NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION ON THE EFFECTS OF VORTEX GENERATORS IN THE

THRUST OF A FIXED-PITCH CLARK Y PROPELLER

Jayeson Oliver G. Relato, Darwin G. Gacutan, & Karl N. Casida

Department of Aeronautical Engineering
FEATI University
Quiapo, Manila City, Philippines

ABSTRACT
In order to improve and overcome the disadvantages of using a fixed-pitch propeller, vortex
generator is applied on Clark Y propeller blades. The study focuses on the effects of vortex generator
on the thrust that will be produced by a fixed-pitch propeller. The study also has goals in improving
the propeller efficiency however this is not fully prioritized since propeller efficiency is also highly
dependent on the engine that is being used. The experiment was performed by utilizing a 3D model in
a flow simulation experiment in order to validate this paper’s hypothesis. The parameters used for the
said simulation are density, viscosity, pressure and temperature that are all in standard sea level
conditions in order to minimize the factors to be considered in numerical computation. The reference
aircraft used for the 3D model is a Cessna 172 Skyhawk that has maximum speed of 187 miles per hour
and the reference engine is the Lycoming IO-360-L2A that has a brake horsepower of 205 at 2700
RPM. These are chosen since general aviation aircraft commonly utilizes fixed-pitch propeller. Results
showed that installing a vortex generator to a fixed-pitch propeller at low RPM increased the thrust
generated by a maximum of 18%. On the other hand, the experiment on high RPM, 2100 and above,
showed that there is now a loss in the thrust being produced. The results are acceptable since propellers
are not being used in high RPM scenarios frequently since it will result to faster wear and tear of the
engine.
Keywords: vortex generators, Clark-y propeller, airfoil, Thrust, boundary layers

1.0 Introduction

Fixed-pitch propellers are the simplest design for an aircraft propeller. These are the type of
propellers that has constant pitch and can be used on a wide variety of piston engine aircraft. But due
to this design, its pitch can’t be adjusted during aircraft operations therefore can’t be fully utilized on
all aircraft flight operations since each has a different optimum pitch for maximum efficiency. Being
able to overcome this disadvantage of the fixed-pitch propeller will have a huge impact on the aviation
industry since it is cheaper than a variable pitch propeller and is easier to be manufactured. The
installation of vortex generators to these types of propellers could possibly be used to overcome the
said disadvantage of the fixed-pitch propeller. Vortex generators are protrusions on aircraft surfaces
that creates vortices to energize the boundary layers and making it turbulent in order to minimize the
risk of flow separation (Reay, Compact Heat Exchangers (Second Edition), 2017). It is commonly used
on aircraft wings and other parts of the aircraft that is susceptible to flow separation.
In this paper, a further study will be done to analyze the relationship of vortex generators to an
aircraft propeller. Vortex generators were already being used in wind turbines where it produces more
energy. It leads to this study where vortex generators will be able to give fixed-pitch propellers a higher
thrust. One study quoted that data has been collected for small wind turbines and has shown the use of
leading-edge protrusions to produce positive results. With higher angles of attack before stall and
increased lift coefficients, wind turbines can operate more effectively at lower wind speeds. A similar
increase in either efficiency or power for a propeller could have significant effects on performance and
or endurance. (Ning, 2016). The objectives of this study are to improve the thrust produced, identifying
the configuration of vortex generators that produces the most efficient results and to determine other
effects of vortex generators when installed on an aircraft propeller, such as velocity, static and dynamic
pressure. This paper also aims to address the problems encountered by the previous mentioned study
by applying vortex generators on low speed aircrafts, and since figures of the effects of these devices
are still unknown up to now whether it gives a significant amount of benefit to the overall performance
of the aircraft propeller, numerical investigations will be initiated.
The process in order to complete the study involves sketching a 3D model of a Clark Y propeller
that has no vortex generators installed and subject it to flow simulation. The results will be compared
to a published result involving the same type of propeller in order to know if the use of SolidWorks is
significant in this type of study. Three new 3D models will be sketched, this time it has vortex
generators installed and each contains a different configuration of vortex generator. These 3D models
will be subjected to flow simulations with different mesh levels. The results of the flow simulations
will be compared to each other in order to conclude which configuration produces the best results for
the Clark Y propeller.
The effects of installing vortex generators to fixed-pitch propellers are increased generation of
thrust, higher propeller efficiency and delays the blade stall of the propeller at low RPM. These effects
made the fixed-pitch propeller a recommended type of propeller to be used on aircrafts that doesn’t
usually use high RPM in its flight operations. This study may also serve a reference on new
modifications can be done to a fixed-pitch propeller in order for it to improve its performance. Future
researches may use a
different configuration or type of vortex generators. It can also be applied to a different type of
propellers or increasing the number of blades. This can be done in order to further improve the
performance of propellers and further innovate the existing type of propellers.

2.0 Review of Related Literatures

Vortex generators (VG) have been used in several aerodynamic applications over the past fifty
years within the aerospace industry. Often, VGs take the form tiny vanes, fastened to a surface at an
angle relative to the free stream airflow. This configuration allows the vortex generators to act as low-
profile wings, which produce a side force and a discrete high-energy vortex in their wake (Xue,
Johnson, Chao, & Carste, 2010). Vortex generator creates a vortex, when the airfoil is in motion relative
to the air, which by removing some part of the slow-moving boundary layer in contact with the airfoil
surface. It delays the local flow separation and aerodynamic stalling, thereby improving effective ness
of wings and control surfaces, such as flaps, elevators, ailerons, and rudders (D.S., 2017).
Vortex Generators are well known as efficient tools for the control of flow separation. They are
commonly used in various industrial applications, to enhance airplane lift force in near stall situations
(Duriez, Aider, & Wesfreid, 2008). Vortex generators can enhance the aerodynamic performance of
blades/wings at high angles of attack which is also why vortex generators today are widely used for
passive flow control (Lin, 2002). In a recent study, Results show that the vortex strength and drag of
the triangle vortex generators are minimal while the vortex strength and drag of the rectangular is
maximal (Li, Cao, & Deng, 2014). Another study also shows that VGs installed in the separation line
upstream, with the separation line of the blade root as a benchmark, show a better effect (Hu, Li, & Gu,
2016).
Vortex generators are flow control devices commonly applied in wind turbine blades, among
other applications. A significant advance in the design of wind turbine blades would be the integration
of vortex generators in the airfoil optimization process. Delaying or preventing flow separation is an
important parameter in many technical applications, to enhance the performance (Nedumaran, 2016).
The turbine performance with VGs met most of the design requirements; power output was increased
at moderate wind speeds with a negligible effect on peak power (Griffn, 1996).
An aircraft propeller is one of the most common important parts in the aircraft. It is an airfoil section
designed to generate the aerodynamic forces. The propeller provides the necessary force i.e. thrust to
push the aircraft through the air. Maximizing thrust while minimizing the torque necessary to turn a
propeller has becomes one of the most important aspects of good propeller design (Sohel, Talukder, &
Hasan Mamun, 2014). Propellers are usually designed to operate optimally at a certain design point,
for example, the aircraft's cruise conditions. It is clear that propellers also operate at off-design flight
conditions that may include take-off, steep climb etc (Gur & Rosen, 2004). A propeller should be
efficient in transforming the rotary power imparted to it into forward tractive power. Since the propeller
is attached to the engine, at whatever speed the engine is run, the propeller must be able to absorb the
power furnished by the engine (Bradley Jones, 1942).
For studying the characteristics of the propeller, the numerical study seems to be the best way
to accomplish that goal. In particular, the application of CFD simulation software such as SolidWorkds
to calculate the propeller aerodynamics is not so new study now and it has become popular methods.
Today it becomes most powerful compared to other methods as well as experience or the other
traditional methods (Sohel, Talukder, & Hasan Mamun, 2014).
Clark Y-14 is an airfoil which is widely studied in aerodynamics and is generally used in aircraft design
(Biermann & Hartman, THE AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SIX FULL-SCALE
PROPELLERS HAVING DIFFERENT AIRFOIL SECTION, 1938). The propellers tested, especially
those with Clark Y sections, are typical of many in use today; and the data, which cover a blade-angle
range up to 45°, should therefore be useful for design purposes (Abbas, 2017).
The thrust, torque and power coefficients are all functions of the chord length ratio and they
depends on the blade cross section (Rotaru, Stefan, Raducanu, & Dinca, 2017). The thrust developed
by any propulsion system can be increased either by acting upon the mass flow rate or upon the velocity
increment and based on the aircraft propulsion theory, the most increasing thrust is obtained by using
a large mass flow rate with a small velocity increment. This requirement is accomplished by the
enginepropeller system which produce relatively high flow rates because of the propeller large
diameter, this type of propulsion system being the most efficient device commonly used for low speed
subsonic flight (Moldoveanu, Somaiag, & Hemelaar, 2015).

3.0 Vortex Generators

Vortex generators are devices commonly installed on wings of aircraft. It is also used in
different aerodynamic surfaces such as the fuselage or even aircraft propellers. These devices are used
to create vortices which energizes the boundary layers in order to prevent separation of flow on these
aerodynamic surfaces. Vortex generators were studied in the late 1940s as a device to control separation
of flow on aircraft wings and wind tunnels. It is also noticed in the said experiment that the boundary
layers were relatively thick and a configuration of vortex generators at incidence angles of between 10
and 15 degrees to the flow of direction are considered to be effective (Reay, Compact Heat Exchangers
(Second Edition), 2017). Typically, vortex generators can be described as a small wing-like devices.
(Griffin, 1996). The configuration of vortex generators is determined based from an orientation which
it will produce vortices that will benefit an aerodynamic surface by mixing the free stream air flow,
and the local boundary. The advantages of applying vortex generators on aerodynamic surfaces include,
increase in maximum lift coefficient, and delay in separation of flow or stall which results to the
increase of drag coefficient at low angles of attack. In the case of the study, vortex generator shall be
applied on the leading edge section of an aircraft propeller.

3.1 Design of Vortex Generators

The different designs of vortex generators vary depending on the manufacturer. Typical design
of vortex generators ranges from, co-rotating and counter rotating. Parameters such as the shape and
direction are also considered, ranging from, rectangular, triangular, and parabolic. Orientation ranging
from 0 degrees to 20 degrees angle of incidence as mentioned before. After considering the above
parameters, the next step is to determine the dimensions of the vortex generator such as; length, and
height, the spacing of each vortex generators, location based on the local chord, and the number of
vortex generators to be installed.

3.2 Application of vortex generators on aircraft propellers.

Up to this day, studies on the installation of vortex generators on aircraft propeller has been
uncommon due to the advancement of technologies on aircraft. Instead of using a constant pitch
propeller, some propeller manufacturers considered to compensate its disadvantages by introducing a
variable pitch propeller. However, one study conducted in 2016 by Dayton A. Griffin studying the
aerodynamic performance of small protrusions on aircraft propeller showed a promising result, but
vortex generators were not mentioned directly in this paper. The most common experiment that can be
seen is the application of vortex generators on Wind Turbines. The first successful study is conducted
in 1986 by N.A.S.A with a conclusion that, vortex generators can be used to significantly modify the
power curve of all sizes of horizontal wind turbines (Administration, 1986). Another study conducted
in 1996 concluded that, it appears that the vortex generators caused an increase in lift on a AWT-26
wind turbine and showed promising results (Griffin, 1996). Getting the ideas of the mentioned journals
led to the hypothesis of the study that vortex generators can possibly affect the performance of aircraft
propellers and augment its performance particularly its Thrust produced.
Parameters mentioned in Section 3.1, Vortex Generator Design, will be also used in the
experiment but shall focus on a limited number of configurations. A co-rotating vortex generator, with
a rectangular shape shall be used as a primary design of the 3D Model because of the simplicity of the
design that will be later on used in a series of simulation and experiments. The orientation will range
from 0 degrees and 20 degrees angle of incidence following the recommendation from the previous
studies. Dimensions are based from different journals that refers to vortex generator sizing and spacing.
Lastly, effective location of the vortex generators shall also be determined.
Figure 3.2, co-rotating array of vortex generators. A photo courtesy of google images.

Same principles will be applied in terms of the application of vortex generators on aircraft
propellers from wind turbines. However, the independent and dependent variables are different in the
experimental setup of this study. To able to determine the success of the experiment, instead of
observing the effects on power output and increase in maximum coefficient of lift, goals such as the
Static/Dynamic pressure, Velocity, Thrust and Torque shall be considered. Thrust is a parameter that
is not considered on Wind Turbines since it is not a moving object in a fluid.

4.0 Phase of Experiment

A series of simulations and experiments were conducted using a computer-aided engineering

computer program namely, SolidWorks. The program is used to sketch the 3D model and perform
simulations to provide the data necessary for this experiment. The first step is to designate the airfoil
to be used in the propeller model followed by the choosing reference aircraft which specifications shall
be used as a basis for the comparison of performance, to determine the effects of vortex generators on
aircraft propeller. In the study, Clark Y airfoil is chosen. It is necessary to calibrate the software so that
the results of the modified 3D model shall be similar to the performance of the published results. After
collecting the information necessary for the initial procedures, the experiment proceeded by sketching
the 3D model with similar dimension, and performing series of simulations with the same setup and
angular velocity of the propeller. The results were not actually similar with the published results.
However, it showed a difference of 1.5% from the Thrust of the published experiments of Clark Y
Propeller. There are discrepancies in the results of the published experiment and the groups experiment
due to the possible reason that the computational domain, and material differ from one another.
Following the initial investigation, the next step is to sketch the modified propeller using the same
software. The group prepared three (3) different modified propeller model with different experimental
setup and afterwards to be simulated. Lastly, after performing the series of simulations, the following
goals shall be collected; Static & Dynamic Pressure, Velocity, Thrust, and Torque. The said goals will
be compared from the results of 3D model without vortex generators and choose which 3D modified
model produced the ideal results.

4.1 Instruments used in the investigation

SolidWorks is a computer-aided drafting software that runs primarily on Microsoft Windows.

The hardware of the instruments used are shown in Table 4.1.1 This shall help with the validation of
testing procedures of the group, in order to determine if the instruments will be effective in the
experiment to reduce the time of simulation and lead to the success of the study.
4.1.1 SolidWorks 2016
SolidWorks 2016 is utilized to sketch the three-dimensional propeller model. The
recommended specifications of the software have been achieved by the instrument but is limited only
to sketching of the 3D model, with and without the vortex generators. During the simulation a different
hardware is utilized.
Table 4.1.1 – Hardware Specifications of instrument no. 1
Hardware Current Specifications Recommended Specifications
Processor Intel I3 @ 1.90 GHz Intel/AMD with SSE 2
support
Random Access Memory 4.00 GB 8.00 GB
Graphics Card 2.0 GB NVIDIA GeForce 2.00 GB NVIDIA
820m
Disk Space 167.00 GB minimum of 5.00 GB
Operating System Windows 10 Windows 8.1 or higher
 4.1.2 SolidWorks 2018
Because of the limited capacity of the previous instrument, a secondary instrument is utilized to perform
series of flow simulation which will provide the essential data that can be used in the conclusion later
on.
Table 4.1.2 – Hardware Specifications of instrument no. 2
Hardware Current Specifications Recommended
Specifications
Processor Intel I5 – 2.30 GHz Intel I7 – 3.30 GHz or higher
Random Access Memory 8.00 GB 16.00 GB or more
Graphics Card N/A N/A
Disk Space 255.00 GB N/A
Operating System Windows 10 Windows 8.1 or higher.
Table 4.2 – Hardware Specifications of 2 instrument.
nd

4.2 Clark Y Airfoil

Clark Y-14 is an airfoil which is widely studied in aerodynamics and is generally used in
aircraft design. The propellers tested, especially those with Clark Y sections, are typical of many in use
today; and the data, which cover a blade-angle range up to 45°, should therefore be useful for design
purposes (Abbas, 2017).
The thick propeller having a Clark Y section had a higher take-off efficiency than the thinner
one, but its maximum efficiency was possibly lower. The Clark Y was superior for the high-speed
condition (Biermann & Hartman, 1937) Results of test that have already been conducted in the variable-
density tunnel indicate that thin, medium, and thick airfoils with different cambers respond differently
to changes in scale. (Silverstein, 1934)
4.3 Reference Aircraft & Engine

Reference Aircraft: Cessna Skyhawk 172

Powerplant: 1 × Lycoming IO-360-L2A four cylinder, horizontally opposed aircraft engine, 205 hp at
2700 rpm
Propellers: 2-bladed metal, fixed pitch
Top speed: 162 kn (187 mph, 274 fps)
Range: 696 nmi (801 mi, 1,289 km) with 45-minute reserve, 55% power, at 12,000 ft
Service ceiling: 13,500 ft (4,100 m)
Rate of climb: 721 ft/min (3.66 m/s)
4.4 Propeller Dimensions
 The dimensions of the published full-scale Clark Y Propeller are, propeller radius is 10 feet,
and the number of stations are also 10. This leads to the assumption that the distance of each station is
1 foot, from 10 feet divided by 10. Refer to table 4.3 Distance of each station from the hub.
Table 4.4 – distance of each station from the hub of the propeller.
Station no. distance from the hub (in)
1 6.00
2 12.00
3 18.00
4 24.00
5 30.00
6 36.00
7 42.00
8 48.00
9 54.00
10 60.00
4.4.1 Estimation of the width & thickness of the propeller

The width of the propeller is simply the local chord length of each airfoil at every station. The width is
computed using the width ratio curve, refer to table 4.4.2 and by multiplying the propeller diameter (D)
to the ratio width curve from the width ratio curve.

Formula: 𝒃 = 𝑫 × 𝒌𝒃

Where:
b = Propeller Width at element (in) D = Propeller Diameter (in) Kb = Width Ratio from the width
ratio curve
Table 4.4.1 width ratio curve

Table 4.4.2 calculated width per station

Calculated width per station
 Station distance from the hub (inches) Blade width (inches)
1 6.00 3.12
2 12.00 4.08
3 18.00 6.00
4 24.00 7.44
5 30.00 8.40
6 36.00 8.16
7 42.00 7.56
8 48.00 6.36
9 54.00 5.04
10 60.00 3.24

The thickness of the blade is the distance between the lower-camber and the upper-camber of
the local airfoil. Similar to the estimation of the width of the propeller, thickness uses the same
procedures but refer to table 4.4.3, thickness to width ratio from camber ratio curve. The blade thickness
can be computed by multiplying the blade width at corresponding station by the thickness to width ratio
from the camber ratio curve.

Formula: 𝒕 = 𝒃 × 𝑲𝒕 Where:

t = Blade Thickness at each station (in) B = Blade Width at corresponding station (in) Kt = Thickness
to Width Ratio from camber ratio curve

Table 4.4.3 thickness to width ratio from camber ratio curve

Table 4.4.4 calculated width per station

Calculated Thickness per station
Station Blade width (inches) Blade thickness
(inches)
1 3.12 3.06
2 4.08 3.02
 3 6.00 1.68
4 7.44 1.19
5 8.40 0.92
6 8.16 0.65
7 7.56 0.53
8 6.36 0.38
9 5.04 0.28
10 3.24 0.16

4.4.2 Estimation of the Hub Dimension

Formula:
Width of hub = Max Width + 0.5 in
= 8.40 + 0.5
= 8.90 in
Thickness of hub = Max Thickness + 0.5 in
= 3.02 + 0.5
= 3.52 in

4.4.3 Calculation of the blade angle at each station

Formula:
Where:
n = angular velocity (radians-per-second) R = radius at station (feet)

V = aircraft’s maximum velocity (feet-per-second)

Table 4.4.1 calculated angle of attack per station in degrees.
Station Distance from the Hub 𝜽 𝜶 Angle of Attack per
station (Degrees)
1 6.00 9.18 17 26.2
2 12.00 4.62 17 21.6
3 18.00 3.08 17 20.1
4 24.00 2.31 17 19.3
 5 30.00 1.85 17 18.9
6 36.00 1.54 17 18.5
7 42.00 1.32 17 18.3
8 48.00 1.16 17 18.2
9 54.00 1.03 17 18.0
10 60.00 0.93 17 17.9

Summarizing the calculated results from 4.3.1 to 4.3.2,

Station Distance from the Hub Width Thickness Angle of Attack per station
(degrees)
1 6.00 3.12 3.06 26.2
2 12.00 4.08 3.02 21.6
3 18.00 6.00 1.68 20.1
4 24.00 7.44 1.19 19.3
5 30.00 8.40 0.92 18.9
6 36.00 8.16 0.65 18.5
7 42.00 7.56 0.53 18.3
8 48.00 6.36 0.38 18.2
9 54.00 5.04 0.28 18.0
10 60.00 3.24 0.16 17.9

4.5 The three-dimensional Clark Y propeller model

After the estimation of the important dimensions of the 3D model, the next step is to sketch it
using SolidWorks 2016. The figure below shows the different views of the 3D model.
Figure A to D, captured using MS snipping tool

A. Top View of the Clark Y propeller B. Isometric View of the Clark Y propeller
 C. Trimetric View of the Clark Y propeller D. Dimetric of the Clark Y propeller

4.6 Initial Simulation of the three-dimensional Clark Y propeller model

In order to solve for the goals: Static/Dynamic Pressure, Velocity, and Thrust, a flow simulation must
be done following an experimental setup. After completing the simulation, the results shall be
compared to the published result of Clark Y Propeller in order to validate the accuracy of SolidWorks
in the experiment. As mentioned before, the simulation results have discrepancies of ±1.5% to the
published results. The 3D model will undergo simulations at different RPMs namely: 1200 RPM, 1500
RPM, 2100 RPM, and 2700 RPM. The following RPM settings are based from the various power
settings of the reference aircraft, Cessna 172.
4.7 Simulation Setup of Clark Y propeller without vortex generators

4.7.1 Independent Parameters

a.) Experimental or Three-Dimensional Model of the Propeller
b.) Computational Domain

The dimensions (in feet) are as follows:

Length = 20 ft
Width = 20 ft
Height = 40 ft

c.) Simulation Wizard Settings

Units: in feet-per-second (fps)

Physical Feature: Rotation
Axis of Rotation: Y-Axis, Extruded Drum
Fluid: Air
Conditions: Pressure and Temperature at Sea Level
d.) Angular Velocity (in radians per second)

1200 RPM (Low speed, 1000 fpm rate of descent) / 125.66 rad/sec
1500 RPM (Low-Speed 500 fpm rate of descent) / 157.08 rad/sec
2100 RPM (Cruise) / 219.91 rad/sec
2700 RPM (Maximum RPM) / 282.74 rad/sec

e.) Mesh

Type: Automatic
Level of Initial: Mesh 3 to Mesh 5
Ratio Factor: 10
4.7.2 Dependent Parameters
a.) Goals

Surface/Global Goals:

Static/Dynamic Pressure
Velocity
Thrust

b.) Propeller Efficiency

𝛿 = 𝑇 × 𝑉⁄𝑃 × 550
Where: T = Thrust (in lbs)
V = Velocity of the Propeller (in fps)
P = Power Output of the Engine (in hp)

4.8 Results of the simulation and discussion

4.8.1 Mesh 3 visualization of flow on the propeller
2700 RPM

2100 RPM
1500 RPM

1200 RPM

4.8.2 Mesh 3 global goal results of the simulation

2700 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 95683.60
Dynamic Pressure Pa 35725.06
Velocity m/s 228.193
Thrust N 14242.038

2100 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 96405.83
Dynamic Pressure Pa 21450.23
Velocity m/s 178.143
Thrust N 9446.298
1500 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 98750.92
Dynamic Pressure Pa 12698.10
Velocity m/s 139.688
Thrust N 3926.078

1200 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 99462.89
Dynamic Pressure Pa 7558.53
Velocity m/s 101.798
Thrust N 2526.384

4.8.3 Mesh 5 visualization of flow on the propeller

2700 RPM
2100 RPM

1500 RPM

1200 RPM

4.8.4 Mesh 5 global goal results of the simulation

2700 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 96306.75
 Dynamic Pressure Pa 34351.56
Velocity m/s 228.937
Thrust N 13342.537

2100 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 94578.29
Dynamic Pressure Pa 21421.86
Velocity m/s 178.063
Thrust N 10997.573

1500 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 98550.82
Dynamic Pressure Pa 11507.33
Velocity m/s 127.189
Thrust N 4523.682

1200 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 99462.89
Dynamic Pressure Pa 7558.53
Velocity m/s 101.748
Thrust N 3067.526

Table 4.8.1 comparison of the results of simulation in mesh 3 and 5

Mesh 3 Mesh 5
RPM 2700 2100 1500 1200 2700 2100 1500 1200
Velocity
228.193 178.143 139.688 101.798 228.937 178.063 127.189 101.748
(m/s)
Thrust
14242.038 9446.298 3926.078 2526.384 13342.537 10997.573 4523.682 3067.526
(N)
Error in Velocity 0% 0% 10% 0%

Error in Thrust -7% +14% +13% +18%

As the propeller decreases its angular velocity, the Thrust produced of the propeller decreases
and the velocity of air on the propeller also decreases. This is because in lower angular velocities, the
propeller invites a low amount of airflow on the blades increasing the pressure and drag. It is noticeable
in the visualization of flow that as the angular velocity decreases the behavior of the air flow in the
propeller becomes laminar. Laminar boundary layers have advantages over airfoils but this type of
boundary layers are also prone to separation of flow which could lead to blade stall. In order to prevent
or delay this phenomenon to occur, a vortex generator will be installed in the following procedures.
Introducing vortex generators on propeller without considering the correct dimensioning, positioning,
and numbering might greatly affect its performance, particularly the Thrust. It is also observable from
the visualization of flow on the propeller that air flow is greater than the tip compared to the root
because the tip has to travel a greater distance compared to the roots
Applying different mesh to a simulation is not necessary in every experiment. The mesh needs
to be refined in order to improve accuracy of the simulation. In the case of the study, a higher mesh is
required in order to validate the simulation whether vortex generators greatly affect the propeller
performance positively or negatively. Percentage errors are also introduced so that future experiments
of the same study will be able to consider which mesh is ideal and applicable to them.
5.1 Vortex Generator Design
To design an effective vortex generator for a Clark Y propeller the researchers collected
journals and articles that can help to determine the right positioning, and dimensioning of vortex
generators. There are three experiments in this phase with different goals and configurations of vortex
generators. Each experiment also has principles to be followed and a hypothesis to be proved.
Experiment no. 1 consists of great number of installed vortex generators compared to the other 2
experiments. Experiment no. 2 has a reduced number of vortex generators installed but still follows a
zero-degree angle of attack of the vortex generators. The last experiment consists the same number of
vortex generators like in experiment no. 2 but considered a change in the angle of attack. After the
experiments, the results will be interpreted depending on the goal of each vortex generator
configuration. This phase of the investigation also included different mesh levels to be used in order to
acquire a result with higher accuracy.
Following the recommendation of Griffin Dayton about their previous study on the installation
of vortex generators on a wind turbine. 10 % to 30% of the propeller radius have a design risk of: The
blade sections near 25% are still laminar. Installing the vortex generator at this area will greatly affect
the transition of boundary layers, and could possible increase the drag which could result to loss in
performance or worse a blade stall. 30 % to 45 % of the radius is the most recommended positioning
of the vortex generator according to the said study for the reason that this section is known to stall early
due to higher air flow in this region. The remaining areas of the propeller should be left without any
vortex generator because the 45 % of the radius or greater will not give any significant improvement
in the performance of the propeller.
5.1.1 Configuration of Vortex Generators in Experiment no. 1

Vortex generator design: Rectangular and Co-Rotational vortex generator, this design is chosen due
its simplicity.
Location or Chord-wise location: In this configuration, the spacing, dimensioning, and location of
the vortex generator depends on the local chord length of each station. Following the recommendation
from related literatures, vortex generators are placed between 10 % to 30 % of the local chord length.
Placing the vortex generator greater than 30 % of the local chord length might disrupt the laminar flow
on the airfoil. In this study, 10 % of the local chord is followed.
Dimensions: The length of the vortex generator is 2.5 % of the local chord, Height is determined by
dividing the length by 4, and spacing is 15 % of the local chord.
Local Chord
Station no. Length (in) Height (in) Spacing No. of vgs
Length (in)
1 to 2 3.120 0.008 0.002 0.5 13
2 to 3 4.048 0.010 0.003 0.6 10
3 to 4 6.000 0.015 0.004 0.9 7
4 to 5 7.440 0.019 0.005 1.1 5
5 to 6 8.440 0.021 0.005 1.3 5
6 to 7 8.160 0.020 0.005 1.2 5

Orientation: Zero-degree angle of attack.

Assumption: Independent sizing, and spacing of the vortex generators together with great amount of
installed vortex generators could benefit the performance of the propeller.

Figure 5.1.1, illustration of the vortex generator array of experiment no. 1

 5.1.2 Configuration of Vortex Generators in Experiment no. 2
Vortex generator design: similar with Experiment no. 2 a rectangular and co-rotational vortex
generator is the design chosen due to its simplicity.
Location or Chord-wise location: In this configuration, the spacing, dimensioning, and location of
the vortex generator depends on the longest local chord length of the propeller blade. Similar to
experiment no. 1, vortex generators are placed between 10 % to 30 % of the local chord length. In this
study, 10 % of the local chord is followed.
Dimensions: The length of the vortex generator is 2.5 % of the longest chord, Height is determined by
dividing the length by 4, and spacing is 15 % of the local chord.

Local Chord
Station no. Length (in) Height (in) Spacing No. of vgs
Length (in)
1 to 2 8.440 0.021 0.005 1.5 4
2 to 3 8.440 0.021 0.005 1.5 4
3 to 4 8.440 0.021 0.005 1.5 4
4 to 5 8.440 0.021 0.005 1.5 4
5 to 6 8.440 0.021 0.005 1.5 4
6 to 7 8.440 0.021 0.005 1.5 4

Orientation: Zero-degree angle of attack.

Assumption: Reducing the number of vortex generators and distributing its spacing equally will
improve the performance of the propeller.

Figure 5.1.2, illustration of the vortex generator array of experiment no. 2

5.1.3 Configuration of Vortex Generators in Experiment no. 3

Vortex generator design: similar with Experiment no. 1 & 2 a rectangular and co-rotational vortex
generator is the design chosen due to its simplicity.
Location or Chord-wise location: In this configuration, the spacing, dimensioning, and location of
the vortex generator depends on the longest local chord length of the propeller blade. Similar to
experiment no, 1 & 2, vortex generators are placed between 10 % to 30 % of the local chord length. In
this study, 10 % of the local chord is followed.
Dimensions: The length of the vortex generator is 2.5 % of the longest chord, Height is determined by
dividing the length by 4, and spacing is 15 % of the local chord.

Local Chord
Station no. Length (in) Height (in) Spacing No. of vgs
Length (in)
1 to 2 8.440 0.021 0.005 1.5 4
2 to 3 8.440 0.021 0.005 1.5 4
3 to 4 8.440 0.021 0.005 1.5 4
4 to 5 8.440 0.021 0.005 1.5 4
5 to 6 8.440 0.021 0.005 1.5 4
6 to 7 8.440 0.021 0.005 1.5 4

Orientation: twenty degrees angle of attack.

Assumption: Maintaining the configuration from experiment 2 but changing the orientation of the
vortex generator to twenty degrees will produce more ideal results.

Figure 5.1.3, illustration of the vortex generator array of experiment no. 3

 5.2 Final and Second Phase of Simulations

Before proceeding to the second simulation, let us review the results from the initial simulation of the
3D propeller model. It can be noticed that there is a difference between the results of simulations with
mesh 3
and mesh 5. It was also explained on the previous sections the reasons why it is necessary to perform
simulations in different mesh levels. The final output of this second and final simulation will be
compared according to their corresponding mesh levels. Example, the thrust produced by the 3D
propeller model without vortex generators at 2700 rpm with mesh level 3 will be compared to the 3D
propeller model with vortex generator with the same angular velocity and mesh level. Similar
experimental setup is used in the second phase of simulations, please refer to table 4
5.2.1 Clark Y Propeller Model with Vortex Generators 5.2.2 Results of the simulation and
discussion 5.2.3 Mesh 3 visualization of flow on the propeller of Experiment 1
2700 RPM

2100 RPM
1500 RPM

5.2.4 Mesh 3 global goal results of the simulation of Experiment 1

2700 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 95724.61
Dynamic Pressure Pa 33954.08
Velocity m/s 227.872
Thrust N 12632.686

2100 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 97056.76
Dynamic Pressure Pa 21657.58
Velocity m/s 179.285
Thrust N 8230.410

1500 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa
Dynamic Pressure Pa
Velocity m/s 128.066
Thrust N 4470.262

5.2.5 Mesh 3 visualization of flow on the propeller of Experiment 2

2700 RPM

2100 RPM

1500 RPM
1200 RPM

5.2.6 Mesh 3 global goal results of the simulation of Experiment 2

2700 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 95485.33
Dynamic Pressure Pa 36086.41
Velocity m/s 226.341
Thrust N 12717.040

2100 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 95723.77
Dynamic Pressure Pa 21188.48
Velocity m/s 176.044
Thrust N 9716.648

1500 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 98732.98
Dynamic Pressure Pa 11474.81
Velocity m/s 125.747
Thrust N 4643.391
1200 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 99494.42
Dynamic Pressure Pa 7519.90
Velocity m/s 100.594
Thrust N 2955.146

5.2.7 Mesh 3 visualization of flow on the propeller of Experiment 3

2700 RPM

2100 RPM
1500 RPM

1200 RPM

5.2.8 Mesh 3 global goal results of the simulation of Experiment 3

2700 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 93762.83
Dynamic Pressure Pa 34971.97
Velocity m/s 226.376
Thrust N 13280.662

2100 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 95978.95
Dynamic Pressure Pa 21172.75
Velocity m/s 176.071
Thrust N 9535.994
1500 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
 Static Pressure Pa 98738.35
Dynamic Pressure Pa 11478.19
Velocity m/s 125.766
Thrust N 4626.333

1200 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 99620.74
Dynamic Pressure Pa 7513.81
Velocity m/s 100.610
Thrust N 99620.74

5.2.11 Mesh 5 visualization of flow on the propeller of Experiment 1

2700 RPM

2100 RPM
1500 RPM

1200 RPM

5.2.12 Mesh 5 global goal results of the simulation of Experiment 1

2700 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 96306.75
Dynamic Pressure Pa 34351.56
Velocity m/s 228.937
Thrust N 13342.537

2100 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 94578.29
Dynamic Pressure Pa 21421.86
Velocity m/s 178.063
Thrust N 10997.573
1500 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 98550.82
Dynamic Pressure Pa 11507.33
Velocity m/s 127.189
Thrust N 4523.682

1200 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 99462.89
Dynamic Pressure Pa 7558.53
Velocity m/s 101.748
Thrust N 3067.526

5.2.13 Mesh 5 visualization of flow on the propeller of Experiment 2

2700 RPM

2100 RPM
1500 RPM

1200 RPM

5.2.14 Mesh 5 global goal results of the simulation of Experiment 2

2700 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 96930.59
Dynamic Pressure Pa 35370.79
Velocity m/s 225.473
Thrust N 8088.868

2100 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 96017.25
Dynamic Pressure Pa 21432.81
Velocity m/s 175.369
Thrust N 10354.555

1500 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
 Static Pressure Pa 98653.18
Dynamic Pressure Pa 11321.21
Velocity m/s 125.265
Thrust N 4472.252

1200 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 99556.32
Dynamic Pressure Pa 7447.58
Velocity m/s 100.209
Thrust N 3090.729

5.2.15 Mesh 5 visualization of flow on the propeller of Experiment 3

2700 RPM

2100 RPM
1500 RPM

1200 RPM

5.2.16 Mesh 5 global goal results of the simulation of Experiment 3

2700 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 97634.52
Dynamic Pressure Pa 38275.86
Velocity m/s 225.494
Thrust N 12176.760

2100 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 96017.25
Dynamic Pressure Pa 21432.81
Velocity m/s 175.369
Thrust N 10354.555
1500 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 98653.18
Dynamic Pressure Pa 11321.21
Velocity m/s 125.265
Thrust N 4681.124

1200 RPM
Goal Name Unit Value
Static Pressure Pa 99528.62
Dynamic Pressure Pa 7444.27
Velocity m/s 100.218
Thrust N 3113.442

5.3 Analysis of the Results

Table 5.3.1 presentation of the results of the simulation from initial to experiment 1 to 3 of mesh 3
Mesh Level 3 Initial Simulation Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3
2700 RPM 14242.038 12632.686 12717.040 13280.662
2100 RPM 9446.298 8230.410 9716.648 9535.994
1500 RPM 3926.078 4470.262 4643.391 4626.333
1200 RPM 2526.384 2955.146 2999.458
Comparison of the results of Experiment nos. 1 to 3 with the initial simulation (without vg)
2700 RPM -12.74% -11.99% -7.24%
2100 RPM -14.77% 2.78% 0.94%
1500 RPM 12.17% 15.45% 17.84%
1200 RPM 14.51% 18.73%
In mesh level 3, Experiment number 3 produced the best results among the rest of the experiments. It
can also be observed in the table 5.3 that propellers with vortex generators does not benefit at higher
angular velocity but in lower velocities.
Table 5.3.2 presentation of the results of the simulation from initial to experiment 1 to 3 of mesh 5
Mesh Level 5 Initial Simulation Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3
2700 RPM 13342.637 15119.146 8088.868 12176.76
2100 RPM 10997.573 10768.832 10354.655 10553.741
1500 RPM 4523.682 4761.604 4643.391 4681.343
1200 RPM 3067.526 3045.526 4681.124 3113.442
Comparison of the results of Experiment nos. 1 to 3 with the initial simulation (without vg)
2700 RPM 11.75% -64.95% -9.57%
2100 RPM -2.12% -6.21% -4.21%
1500 RPM 5.00% 3.36% 3.49%
1200 RPM -0.72% 0.75% 1.50%
 In mesh level 5, the same results implied that vortex generators are beneficial at lower angular
velocities rather than the higher ones. This also proved that the 3 rd configuration of the installation of
vortex generators on propeller is the best configuration in this study. The results also showed that there
is a potential in the study of the vortex generators on aircraft propellers. Possible improvements and
factors to be considered in the future studies will be listed on the conclusion and recommendation of
this paper.
Table 5.3.3 presentation of the results of the simulation from initial to experiment 1 to 3 of mesh 3
Initial Propeller
Mesh Level 3 Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3
Efficiency
2700 RPM 76% 68% 68% 71%
2100 RPM 65% 57% 67% 66%
1500 RPM 31% 35% 37% 36%
1200 RPM 23% 27% 28%
Comparison of the results of Experiment nos. 1 to 3 with the initial simulation (without vg)
2700 RPM -8% -8% -5%
2100 RPM -8% +2% +1%
1500 RPM +4% +6% +5%
1200 RPM +4% +5%

In mesh level 3, experiment no.3 produced the best propeller proficiency. Proving for the third
time that the vortex generator configuration number 3 is the best option and needs more improvement
in future studies. Further explanation on why experiment 3 gives the ideal results in the conclusion.
Table 5.3.4 presentation of the results of the simulation from initial to experiment 1 to 3 of mesh 5
Initial Propeller
Mesh Level 5 Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3
Efficiency
2700 RPM 72% 81% 43% 65%
2100 RPM 76% 74% 71% 73%
1500 RPM 36% 37% 37% 37%
1200 RPM 28% 28% 43% 29%
Comparison of the results of Experiment nos. 1 to 3 with the initial simulation (without vg)
2700 RPM +9% -29% -7%
2100 RPM -2% -5% -3%
1500 RPM +1% +1% +1%
1200 RPM 0% +15% +1%

In mesh level 5, the experiment no. 1 produced the best results. It must be noted that improving the
Thrust of the propeller does not improve its efficiency, because it must be considered that the power
available must also compensate with the effects of thrust.
 6.0 Recommendations and Conclusions

After a designing three sets of vortex generator configurations, and performing series of flow
simulations on the 3D Clark Y propeller, the investigation produced an ideal result. With the proper
positioning, dimensioning and orientation, vortex generators could possibly benefit the performance of
fixed-pitch aircraft propellers. However, due to the advancement of technology other propeller designs
were already produced to compensate for the disadvantages of the fixed-pitch propellers. The best
vortex configuration that improved the Thrust of the propeller is experiment number 3 based from the
results. Vortex generator configuration number 3 has the following features, the number of vortex
generators installed is 24 which is 51 % less than the first configuration, it can be inferred that great
number of vortex generators will affect the thrust of the propeller. The location of the vortex generators
is placed at 10% of the longest local chord. The farther its location from the leading edge, the lesser it
is beneficial to the Thrust since boundary layers are known to be turbulent at the trailing edge. The
vortex generators must have a uniform spacing, independent spacing for every station only resulted to
greater loss of thrust in higher angular velocities. The orientation of the vortex generator is at 20 degrees
angle of attack. Experiment number 1 and 2 have an orientation of 0 degrees angle of attack,
disregarding the orientation of vortex generators will produce minimal improvement in the Thrust of
the propeller.
It is possible to improve this study by considering these factors on future studies. Number of
vortex generators, the maximum number of installed vortex generators in the experiment is 47, it is
noticeable in the results that when its numbers are reduced to almost 50% the thrust produced has
improved. Spacing of the vortex generators, spacing must be equally distributed along the vortex
generator array in order to produce ideal results. Orientation or angle of attack, angles zero and twenty
degrees are the only orientations considered in this study, investigating other orientations without
exceeding twenty degrees will possibly improve future results. Airfoil selection, there are other airfoils
that can be used in aircraft propellers, include an intensive search for airfoil configuration in the
methodology for future studies. It is also possible to increase the mesh level to 7 to produce more
accurate results. Lastly, the only design of vortex generator used in the study is a co-rotational and
rectangular. Other designs of vortex generators shall be considered on the future studies of this paper
to possibly improve the results.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

For the guidance, encouragement, and imparting your expertise and knowledge in the field of research
and as a professor, the researchers would like to thank Engr. Delicano, and the Aero/Amt Department
of FEATI University-Manila
References
Abbas, H. K. (2017). INVESTIGATION OF NEW SLAT CONFIGURATIONS ON CLARK Y-14 WING FOR
ENHANCING AERODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE. Al-Nahrain: University of Al-Nahrain.

Administration, N. A. (1986). Development and Testing of Vortex Generators for Small Horizontal Axis
Wind Tunnel.

Biermann, D., & Hartman, E. P. (1937). TEST OF FIVE FULL SCALE PROPELLERS IN THE PRESENCE OF
RADIAL AND A LIQUID-COOL ENGINE NACELLE, INCLUDING TESTS OF TWO SPINNERS.
Langley: Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory.

Biermann, D., & Hartman, E. P. (1938). THE AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SIX FULL-SCALE
PROPELLERS HAVING DIFFERENT AIRFOIL SECTION. Langley: Langley Memorial Aeronautical
Laboratory.

Bradley Jones, M. (1942). Propellers. In M. Bradley Jones, Elements of Practical Aerodynamics, 2nd
Edition (p. 389). Boston: F.H. Gilson Co. Boston.

D.S., S. R. (2017). Energization of Boundary Layer Over Wing Surface by Vortex Generator.

Duriez, T., Aider, J.-L., & Wesfreid, J. (2008). Non-linear modulation of a boundary layer induced by
vortex generators. Seattle, USA.

Griffin, D. A. (1996). Investigation of Vortex Generators for Augmentatio of Wind Turbine Power
Performance.

Griffn, D. A. (1996). Investigation of Vortex Generators for Augmentation of Wind Turbine Power
Performance. Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Gur, O., & Rosen, A. (2004). CALCULATING THE PERFORMANCE OF FIXED PITCH PROPELLERS AT LOW
ADVANCE RATIOS. Israel: 43rd Israel Annual Conference on Aerospace Sciences.

Hu, H., Li, X.-k., & Gu, B. (2016). Flow Characteristics Study of Wind Turbine Blade with Vortex
Generators. International Journal of Aerospace Engineering.

Li, B., Cao, H., & Deng, S. (2014). Vortex generator design and application on the flow control of
topmounted subsonic intake at high angle of attack. Journal of Vibroengineering, 808-817.

Lin, J. C. (2002). Review of research on low-profile vortex generators to control boundary-layer

separation. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Volume 38, Issues 4-5, pp 389-420.

Moldoveanu, C.-E., Somaiag, P., & Hemelaar, O. (2015). PARTICULARITIES OF THE INTERACTION
BETWEEN THE AIRCRAFT WAKE VORTICES AND THE ATMOSPHERIC BOUNDARY LAYER.
Strasbourg, France: Review of the Air force Academy.

Nedumaran, A. K. (2016). Integral boundary layer analysis of vortex. Delft University of Technology.

Ning, K. R. (2016). Aerodynamic Performance Characterization of Leading. 13.

Reay, J. E. (2017). Compact Heat Exchangers .

Reay, J. E. (2017). Compact Heat Exchangers (Second Edition).

Rotaru, C., Stefan, C., Raducanu, G., & Dinca, R. (2017). AIRPLANE PROPELLERS AERODYNAMIC
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCES ANALYSIS. Romania: Review of the Air force Academy.

Silverstein, A. (1934). Scale effect of Clark Y Airfoil Characteristics From N.A.C.A Full-Scale Wind-
Tunnel Tests. Langley: Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory.

Sohel, A. A., Talukder, A., & Hasan Mamun, D. (2014). Constant Pitch Propeller Design for Low
Subsonic Airplane. Bangladesh: Global Journals Inc. (USA).

Xue, S., Johnson, B. J., Chao, D. C., & Carste, A. S. (2010). Advanced Aerodynamic Modeling of Vortex
Generators for. Houston, Texas: Vestas Technology R&D Americas.