CJA 1438 No.

of Pages 14
20 November 2019
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2019), xxx(xx): xxx–xxx
1

Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

& Beihang University
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
cja@buaa.edu.cn
www.sciencedirect.com

3 Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of

4 propeller blades
5 Peixun YU a, Jiahui PENG a, Junqiang BAI a,b,*, Xiao HAN a, Xiang SONG a

a
6 School of Aerodynamics Northwestern, Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China
b
7 Unmanned System Research Institute, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China

8 Received 8 January 2019; revised 4 November 2019; accepted 4 November 2019

9

11 KEYWORDS Abstract It is of great significance to develop a high-efficiency and low-noise propeller

12
13 Aeroacoustic; optimization method for new-generation propeller aircraft design. Coupled with free form
14 Aerodynamic; deformation method, dynamic mesh interpolation technology, optimization algorithm, surrogate
15 Dynamic mesh interpolation model, aerodynamic calculation and aeroacoustic prediction model module, the integrated aerody-
16 technology; namic and aeroacoustic design method of propeller is built. The optimization design for the six-
17 Free form deformation blade propeller is carried out. The non-reduction in efficiency, thrust coefficient and the minimum
18 method; of aerodynamic noise is treated as the optimization design objective. The spatial vorticity distribu-
19 Optimization algorithm; tion of the propeller before and after the design is also analyzed by using unsteady computational
20 Propeller; fluid dynamics method. The results show that the optimized propeller can effectively reduce the
21 Sound pressure level;
aerodynamic noise level. The maximum total sound pressure level can be reduced by 5 dB without
22 Surrogate model
reducing its aerodynamic performance. The developed method has good application potential in
low-noise optimization design of propeller and other rotating machinery.
23 Ó 2019 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Chinese Society of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

24 1. Introduction propulsion is that the fuel energy can be converted into the 28
kinetic energy efficiency, that is, the fuel economy is higher. 29

25 There are the jet propulsion and propeller propulsion for the At the same time, for the propeller aircraft, the propeller slip- 30

26 propulsion methods of most of the current aircraft. Compared stream can also significantly increase the lift at the aircraft 31

27 with the jet propulsion, the main advantage of the propeller take-off and landing stage, thus improving the aircraft take- 32
off and landing performance. In addition, in the development 33
process of propeller aircraft, the serious aerodynamic noise 34
* Corresponding author at: School of Aerodynamics Northwestern, and vibration caused by the propeller have become a hot topic. 35
Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China. In response to the pollution problem of aircraft aerodynamic 36
E-mail address: junqiang@nwpu.edu.cn (J. BAI). noise, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)1, 37
Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)2 et al. have formu- 38
lated relevant noise airworthiness standards. In addition, 39
external noise sources near the propeller will be transmitted 40
Production and hosting by Elsevier to the cabin interior through structural components, thus 41

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.11.005
1000-9361 Ó 2019 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Please cite this article in press as: YU P et al. Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller blades, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cja.2019.11.005
 CJA 1438 No. of Pages 14
20 November 2019
2 P. YU et al.

42 affecting the comfort of passengers. Therefore, it is very acoustic signature are dominated by operating rpm and blade 101
43 important for the design of the propeller to reduce the aerody- radius. 102
44 namic noise while ensuring the excellent aerodynamic perfor- Antonio and Mattia15 has carried out a multidisciplinary 103
45 mance of the propeller. analysis and optimization for a propeller in a real pusher air- 104
46 Most of the traditional methods for propeller design are craft configuration with the goal of reducing the radiated noise 105
47 based on the well-known work of Betz from 19193. An exam- power levels, while preserving the aerodynamic efficiency. It is 106
48 ple of applying this method is presented in Ref.4. This shown that the tonal noise overwhelms the broadband noise, 107
49 approach is based on optimizing the propeller’s geometry, and the optimization affects the shape of the blade at the tip 108
50 under a certain specific operating condition, so that the power, and in the spanwise segment hit by the exhausts. An overall 109
51 which is required to obtain a certain propulsive force under sound pressure level reduction of 3.5 dB is achieved under 110
52 these operating conditions, is minimized. Betz’s method con- the take-off condition, while preserving the design propeller 111
53 siders only the aerodynamic efficiency of the propeller. It does thrust and resulting in a small penalty on the propeller effi- 112
54 not consider the propeller’s noise signature. Thus for designing ciency in cruise. Marius16 has performed multi-disciplinary 113
55 a ‘‘quiet propeller”, while using Betz’s method, a serial design and multi-objective optimization of transonic propeller blades 114
56 process is used. First the optimal aerodynamic propeller, hav- with differential evolution. The optimization process relies on 115
57 ing a maximum efficiency, is defined. Then this propeller is the combined use of an artificial neural network metamodel to 116
58 modified in order to reduce its acoustic signature. Such a pro- allow spreading of the process over large numbers of genera- 117
59 cess has been used extensively for designing quiet propeller5,6. tions as well as individuals, and of RANS simulations in order 118
60 The main problem of such an iterative process is that it does to safeguard the accuracy. The optimization parameters com- 119
61 not ensure that the final design will be optimal. prise the control points of b-spline parameterizations of the 120
62 With the rapid development of Computational Fluid radial distributions of sweep, twist, chord and thickness as well 121
63 Dynamics (CFD), Computational AeroAcoustic (CAA) and as the points controlling the shape of the two airfoils used to 122
64 shape optimization methods, good theoretical and technical manufacture the blade. In addition, there are many researchers 123
65 accumulation has been brought for the development of the in this field, such as Charles and Aaron17, Johann Kamran18, 124
66 aerodynamic shape design of the propeller. Many research and Chen and Zhao19. 125
67 institutions and researchers have carried out aerodynamic The optimization design methods mentioned above are still 126
68 noise prediction and low-noise propeller profile design. Mark7 slightly insufficient in the calculation of propeller aerodynamic 127
69 and Jason8 et al. have evaluated several acoustic methods to force and aerodynamic noise, the selection range of sample 128
70 use in modern propeller design. Each implemented method points and the analysis of propeller noise reduction mechanism 129
71 which can predict far-field harmonic noise is compared with after optimization. The specific work of this paper includes the 130
72 fourteen test cases originating from nine separate published following aspects: (A) based on Hanson et al.9,10,20 and Amiet 131
73 acoustic experiments. The experimental data considered encap- theory21, prediction method of propeller tonal and broadband 132
74 sulating a range of propeller geometries, blade numbers, noise are established; (B) the theory of each sub-module in the 133
75 microphone locations, tip speeds, and forward Mach speeds. optimization design framework is expounded, and a set of 134
76 The presented results suggest that the implemented acoustic aerodynamic shape optimization design method of propeller 135
77 methods, and the model based on Hanson’s work9,10 in partic- that can comprehensively consider aerodynamic and acoustic 136
78 ular, remain a valuable resource for propeller noise prediction, performance is built; (C) taking the six-blade propeller config- 137
79 especially for design and optimization studies. Marinus and uration as the research object, we expound how to optimize 138
80 Halimi11 has proposed a fast prediction model for tonal noise and analyze the aerodynamic shape design of the propeller 139
81 from helicopter rotors in hover. It is based on Farassat’s for- by considering aerodynamic performance and aeroacoustic 140
82 mulation 1A12 for tonal noise from rotors and accounts for level; (D) the causes of noise reduction of propeller after opti- 141
83 thickness and loading noise. The prediction model is suited mized design are preliminarily analyzed by unsteady 142
84 for subsonic tip speeds and so it is relevant for general aviation calculation. 143
85 aircraft, UAV’s in the micro- and mini-range equipped with
86 either propellers or single/multiple rotors. Huang and Ghorba- 2. Method and verification 144
87 niasl13 has developed a time-domain analytic formulation to
88 predict the radiated noises from supersonically rotating blades 2.1. Free form deformation method 145
89 in a subsonic moving medium with arbitrary direction. The
90 above method provides a fast and reliable scheme for aerody-
The basic idea of Free Form Deformation (FFD) method22 is 146
91 namic noise calculation for the optimal design of low-noise
used to characterize the change of the geometric space, rather 147
92 propeller. Bryce et al.14 have explored methods for reducing
than the geometric shape itself. There is no need to fit the ini- 148
93 aircraft propeller noise with minimal losses in performance.
tial shape in this method. The FFD method used in this paper 149
94 A standard two-blade propeller configuration was examined
defines the displacement solution mode by using the Bernstein 150
95 using numerical analysis. A number of blade design modifica-
polynomial as the basis function. The method has the advan- 151
96 tions that were investigated to reduce the noise signature
tages of ensuring the continuously differentiable change of 152
97 including increasing the number of blades, adjusting the chord
shape, and the topological relationship between grids. Firstly, 153
98 length, beta distribution, radius of the blade, airfoil shape, and
the control volume of FFD method is established around the 154
99 operating Revolution Per Minute (RPM). From the analysis,
deformed geometry, and then the local coordinates of each 155
100 the most significant improvements observed in lowering the
point in the FFD control volume are calculated, and the three 156

Please cite this article in press as: YU P et al. Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller blades, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cja.2019.11.005
 CJA 1438 No. of Pages 14
20 November 2019
Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller bladesPlease check the insertion of running head, and correct if

157 components of the local coordinate ða; b; vÞ are located where the sequence has p þ 1 repeat nodes to ensure that the 207
158 between zero and one. head and the tail of the spline curve pass through the control 208
159
point strictly. 209
l X
X m X
n
 i 
Xða; b; vÞ ¼ Bl ðaÞBjm ðbÞBkn ðvÞ  Pi;j;k ð1Þ
161 i¼0 j¼0 k¼0 2.2. Dynamic mesh interpolation method 210

162 By solving Eq. (1), the local coordinates of each point on

163 the geometric shape can be obtained. The local coordinates The efficiency and precision of dynamic mesh interpolation 211

164 only need to be calculated once for the given FFD control algorithm are very important for the optimization design of 212

165 point distribution, and do not need to be calculated repeatedly aerodynamic shape of aircrafts. The dynamic mesh interpola- 213

166 in the process of each geometric deformation. After the motion tion method based on Radial Basis Function (RBF) algo- 214

167 of the FFD control point, the point displacement DXof any rithm23 has the characteristics of simple execution, strong 215

168 local coordinate in the FFD control volume is determined by adaptability and high quality of mesh after deformation. We 216
169 will use this method to generate the computational grid in 217
l X
X m X
n
  the optimization process. In this paper, RBF algorithm is used 218
DXða; b; vÞ ¼ Bil ðaÞBjm ðbÞBkn ðvÞ  DPi;j;k ð2Þ
171 i¼0 j¼0 k¼0
to calculate the displacement of each block vertex. When the 219
large-scale geometric deformation is deformed, the topological 220
172 where Pi;j;k and DPi;j;k are the original coordinate and the dis- structure of multi-block remains unchanged and the reason- 221
173 placement of the ði; j; kÞth control point in the FFD control able spatial partition shape is produced. After calculating the 222
174 volume respectively. Bil ðaÞ is the ith lorder Bernstein primary displacement of each block vertex, the displacement of internal 223
175 function, which is defined as grids of each block can be calculated by the infinite interpola- 224
176
ðlÞ! tion method. The following will be introduced specifically. 225
Bil ðaÞ ¼ ai ð1  aÞli ð3Þ The RBF algorithm calculates the spatial grid deformation 226
178 ðiÞ!ðl  iÞ!
by constructing mapping relationships from the displacement 227
179 The position X0 ða; b; vÞ of each point on the geometric of the space grids to the boundary grids. The construction pro- 228
180 shape after deformation is cess of the interpolation matrix between the space grids and 229
181
0 the boundary grids is as follows: 230
X ða; b; vÞ ¼ Xða; b; vÞ þ DXða; b; vÞ
2 3 231
P l Pm Pn   ð4Þ /S1 S2    /S1 SN
¼ Bil ðaÞBjm ðbÞBkn ðvÞ  Pi;j;k 6 . .. .. 7
183 i¼0 j¼0 k¼0 CSS ¼ 64 .. . . 5
7 ð8Þ
184 In the aerodynamic shape design, it is often necessary to /SN S1    /SN SN 233
185 limit the shape change to carry out the local refinement design.
  234
186 In order to enhance the local characteristics of the FFD /Si Sj ¼ / k XSi  XSj k ð9Þ 236
187 method, the shape change caused by the movement of control
point is limited to a small range, which decays rapidly away 2 3 237
188 /V1 S1 /V1 S2  /V1 SN
189 from a certain area, and does not affect the areas other than 6 . .. .. .. 7
6
AfS ¼ 4 .. 7 ð10Þ
190 the region. Further, the primary functions of the FFD method . . . 5
191 are replaced by Bernstein polynomial into B-spline primary /VM S1 /VM S2  /VM SN 239
192 function. B-spline primary functions are in the following form:
193
 where the subscript S represents the wall boundary grids and V 240
1 if hi  a  hiþ1
Ni;0 ðaÞ ¼ represents the spacial grids. The interpolation relationship 241
0 otherwise ð5Þ between the spatial grids and the wall boundary grids is as 242
hiþpþ1 a
195 Ni;p ðaÞ ¼ hiþp hi Ni;p1 þ hiþpþ1
ahi
hiþ1
N iþ1;p1 follows: 243
244

196 where hi is the point sequence. B-spline curve, surface and XV ¼ AfS C1
SS XS ¼ HXS ð11Þ 246

197 body equations are as follows: After calculating the displacement of each block vertex, the 247
198
P a 1 displacement of internal grids of each block will be calculated 248
XC ðaÞ ¼ N i¼0 Ni;pa ðaÞPi
by the infinite interpolation method. 249
PNa 1 PNb 1
XS ða; bÞ ¼ i¼0 j¼0 Ni;pa ðaÞNi;pb ðbÞPi;j
2.3. Aerodynamic solvers 250
PNa 1 PNb 1 PNv 1
XV ða; b; vÞ ¼ i¼0 j¼0 k¼0 Ni;pa ðaÞNi;pb ðbÞNi;pv ðvÞPi;j;k
200 ð6Þ For the aerodynamic calculation of propeller, we solved it by 251
Multiple Reference Frame (MRF) method in CFX software. 252
201 where Ni;pa ; Nj;pb ; Nk;pv are the primary functions of the three The MRF method is a steady method, but it can simulate 253
202 axis directions respectively. H is a strict non-reduction the rotating effect of the propeller to some extent, so it is called 254
203 sequence, the form of which is as follows: quasi-unsteady method. The method has high numerical simu- 255
204 8 9 lation precision and saves computational resources, and it is 256
< =
H ¼ 0; 0;    ; 0; 0; hpþ1 ; . . . ; hN ; 1; 1; . . . ; 1; 1 widely used in the aerodynamic calculation of the fixed shaft 257
:|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}; ð7Þ rotating body. The main idea of the multiple reference coordi- 258
pþ1 pþ1
nate system is to simulate the rotational movement of the pro- 259
206 hi  hiþ1

Please cite this article in press as: YU P et al. Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller blades, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cja.2019.11.005
 CJA 1438 No. of Pages 14
20 November 2019
4 P. YU et al.

260 peller by establishing a regular closed flow area around the

261 propeller. The rotating coordinate system with the same rotary
262 motion mode as the propeller is established, and through the
263 corresponding mathematical transformation, and the data
264 interpolation transfer between the rotating region and the sta-
265 tionary region, the numerical simulation of the rotating flow
266 Navier-Stokes equation in the rotating region and the station-
267 ary region under static grid is realized.
268 In order to illustrate that MRF method can evaluate the
269 variation trend of propeller aerodynamic performance, an
270 open propeller model is selected. The model was tested in a
271 low-speed wind tunnel at Wichita State University in the Uni-
272 ted States24. In order to satisfy the use environment of
273 unmanned aerial vehicles, the experimental Reynolds number
274 was selected as 90,000 to 120000. The propeller speed is
275 6000 r/min, the blade diameter is 0.3 m, the Reynolds number
276 per chord length is about 5000000, and the advance ratio k is
277 0.2–0.8.
278 Fig. 1 is a computational grid of the propeller model with a
279 grid size of 4.3 million. Fig. 2 is a comparative analysis of the
280 calculation results of propeller thrust coefficient CT and effi-
281 ciency g with the experimental results. Both MRF method
282 and unsteady method in the figure are solved by CFX soft-
283 ware, and two-equation k-omiga SST turbulence model is used
284 to close the governing equations. CFX uses an element-based
285 finite volume method, which involves discretizing the spatial
286 domain using a mesh. The space-time discrete schemes of the
287 entire computational domain are second order. It can be seen
288 that the MRF method is a good calculation strategy for engi-
289 neering problems, because the calculated results of the tension
290 coefficient and efficiency of a single propeller are in good
291 agreement with the experimental results24.

292 2.4. Aeroacoustic solvers Fig. 2 Comparison of calculation results with experimental
results24.
293 The aeroacoustic solvers used in this work consists of two dis-
294 tinct tools: the first one providing the tonal noise part of the For Goldstein equation, the density disturbance at a certain 302
295 propeller from the Hanson’s theory, and the second one com- observation point x ¼ ðx; y; zÞ can be expressed as the sum of 303
296 puting the broadband noise due to turbulence in proximity of three integral expressions 304
the trailing edge and the leading edge. 305
297 RT R
c20 q0 ðx; tÞ ¼  T AðsÞ q0 VN DG
Ds
dAðyÞds
298 2.4.1. Tonal noise RT R
þ T AðsÞ fi @y dAðyÞds
DG
ð12Þ
299 The basis of the following derivation is the same as the theory RT R 0 @2 G
300 developed by Hanson for far-field noise of propellers with þ T VðsÞ Tij @yi @yj dyds 307
301 angular inflow. 0
where q ðx; tÞ is acoustic density disturbance, AðyÞ is integral 308
surface, s is source emission time, yðy1 ; y2 ; y3 Þ is sound source 309
coordinates, G is Green’s function, q0 is time average den- 310
sity,VN is the velocity of the surface relative to the fluid, fi is 311
the vector components of force per unit area on the surface 312
and T0ij is lighthill’s stress tensor. 313
Among the three integral terms at the right end of the 314
above equation, the integral interval of the outer layer integral 315
is T < s < T, and its value ranges should be large enough to 316
ensure the sound signal contributing to the reception time t. 317
The right terms in Eq. (12) are thickness noise, loading noise 318
and turbulence noise, respectively. For the terms of thickness 319
noise and loading noise, the second layer integral AðsÞ in Eq. 320
(12) represents the movable integral surface, which is often 321
taken as the surface of the object. For the turbulence noise 322
term, the second layer integral VðsÞ in the formula represents 323
Fig. 1 Propeller model and surface mesh.

Please cite this article in press as: YU P et al. Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller blades, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cja.2019.11.005
 CJA 1438 No. of Pages 14
20 November 2019
Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller bladesPlease check the insertion of running head, and correct if

324 the sound source volume in space, and all non-linear effects are
325 taken into account in the integration. In this section, the turbu-
326 lence noise term is ignored.
327 According to Ref.20, each blade has the same load and gen-
328 erates the same noise signal except for the time delay caused by
329 different blade positions for oblique incoming flow. For B pro-
330 peller blades, only the tonal noise of blade passing frequency
331 exists, and the noise generated by a single blade can be directly
332 multiplied by B to obtain the total thickness noise and load
333 noise. After such processing, the integration of thickness noise
334 and loading noise becomes
335 R
pTmB ðxÞ ¼ q0 B A eimB/s
R 2p h  i
 2p
1
0
VN c0 Ma @G mB
@x0
 imBXGmB ð13Þ
337 eimB/0 d/0 dAðyÞ Fig. 3 Measured and predicted axial directivity at 7.3° angle of
attack (0.15 Mach number, advance ratio k ¼ 0:717, blade twist
R R 2p=X 
338

pLmB ðxÞ ¼ BX f ðXsÞ @GmB angle at 75% radius b ¼ 23:7 ).

2p A 0 k @yk
/0 ¼/s þXs ð14Þ
340 eimBXs dsdAðyÞ
341 where B is number of blades, m is harmonic number, Ma is
342 Mach number in incoming direction, ðrs ; /s ; xs Þ is cylindrical
343 coordinate system for source location, i is imaginary number
344 ,GmB is Green’s function, c0 is ambient speed of sound , X is
345 characteristic time and /0 equals /s þ Xs.
346 If the characteristic length rl , the characteristic area r2l and
347 the characteristic pressure q0 c20 =c are used in Eqs. (13) and
348 (14), the dimensionless forms can be written as
349
PB R
pTmB ðxÞ ¼ c A eimB/s 2p
1


n¼1
ð15Þ
R 2p
351  0 MN Ma @G m
@x0
 ikm Gm eimB/0 d/0 dA
352
B R
P R 2p
pLmB ðxÞ ¼ A
eimB/s 2p
1
0
fk ð/0  /s Þ
n¼1 ð16Þ
354  @G
@y
m imB/0
e d/0 dA
i

355 where MN equals VN =c0 , c is the ratio of specific heats ,

356 km ¼ mBXrl =c0 , Gm is Green’s function and the specific expres-
357 sion of Gm can be found in Ref.20.
358 The verification of tonal noise of propeller was obtained
359 from a joint test by the DFVLR and FAA in the open-jet
360 German-Dutch wind tunnel described by Dobrzynski et al.25
361 The propeller had 2 blades with a diameter of 2.03 m. The
362 microphones were in the tunnel flow at staggered sideline dis-
363 tances to prevent them from interfering with each other aero-
364 dynamically. The comparison of experiment and theory can be
365 seen in better detail in Fig. 3 which shows directivity patterns Fig. 4 Verification of trailing-edge noise model.
366 for five harmonics at 7.3° inflow angle. In the figure, M1-M7
367 are different monitoring points, BPF is the blade passage fre-
the mean flow is parallel to the yOz plane, the noise power 377
368 quency. The abscissa ‘‘Angle” in the figure indicates the
spectral density reads 378
369 included angle between the propeller axis and the ray, which
  379
370 is the line connecting the monitoring point and the center of
STE
pp ð x; y; z; x Þ ¼ kz
2pr 2 2cU pp
x
Uc
; 0
371 the propeller disk. The ordinate ‘‘SPL” is the sound pressure    

ð17Þ
372 level of pure tone. It can be seen that the calculated and mea- sin2 Lc  k y=r
TE k

    2
I Uc
;0

373 sured trends agree over the range of observer positions.  k y=r 381

374 2.4.2. Broadband noise where Upp is the wall pressure wavenumber-frequency spec- 382
375 2.4.2.1. Trailing-edge noise. Consider a blade section of span trum, Uc is the boundary layer eddy convection velocity, 383

376 length L and chord length c, as sketched in Fig. 4(a). When k ¼ xc=ð2c0 Þ is non-dimension acoustic wavenumber, r is 384

Please cite this article in press as: YU P et al. Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller blades, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cja.2019.11.005
 CJA 1438 No. of Pages 14
20 November 2019
6 P. YU et al.

385 the Prandtl-Glauert transformed distance from the trailing to 1.613. The monitoring point locates 1.2 m from the trailing 408
386 edge, x is frequency. The radiation integral function ITE con- edge of the airfoil, as shown in Fig. 4(a). Fig. 4(b) is the spec- 409

387 sists of ITE TE TE

1 and I2 . Among them, I1 is derived from the
trum curve of sound pressure level. It can be seen from the fig- 410

388 assumption of a semi-infinite flat plate, and ITE accounts for ure that the sound pressure level accuracy of the noise 411
2
389 the wave back reflection at the leading edge. prediction model is 3–4 dB. 412
390
h qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi i
ITE ie2iC
1 ¼ C ð1 þ iÞe
2iC D
DC
E ð2D  2CÞ  ð1 þ iÞE ð2DÞ þ 1 2.4.2.2. Leading-edge noise. Consider the airfoil sketched in 413
n   o Fig. 5(a), with the reference system centered at the leading 414
2 ¼H e
ITE 4i j
1  ð1 þ iÞE 4 j edge. Due to impinging turbulent fluctuations, the far-field 415
h 
   i noise spectral density can be written as 416
þH e2iH þ i H þ kx þ Mal k G 417
  2 
pp ðx; y; z; xÞ ¼ Uc Upp Uxc ; 0
q0 k z
392 ð18Þ SLE r2
     pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi   

2 ð19Þ

whereH ¼ l  l x=r, l ¼ xc= 2c0 b , b ¼ 1  Ma2 , kx is
2 sin2 L k y=r

393  2 2
ILE x; Uxc ; 0

394 the wave number in the x direction, . The meaning of variables k y=r 419
395 D,C,G,H and function E can be seen in Ref.26.
where ILE is the radiation integral function, which consists of a 420
396 NACA0012 airfoil is taken as the research object in this sec-
397 tion. Compared with the research results of Tian et al.26, the main leading-edge contribution ILE 1 derived from the assump- 421

398 reliability of Amiet’s trailing-edge noise prediction model is tion of a semi-infinite flat plate, and the trailing-edge back 422

399 verified and analyzed. The reference chord length of scattering contributionILE 2 . These are given by 423

400 NACA0012 airfoil is 0.6096 m and span length is 0.46 m, as rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  424

1 ¼ p
ILE 1   2  ei H Eð2H Þ
401 shown in Fig. 4(a). The calculated flow velocity is 69.5 m/s 2
kx þb j H 

402 and 38.6 m/s, respectively. According to Ref.26, the thickness 

ei H
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
403 d ¼ 4  10 - 3 m of the boundary layer at the trailing edge 2 ¼ 
ILE  
ffi ð20Þ
pH 2p kx þb2 j
404 of the airfoil has been measured by experiment, and the eddy
  qffiffiffiffiffi 
405 convection velocity Uc of the boundary layer is taken as 2iH
  2iH þ
406 0:6U0 . In addition, for the flow velocity U0 ¼ 69:5m=s, b is  i ð1  e Þ  ð1 þ i Þ E 4 j  e 2j
Hþ
Eð2H Þ
426
407 equal to 1.724. For the flow velocity U0 ¼ 38:6 m=s, b is equal
 
where kx ¼ kx c=2. The meaning of variablesj,b,H and func- 427
tion E can be seen in Ref.26. 428
In order to verify the reliability of the above-mentioned 429
leading-edge broadband noise prediction model, NACA0012 430
airfoil was selected as the research object and compared with 431
wind tunnel test data. The geometry of the NACA0012 airfoil 432
is shown in Fig. 5(a). The reference chord length and span 433
length is 0.23 m and 0.53 m, respectively. The angle of attack 434
is zero, the incoming velocity ranges from 40 m/s to 165 m/s, 435
and the monitoring point is located 2.25 m above the leading 436
edge of the airfoil. Five groups of spectral curve measurements 437
at different incoming velocity (40 m/s, 60 m/s, 90 m/s, 120 m/s, 438
165 m/s) were carried out. Fig. 5(b) shows the comparison and 439
analysis between the calculation results and the experiment 440
results. It can be seen from the figure that the difference 441
between the experiment results26 and the numerical simulation 442
results is not more than 2 dB at low frequencies (less than 443
500 Hz), and the difference is larger at high frequencies (more 444
than 500 Hz). 445

2.4.2.3. Extended to propeller blade. In order to extend the air- 446

foil broadband noise models to a propeller blade, a strip the- 447
ory is applied. The blade is segmented in a number of 448
spanwise elements, as shown in Fig. 6. For each of these ele- 449
ments, the corresponding 2D mean-flow, turbulent quantities 450
and radiation angles are extracted from the CFD solution file. 451
In addition, a frequency-shift correction is applied to each sec- 452
tion in order to account for the Doppler effects 453
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 454

xe ðwÞ=x ¼ 1 þ Mat sinhsinw= 1  Ma2z sin2 h ð21Þ 456

Fig. 5 Verification of leading-edge noise model (the calculation where xe ðwÞ is correction frequency, ðh; w; RÞ is cartesian coor- 457
results are represented by solid lines and the experiment results are dinate system for observer location. Maz and Mat are the axial 458
represented by symbols). and tip Mach numbers of the blade section, respectively. 459

Please cite this article in press as: YU P et al. Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller blades, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cja.2019.11.005
 CJA 1438 No. of Pages 14
20 November 2019
Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller bladesPlease check the insertion of running head, and correct if

3. Results and discussion 489

3.1. Operating conditions, objectives and constraints 490

In this section, the six-blade propeller is used as the research 491

object. Its geometric shape is shown in Fig. 8. The symbol h 492
in the figure is the angle between any ray passing through 493
the O point on the yOz plane and the y axis. In The inflow 494
Mach number is 0.2295, the propeller revolutions per minute 495
is 1020, the diameter of the propeller is 4 m, the incoming angle 496
of attack is 8° and the calculated altitude is 350 m. The compu- 497
tational grid of the propeller is a multi-block structural grid 498
with a total of 13 million grid elements. The boundary layer 499
of the object surface is simulated by using O-grid. The normal 500
growth rate of the grid near the wall surface is 1.2, and the nor- 501
mal dimension of the first layer of grid near the wall surface is 502
105 times the characteristic dimension. SST two-equation tur- 503
bulence model is applied to CFD calculation. 504
In the optimization process, four airfoil control profiles 505
were applied. In each airfoil control profile, eight control 506
points, four torsional control points and eight chord length 507
control parameters are uniformly distributed along the chord 508
direction, as shown in Fig. 9. Through the translation, rotation 509
and traction of the control points in FFD control frame, the 510
blade shape twist, variable chord length and airfoil deforma- 511
tion can be realized, as shown in Fig. 10. 512
In the process of optimization design, after the shape dis- 513

Fig. 6 Coordinate systems and notation. turbance of propeller blades is realized by FFD parameteriza- 514
tion, the automatic deformation of the mesh needs to be 515
realized by dynamic mesh interpolation method. Fig. 11 is a 516
460 Finally, the overall propeller noise spectral density function schematic diagram of changes in the propeller blade grid topol- 517
461 is calculated by averaging over all the angular positions of the ogy and surface mesh during the optimization design process. 518
462 B propeller blades and assuming fully uncorrelated strip It can be seen from the figure that the hub grid has not chan- 519
463 sources, i.e., ged except the grid on the blade surface, ensuring the consis- 520
464
Z 2p tency of the grid in the non-changing area. 521
B xe ðwÞ W
Spp ðx; xÞ ¼ Spp ðx; xe Þdw ð22Þ In order to obtain low-noise propeller blade, the design 522
466 2p 0 x
goal is to reduce the aerodynamic noise of the propeller blade 523
467 After the far-field noise spectral density function is without reducing aerodynamic efficiency and thrust coefficient. 524
468 obtained, it is converted into a sound pressure level spectral The geometric constraints of the propeller blade during the 525
469 function by the following formula: whole optimization design process are as follows. The span- 526
470
  wise length of the blade remains unchanged. Compared with 527
4Spp ðx; xÞ
SPLðx; xÞ ¼ 10lg ð23Þ the reference configuration, the blade thickness variation in 528
472 4:1010 the optimization design process is within 15%. In addition, 529
the thickness of the blade trailing edge does not change. The 530
473 2.5. Optimization framework final optimization design model is as follows: 531
  532
P
474 Based on the above research, an integrated optimization min SPLi =n
n
475 design framework of propeller aerodynamics and noise is 8
>
> gopt gorg
476 established, as shown in Fig. 7. First, the FFD method is used >
>
>
> C T opt CT org ð24Þ
477 to set up a control frame for the design object and parameter- <
478 ize the geometric shape through each control point in the con- s:t: Thmaxi opt 0:85Thmaxi org
>
>
479 trol frame. Then, the Latin Hypercube Sampling method is > ðSPLmax Þ  ðSPLmax Þ
>
>
> opt org
480 used to acquire the samples, and the grids of samples are gen- :
SPLmax ¼ maxðSPL1 ;    SPLn Þ 534
481 erated by the dynamic mesh interpolation method. Next, the
482 flow field and sound field are solved by Sections 2.3 and 2.4 with CT ¼ q T
2 4 , where T is the thrust, ns is the propeller rev- 535
1 ns D
483 to establish a Kriging surrogate mode27, which replaces CFD olutions per second, and D is the diameter of the propeller. In 536
484 and CAA method to predict aerodynamic and aeroacoustic Eq. (24), Thmaxi is the maximum thickness of the ith airfoil pro- 537
485 data in the optimization process. Finally, an improved particle file, CT is the thrust coefficient of the propeller blade, SPLmax is 538
486 swarm optimization algorithm27 based on second-order oscil- the maximum sound pressure level at the monitoring point, the 539
487 lation and natural selection is used to optimize the design subscript ‘‘org” represents the original propeller blade, and the 540
488 variables. subscript ‘‘opt” represents the propeller blade in the optimiza- 541

Please cite this article in press as: YU P et al. Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller blades, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cja.2019.11.005
 CJA 1438 No. of Pages 14
20 November 2019
8 P. YU et al.

Fig. 7 Integrated optimization design framework of aerodynamics and aeroacoustics.

tion design process. In order to comprehensively evaluate the 542

noise level of the propeller during the optimization design pro- 543
cess, eleven monitoring points are evenly distributed at 9 m 544
from the propeller, as shown in Fig. 12. 545
The improved particle swarm optimization algorithm is 546
used to optimize the design objective under constraints. As 547
shown in Fig. 13, there are a total of six hundred sample points 548
in the whole design spaces. It can be seen from the sample 549
space that there is a certain opposition between efficiency 550
and thrust. The expression in Fig. 13 is calculated by 551
  552
SPLRMS ¼ 10lg 100:1SPL1 þ 100:1SPL2 þ    þ 100:1SPL11
SPL max ¼ maxðSPL1 ; SPL2 ;    SPL11 Þ
ð25Þ 554

where SPLi ði ¼ 1; 2;    ; 11Þ is obtained by energy superposi- 555

tion of the sound pressure levels in each frequency band. 556

3.2. Optimization results 557

Fig. 14 shows the geometric shape comparison before and after 558
the optimization design, named ORG and NM-AM, respec- 559
tively. It can be seen that the blade profile of them has changed 560
from the root to the tip of the blade. In order to compare and 561
analyze the geometric shapes before and after the optimization 562
design in detail, their respective chord length, twist angle, 563
absolute thickness and relative thickness distributions are 564
given in Fig. 15. Individuals ORG and NM-AM both have 565
extremely high sweep. However, individual NM-AM has high 566
sweep combined with one distinct chord-width humps as 567
clearly visible on chord length distribution. Noticeably, com- 568
Fig. 8 Propeller geometry and calculation grid.

Please cite this article in press as: YU P et al. Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller blades, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cja.2019.11.005
 CJA 1438 No. of Pages 14
20 November 2019
Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller bladesPlease check the insertion of running head, and correct if

Fig. 9 Comparison of FFD control box and geometric model in optimization design.

Fig. 10 Parameterization capability of FFD method.

Fig. 11 Surface mesh deformation in optimization design process.

pared with individual ORG, NM-AM has thinner airfoils and 569
higher twist distribution. Analysis of the 400 individuals pro- 570
cessed through RANS-simulations reveals that this is not an 571
artifact of the parameterization but the true consequence of 572
the evolutionary process. 573
The corresponding pressure coefficient Cp distributions for 574
ORG and NM-AM configurations are shown in Fig. 16. h is 575
defined as shown in Fig. 8(a). It should be noted that Fig. 17 576
shows the pressure coefficient distribution of a single blade 577
(second blade in Fig. 16), and the pressure coefficient distribu- 578
tion of other blades have similar features. Individuals ORG 579
Fig. 12 Location distribution of monitoring points. and NM-AM have similar features except peak suction of air- 580

Please cite this article in press as: YU P et al. Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller blades, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cja.2019.11.005
 CJA 1438 No. of Pages 14
20 November 2019
10 P. YU et al.

from the first region to the thirteenth region compared with 607
the ORG configuration, while the thrust in other regions are 608
the opposite. These results correspond to the pressure coeffi- 609
cient distribution in Fig. 16. 610
Fig. 20 is a comparison curves of the overall sound pressure 611
level at each monitoring point between the NM-AM configura- 612
tion and the ORG configuration. It can be seen from the figure 613
that: (A) Compared with ORG configuration, the overall 614
sound pressure level at each monitoring point is smaller in 615
NM-AM configuration. (B) From the view of the whole direc- 616
tivity distribution, the overall sound pressure level of the mon- 617
itoring point at 90° is the largest, mainly because the 618
monitoring point is closer to the whole blade. (C) With 90° 619
monitoring point as the center, the overall sound pressure level 620
at the monitoring point greater than 90° is larger than that at 621

Fig. 13 Sample point design space. the monitoring point less than 90°. The main reason is that the 622
relative speeds of the front and rear sides of the blade change, 623
which leads to the delay and acceleration of the sound propa- 624
581 foil leading edge at 20% radius. The pressure coefficient distri- gation distance. 625
582 bution at 40% and 60% radius are similar to that at 20% According to Figs. 15 and 19, the main difference between 626
583 radius. At 20%, 40% and 60% radius, the thrust of individual ORG and NM-AM configurations is the chord length distribu- 627
584 ORG is bigger than individual NM-AM. However, the varia- tion and the loading distribution per chord length. Individual 628
585 tion trend of pressure coefficient of airfoils at other radii is NM-AM has a less loaded tip region whilst the load is trans- 629
586 opposite. The pressure coefficient variation trend of each pro- ferred to the 80% span where sound is less effectively radiated. 630
587 file airfoil is closely related to many factors such as blade plane When compared to the ORG individual, the use of thinner air- 631
588 geometry, incoming flow angle of attack, airfoil itself, etc. foils also plays an important role in noise reduction. As the 632
589 These results explain the spanwise distribution of thrust pre- major difference between individual ORG and NM-AM is 633
590 sented in Fig. 18. In Fig. 19, the elemental thrust coefficient the chord distribution, the ’humpy’ shape of individual NM- 634
591 is obtained by computing the pressure and viscous forces act- AM explains at least partly their surprising performance. 635
592 ing on a spanwise element. The components of these forces However, according to Hanson’s conclusion, shape variations 636
593 along the rotation axis give the local thrust force Tel. The ele- have less noise influence at low Mach numbers. Individual 637
594 mental thrust coefficient CTel is then defined as NM-AM emits more noise because it is more heavily loaded 638
595
near the tip. Thus, the spanwise loaded distribution is more 639
absðTel ðrÞÞ
CTel ðrÞ ¼ ð26Þ uniform (see Fig. 18). 640
597 0:5q1 t2rel ðrÞbðrÞ In order to analyze why the optimized configuration can 641
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
achieve the noise reduction effect, we analyzed the vorticity 642
598 with trel ¼ t21 þ ð2pns rÞ2 where r is the spanwise station, bðrÞ
distribution by using the unsteady solution method in CFX 643
599 is the chord length at current spanwise station, and t1 is the software. 644
600 incoming flow speed. Fig. 21 is a periodic vorticity distribution of the ORG con- 645
601 In order to facilitate the comparison of thrust distribution, figuration after the unsteady calculation have converged. In 646
602 we have distributed nineteen regions along the spanwise direc- the figure, Tis one cycle time. It can be seen that the vorticity 647
603 tion of the blade, as shown in Fig. 18(a). Fig. 18(b) shows the distribution is mainly divided into two parts. Some of them are 648
604 thrust distribution in the spanwise direction. Here, the element shedding vortex that fall off from the trailing edge of the blade 649
605 thrust is the superposition of six blades. From Fig. 18(b), it can in the process of rotation. The shedding vortex will collide with 650
606 be seen that the NM-AM configuration has a smaller thrust the next blade, which is the main source of blade turbulence 651

Fig. 14 Comparison of propeller geometry.

Please cite this article in press as: YU P et al. Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller blades, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cja.2019.11.005
 CJA 1438 No. of Pages 14
20 November 2019
Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller bladesPlease check the insertion of running head, and correct if

Fig. 15 Geometric distributions of airfoils at different profiles.

Fig. 16 Pressure coefficients of different blades at 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 95% radius °.

652 noise. The other part is the vortex shedding from the tip side averaged conditions. It can be seen from the figure that the 656
653 edge of the blade. main difference between the two configurations is in the outer 657
654 Fig. 22 is a comparison of vorticity distribution between section of the blade, where the vorticity magnitude of the NM- 658
655 ORG configuration and NM-AM configuration under time- AM configuration is smaller than that of the ORG configura- 659

Please cite this article in press as: YU P et al. Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller blades, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cja.2019.11.005
 CJA 1438 No. of Pages 14
20 November 2019
12 P. YU et al.

Fig. 17 Pressure coefficients at 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 95% radius.

Fig. 19 Spanwise elemental thrust coefficient distributions.

Fig. 20 Comparison of overall sound pressure level before and

after optimal design.

Table 1 shows the propeller thrust coefficient CT , efficiency 663

Fig. 18 Distribution of element thrust of propeller blades.
g, average overall sound pressure level SPLRMS and maximum 664
overall sound pressure level SPL max before and after the opti- 665
mization design. Compared with the ORG configuration, the 666
660 tion. And it can be preliminarily judged that the turbulence NM-AM configuration has no reduction in efficiency and 667
661 noise of the NM-AM configuration is smaller than that of thrust coefficient, and a 5.1 dB reduction in average overall 668
662 the ORG configuration. sound pressure level. 669

Please cite this article in press as: YU P et al. Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller blades, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cja.2019.11.005
 CJA 1438 No. of Pages 14
20 November 2019
Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller bladesPlease check the insertion of running head, and correct if

Fig. 21 Vorticity distribution of ORG configuration in a periodic time.

Fig. 22 Comparison of vorticity distribution between ORG configuration and NM-AM configuration.

Table 1 Comparison of optimal design results.

Case CT g SPLRMS (dB) SPL max (dB)
ORG 0.088639 0.785199963 83.30805492 80.08426
NM-AM 0.09074 0.785269047 78.23229564 75.13095

670 4. Conclusions for the optimization are the coordinates of the control points 677
that govern the shape of either the radial distributions or the 678

671 An optimization procedure including aerodynamics coupled airfoil, by free form deformation method. Taking the six- 679

672 with aeroacoustics has been performed. The procedure relies blade propeller as the research object, the propeller configura- 680

673 on a scope of design variables that covers the radial distribu- tion with no loss of aerodynamic performance and reduction 681

674 tions of standard blade-shape determining quantities (sweep, of overall sound pressure level was obtained through optimiza- 682

675 chord, twist and thickness) as well as the shape of the airfoils tion design process, and the maximum overall sound pressure 683

676 used to manufacture the blade. The parameters effectively used level at the monitoring point was reduced by 5 dB. 684

Please cite this article in press as: YU P et al. Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller blades, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cja.2019.11.005
 CJA 1438 No. of Pages 14
20 November 2019
14 P. YU et al.

685 From an aerodynamic point of view, the local attack angle [12]. Farassat F, Mark HD. Open rotor noise prediction methods at 731
686 of the airfoil in the inner region of the blade is reduced after NASA Langley–A technology review. Reston: AIAA; 2009. 732

687 optimization design. In order to compensate for the loss of Report No.: AIAA-2009-3133. 733

688 thrust coefficient, the local attack angle of the airfoil in the [13]. Huang ZJ, Ghorbaniasl G. A time-domain convected high-speed 734
impulsive noise simulation for propeller at incidence. Reston: 735
689 outer region of the blade becomes larger, and the chord length
AIAA; 2016. Report No.: AIAA-2016-2874. 736
690 of the airfoil in some regions becomes longer. [14]. Bryce JH, Richard JG, Jamey DJ. Optimal propeller design for 737
691 From the aeroacoustic point of view, the noise reduction is quiet aircraft using numerical analysis. Reston: AIAA; 2015. 738
692 the consequence of the chord distribution combined with the Report No.: AIAA-2015-2360. 739
693 shift of loading. In addition, the decrease of the strength of [15]. Antonio P, Mattia B. Tonal and broadband noise calculations 740
694 shedding vortex at the trailing edge of the blade and the impact for aeroacoustic optimization of propeller blades in a pusher 741
695 strength with the next blade suppress turbulence noise. configuration. Reston: AIAA; 2009. Report No.: AIAA-2009- 742
696 At present, low-noise optimization design of propeller is 3138. 743

697 based on global optimization algorithm. When there are many [16]. Marius BG. Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of 744

698 design variables, the calculation efficiency is low. Next, we will aircraft propeller blades. Reston: AIAA; 2010. Report No.: 745
AIAA-2010-3850. 746
699 carry out aerodynamic and aeroacoustic integrated design
[17]. Charles FW, Aaron RB. The influence of airfoil shape, tip 747
700 research based on adjoint equation solution. geometry, Reynolds number and chord length on small propeller 748
performance and noise. Reston: AIAA; 2015. Report No.: 749
701 References AIAA-2015-2266. 750
[18]. Johann D, Kamran R. Constrained and unconstrained propeller 751
702 [1]. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Environmen- blade optimization. Reston: AIAA; 2014. Report No.: AIAA- 752
703 tal protection. 3rd ed. Chicago: ICAO;2002. 2014-0563. 753
704 [2]. Federal Aviation Administration. U.S. certificated propeller [19]. Chen SY, Zhao QJ. An adaptive integration surface for 754
705 diven airplane. Washington, D.C: Federal Aviation Administra- predicting transonic rotor noise in hovering and forward fligths. 755
706 tion; 2012. Chin J Aeronaut 2019;32(9):2047–58. 756
707 [3]. Betz A. Schraubenpropeller mit geringstem Energieverlust. [20]. Hanson DB, David JP. Theory for noise of propellers in angular 757
708 Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttin- inflow with parametric studies and experimental verification. 758
709 gen. Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse. 1919. p.193–217. Washington, D.C.: NASA; 1993. Report No.: CR 4499. 759
710 [4]. Adkins CN, Liebeck RH. Design of optimum propellers. J [21]. Oksana S, Chaitanya P, Phillip J. Prediction of broadband 760
711 Propul Power 1994;10(5):676–82. trailing-edge noise based on blake model and amiet theory. 761
712 [5]. Succi GP. Design of quiet efficient propellers. SAE business Reston: AIAA; 2015. Report No.: AIAA-2015-2526. 762
713 aircraft meeting. 1979. [22]. He XL, Bai JQ. Natural laminar flow nacelle optimization design 763
714 [6]. Patrick H, Finn WR, Stich KC. Two and three-bladed propeller based on EFFD method. J Aerospace Power 2014;29(10):2311–20 764
715 design for the reduction of radiated noise. Reston: AIAA; 1997. [Chinese]. 765
716 Report No.: AIAA-1997-1710. [23]. Liu N, Bai JQ. Efficient prediction approach of flutter based on 766
717 [7]. Mark TKH, Daniel F. Applicability of early acoustic theory for high-order harmonic balance. Acta Aeronautica Astronautica Sin 767
718 modern propeller design. Reston: AIAA; 2017. Report No.: 2018;39(10):1–13 [Chinese]. 768
719 AIAA-2017-3865. [24]. Armin G, Scott ML. A more comprehensive database for low 769
720 [8]. Jason RH, Mark TKH, Daniel F. Comparison of three popular Reynolds number propeller performance validations. 34th AIAA 770
721 methods for the prediction of high speed propeller noise. Reston: Applied Aerodynamics Conference. Reston: AIAA; 2016. 771
722 AIAA; 2017. Report No.: AIAA-2017-4181. [25]. Dobrzynski WM, Heller HH, Powers JO, Densmore JE. 772
723 [9]. Hanson DB, Hamilton S, Windsor L. Noise radiation of DFVLR/FAA propeller noise tests in the german-dutch wind 773
724 propeller loading sources with angular inflow. Reston: AIAA; tunnel. Washington, D.C.: FAA; 1986. Report No. AEE 86-3. 774
725 1990. Report No.: AIAA-1990-3955. [26]. Tian Y, Cotte B, Chaigne A. Wind turbine noise modelling based 775
726 [10]. Hanson DB, Hamilton S, Windsor L. Near-field frequency- on ameit’s theory. 5th International Meeting on Wind Turbine 776
727 domain theory for propeller noise. Reston: AIAA; 1983. Report Noise, 2013. 777
728 No.: AIAA-1983-0688. [27]. Qiu YS, Bai JQ. Stationary flow fields prediction of variable 778
729 [11]. Marinus BG, Halimi A. Fast prediction model for tonal noise physical domain based on proper orthogonal decomposition and 779
730 from rotors. Reston: AIAA; 2016. Report No.: AIAA-2016-2871. kriging surrogate model. Chin J Aeronaut 2015;28(1):44–56. 780
781

Please cite this article in press as: YU P et al. Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of propeller blades, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cja.2019.11.005