder model (BEVC) is able to model the loads of non-planar rotors. The result predicted by the BEVC model is in significantly improved agreement with higher-fidelity models than the loads as predicted using the BEM method. In this work, the BEM method and the BEVC method are integrated into a gradient-based optimization framework for aerodynamic planform optimization, in which the analytical gradients are obtained using the algorithmic differentiation (AD) method. In the present study, the rotor is assumed to be stiff for all cases such that the pure aerodynamic effects are highlighted. Loads of the optimized non-planar rotors with different geometries under different constraints designed from both methods are calculated using the BEM method, the BEVC method and also the higher-fidelity lifting-line (LL) method. Within the constraints of the present work it was found that the advantage of the BEVC method is not significant when comparing the integrated aerodynamic loads: the non-planar rotor designed using the BEM method gives similar total thrust and power as the rotor designed using the BEVC method when the designs are evaluated with the higher-fidelity LL method. However, the results confirmed that the distributed aerodynamic loads of the non-planar rotors predicted by the BEVC method are in improved agreement with the LL method compared to the BEM method.