44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit AIAA 2006-1069

9 - 12 January 2006, Reno, Nevada

Ducted Rotor Performance Calculations and Comparisons

with Experimental Data

Robert Lind*, James K. Nathman†, and Ian Gilchrist‡

Analytical Methods, Inc., Redmond, WA, 98052

Ducted fan performance was calculated using the AMI panel method VSAERO coupled
with the ROTOR propeller module. Calculations were performed for a set of experimental
data measured on a test model in the NASA Ames facility. The ducted fan model was a
generic representation of a class of proposed small UAV systems. Good correlation of duct
and rotor thrust and aerodynamic pitching moments was found for all conditions under
which the duct lip flow was attached. Empirical extensions to stalled duct lip results can be
made for high rotor thrust.

I. Introduction

A new class of unmanned aerial vehicles under development are small ducted fans. These vehicles have no
separate lifting surfaces but instead rely on rotor and fan-induced thrust for lift and maneuvering. These UAVs
operate primarily at low speeds, high thrust, and high angles of attack.

An area of particular concern for these UAVs is translational performance in hover. In this flight condition
(nearly 90 degrees angle of attack with respect to the duct thrust axis) a large aerodynamic pitching moment is
generated which tends to pitch the vehicle away from the direction of translation. This pitching moment requires
additional control authority to overcome and in many cases can severely limit the translational speed of the hovering
vehicle.

A computer code well suited to the task of calculating these flows is the ROTOR module of the AMI panel
method VSAERO. ROTOR computes the coupled effects of the propeller induced flow and the external flow
around the duct. The code combines a blade element theory propeller calculation with the VSAERO potential flow
solution for arbitrary bodies in subsonic flow. The code takes into account induced effects of the propeller such as
asymmetric inlet lip suction and the effects of the exhaust flow in thrust vectoring.

Computations for a generic ducted fan UAV compare favorably with test results. The overall lift, drag, and
pitching moments developed by the vehicle can be calculated with the VSAERO/ROTOR method for all flight
conditions in which attached flow is maintained around and through the duct inlet. This includes the high angle of
attack and high thrust conditions (representing crosswinds in hover) which are of particular concern to this class of
vehicle. While the very high duct angles of attack would initially seem to preclude the successful use of a potential
flow method, the high duct thrust and resulting high mass flows through the duct maintain attached flow through the
duct. The resulting flow field can be successfully calculated with this method. . Empirical correlations of duct stall
can be used to provide limits of attached flow behavior and guidelines for estimates of aerodynamic forces and
moments beyond duct stall.

II. Computational Method

1
VSAERO solves for the perturbation potential φ on thick body surfaces through the boundary integral equation

*
Member AIAA.
†
Director of Software Development, Member AIAA.
‡
Member AIAA.

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2006 by Analytical Methods, Inc. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
 ∂ ⎛1⎞ ∂φ 1
2πφ( p) + ∫ φ ∂n ⎜⎝ r ⎟⎠dS = ∫ ∂n r dS
S− p S
(1)

Point p is on the body surface S and r is the distance from p to the arc dS where the normal n points into the flow.
Equation (1) is applicable to bodies of arbitrary shape, and VSAERO is unrestricted as to the body geometry. The
accuracy with which Eq. (1) is solved and whether the actual flow meets the restrictions in the derivation of Eq. (1)
determine how well VSAERO correlates with experiment. The assumptions in Eq. (1) are the same as those
required to derive Laplace's equation; that is, the disturbance velocities are small compared to the speed of sound
and the vorticity is confined to the thin boundary layer on the body or zero-thickness wake surfaces.

Eq. (1) is simply Green’s Identity and was first coded by Morino2.

For thin surfaces (t/c < 0.01), Eq. (1) can require more precision than available3. In this case, the integral
equation for the normalwash,

∂ ∂ ⎛1⎞ ∂φ ∂ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ∂φ
∫ ∆φ ∂n
S p
⎜ ⎟dS = ∫
∂n ⎝ r ⎠ S
⎜ ⎟dS − 4π
∂n ∂n p ⎝ r ⎠ ∂n p
(2)

is applied to the camber line.

The normal derivative of the potential on the body surface is known from the user-specified velocity plus the
normal components of the rotational velocity and freestream, and the transpiration due to boundary-layer thickness.

∂φ ∂
= − Vnorm + ( V∞ − ω × r ) • n + ( Vδ*) (3)
∂n ∂s

The user-specified velocity is zero for impermeable surfaces, but non-zero for radiators, engine inlets and exhausts.

Obviously, VSAERO solves the Neumann problem of potential flow. The advantage of recognizing VSAERO
as a Neumann solver is that the modifications necessary to solve an internal flow are well known and were easily
implemented by Nathman4. Internal flows occur not just inside ducts but also result from closed separation bubbles
such as the wake behind a bluff body and the exhausts of jet engines and ducted propellers. The technique for
handling internal flows has led to improved models of bluff body wakes.

Equation (1) or (2) contributes a row to the matrix equation,

⎧ ∂φ ⎫ (4)
[ A ]{ φ } = [ B ] ⎨ ⎬
⎩ ∂n ⎭

when the boundary is divided into elements (panels) in which the potential and its normal derivative are defined by
polynomials with unknown coefficients. In particular, each panel has a potential distribution

φ = φ0 + φxx + φyy... (5)

where x and y are local distances from the panel control point. PMARC5 is a low-order method because the
polynomial is truncated to the first term. PANAIR6 is a higher-order method because it uses second order
polynomials. Version 7 of VSAERO is multi-order in that both low and higher-order models are used depending on
whichever generates accurate results for less effort. Higher-order singularities7 are used to simulate bluff-body
wakes and calculate off-body velocity, induced drag,8 and higher-order panel geometry is used to calculate the
influence coefficients.9

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The propulsor is analyzed by blade-element theory. That is, a given inflow and RPM translate into an angle of
attack distribution on an actuator disk. Airfoil data tables convert the angle of attack into lift and drag. These are
integrated over the disk to provide thrust and power. The increase in static pressure in the slipstream is

DCp = TR / q / A R (6)

where TR, q and AR are the rotor thrust, dynamic pressure and propulsor area. The increase in static pressure
generates a slipstream which is a discontinuity in velocity (vorticity) of Vext-Vin where Vext and Vin and the
velocities external and internal to the slipstream. The external velocity in these cases is the freestream flow. The
internal velocity is determined from

Vin = Vext 2 + DCp (7)

The body and the slipstream surface add to the freestream flow to generate the inflow into the propulsor. Blade
element calculations are repeated until the thrust is compatible with the generated inflow. Advantages of this
coupling compared to the previous strategy10 for a ducted fan are that it does not require input of the rotor/duct
thrust ratio and converges for a ducted rotor with fixed pitch.

III. Experimental Data

11,12
Tests were performed on a generic ducted fan model in the NASA AMES 7’ x 10’ wind tunnel over a wide
range of power settings and angles-of-attack (0 to 120 degrees) as part of a program to improve performance and
prediction methods (Aeroflightdynamics Directorate (AMRDEC) US Army Research, Development, and
Engineering Command). The test configuration was a 10 in. diameter, 2-bladed propeller surrounded by a 6 inch
chord duct, Figure 1. The effects of rotor speed, onset flow speed, and angle of attack were tabulated.

IV. Computational Model

Airfoil tables for the blade-element calculations were constructed from XFOIL13 performance predictions and
NACA 0012 experimental data when calculations failed to converge at angles of attack exceeding stall. The duct
and propeller disk were modeled with 2136 panels. For a specified RPM and advance ratio, VSAERO/ROTOR
iterated on the inflow to predict rotor thrust and duct pressure distribution. Approximately 6 inflow iterations were
required for convergence with a compute time of 2 minutes on a Linux workstation. A range of power settings for
translational flight and hover (Figures 2, 3) were run.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Vext

Vin

Figure 1. Cross Section of Ducted Rotor.

Figure 2. Ducted Rotor in Hover.

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 3. Ducted Rotor at Angle of Attack.

V. Results
The calculations produced good agreement with the experimental data for lift (Figure 4), thrust/drag (Figure 5),
and pitching moment (Figure 6) over the linear region and at low flight speeds where the thrust effects are large.

At higher flight speeds and angles of attack the calculations are in some error owing to duct stall effects. The
effects of duct stall cannot be calculated directly from the potential flow results. However, the areas of practical
interest for hovering UAV vehicles are high duct thrust, which corresponds to low onset velocity in the NASA Ames
dataset. For these data the potential flow results compare well for lift, drag, and pitching moment. This is due to the
lack of significant separation around the duct inlet at these high inlet mass flows.

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 NASA Ames 10" Ducted Fan Wind Tunnel Model
9,000 RPM

12.0
Test, v=20ft/sec
Test, v=20ft/sec
Test, v=40ft/sec
10.0 Test, v=40ft/sec
Test, v=60ft/sec
Test, v=60ft/sec
Theory, v=20ft/sec
Theory, v=40ft/sec
Theory, v=60ft/sec
8.0
CL

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
α

Figure 4. Lift Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack

NASA Ames 10" Ducted Fan Wind Tunnel Model

9,000 RPM

10.0
Test, v=20ft/sec
Test, v=20ft/sec
8.0 Test, v=40ft/sec
Test, v=40ft/sec
Test, v=60ft/sec
6.0 Test, v=60ft/sec
Theory, v=40ft/sec
Theory, v=60ft/sec
4.0 Theory, v=20ft/sec
CD

2.0

0.0

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
α

Figure 5. Drag Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack.

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 NASA Ames 10" Ducted Fan Wind Tunnel Model
Hover CM Definition = PM/Vtip^2*rho*PI*R^3
0.010 9,000 RPM

test v=0ft/sec
test v=20ft/sec
test v=40ft/sec
theory v=1.2ft/sec
0.008 theory v=6.2ft/sec
theory v=12.5ft/sec
theory v=20ft/sec
theory v=40ft/sec
0.006

CM

0.004

0.002

0.000

-0.002
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
α

Figure 6. Pitching Moment vs. Angle of Attack.

VI. Conclusion
The potential flow method VSAERO, coupled with the ROTOR module, can be used to successfully calculate
the overall flow field and rotor/duct thrust for ducted fan flight vehicle models. The flow solution predicts the rotor
thrust and accompanying duct mass flow using a coupled iterative solution and does not require advance
specification of thrust induced duct mass flow or duct-to-rotor thrust ratios.

The application to small UAV configurations is demonstrated. In particular, the ability of the potential flow to
predict the large pitching moment at angles of attack near 90 degrees is demonstrated.

Acknowledgements
Daniel Strash generated the airfoil data tables and the VSAERO input files as well as helpful feedback needed
for improving the coupling. Preston Martin provided the tabulated experimental data.

References
1
Nathman, J.K., “VSAERO User’s Manual, Version 7.0,” Analytical Methods Inc., May 2003.
2
Morino, L., Kuo, C.C., “Subsonic Potential Aerodynamics for Complex Configurations. A General Theory,” AIAA Journal,
Vol. 12, 1974, pp. 191-97.
3
Nathman, J.K., “Precision Requirement for Potential-Based Panel Methods,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 31, No. 5, 1994, pp 1089-
1090.
4
Nathman, J.K., and Frank, J., “Application of VSAERO to Internal Flows,” AIAA 87-2415, Fifth Applied Aerodynamics
Conference, Monterey, CA, 1987.
5
Ashby, D.L., Dudley, M.R. and Iguchi, S.K., “Development and Validation of an Advanced Low-Order Panel Method,”
NASA TM 101024, 1988.
6
Ehlers, F.E., Epton, M.A., Johnson, F.T., Magnus, A.E., and Rubbert, P.E., “A Higher Order Panel Method for Linearized
Supersonic Flow,” NASA CR-3062, 1979.
7
Nathman, J.K., “Subsonic Panel Methods – Second (Order) Thoughts,” SAE 985563, Anaheim, CA, 1998.
8
Nathman, J.K., “Induced Drag of High-Aspect Ratio Wings,” AIAA 2005-1033, Reno, 2005.
9
Nathman, J.K., “Improvement of a Panel Method by including Panel Warp,” AIAA 2004-0721, Reno, 2004.
10
anon., “Rotor User’s Manual”, Revision E., Analytical Methods, Inc. Redmond, 1994.

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 11
Martin, P., Boxwell, D., Tung, C., “Design, Analysis, and Experiments on a 10-inch Ducted Rotor VTOL UAV, 2004.
12
Martin, P., Tung, C., “Performance and Flowfield Measurements on a 10-inch Ducted Rotor VTOL UAV”, 2004.
13
Drela, M., “XFOIL: An Anlysis and Design System for Low Reynolds Number Airfoils”, Low Reynolds Number
Aerodynamics, Springer-Verlag, 1989.

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics