The operation of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) is expected to keep increasing in the future with its rapid advancement and ever-expanding applications. One of the safety measures that need to be put into place for safe UAS operations is separation requirements. This article presents the results from flow simulations of quadrotor propellers using the Overset method in ANSYS Fluent 19.2 and the Virtual Blade Model (VBM) method in OpenFOAM as part of ongoing work to establish a wake vortex–based safe separation distance for UAS operations. The near-field flow simulation using the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes turbulence model was validated with mesh convergence and turbulence model studies and verified with simulation and experimental data in the literature to ensure that the propeller simulation methods could generate a realistic near-field flow of multi-rotor UAS in forward flight. The far-field flow simulation using the Large Eddy Simulation turbulence model was validated with a mesh convergence study by calculating and comparing the circulation strength of the vortices in the far-field flow of each mesh setup but not verified due to a lack of existing experimental data.
KoksalNAnHFidanB. Backstepping-based adaptive control of a quadrotor UAV with guaranteed tracking performance. ISA Trans2020; 105: 98–110. DOI: 10.1016/j.isatra.2020.06.006.
2.
DeebakBAl-TurjmanF. A smart lightweight privacy preservation scheme for IoT-based UAV communication systems. Comput Commun2020; 162(April): 102–117. DOI: 10.1016/j.comcom.2020.08.016.
3.
da Penha NetoGde Campos VelhoHFShiguemoriEH. UAV autonomous navigation by image processing with uncertainty trajectory estimation. Lecture notes in mechanical engineering. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2021, vol. 1, pp. 211–221, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-53669-5_16.
4.
XieKXuJPanZ. Research and application of anti-offset wireless charging plant protection UAV. Electr Eng2020; 102(4): 2529–2537. DOI: 10.1007/s00202-020-01049-9.
5.
RajRMurrayC. The multiple flying sidekicks traveling salesman problem with variable drone speeds. Transportation Res C Emerging Tech2020; 120(September): 102813. DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2020.102813.
6.
OutayFMengashHAAdnanM. Applications of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in road safety, traffic and highway infrastructure management: recent advances and challenges. Transportation Res A Pol Pract2020; 141(July): 116–129. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2020.09.018.
7.
DebusPRodehorstV. Multi-scale flight path planning for UAS building inspection. Lecture notes in civil engineering. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2021, Vol. 98, pp. 1069–1085, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-51295-8_74.
8.
FerreiraMPde AlmeidaDRAPapaDdA, et al.Individual tree detection and species classification of Amazonian palms using UAV images and deep learning. For Ecol Manage2020; 475(April): 118397. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118397.
9.
FioriLMartinezEOramsMB, et al.Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to assess humpback whale behavioral responses to swim-with interactions in Vava’u, Kingdom of Tonga. J Sustainable Tourism2020; 28(11): 1743–1761. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1758706.
10.
KonertAKasprzykP. Drones are flying outside of segregated airspace in Poland. J Intell Robot Syst2020; 100(2): 483–491. DOI: 10.1007/s10846-019-01145-4.
11.
BulusuVPolishchukV. A threshold based airspace capacity estimation method for UAS traffic management. In: 2017 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon), Montreal, QC, Canada, 24–27 April 2017. IEEE, pp. 1–7. DOI: 10.1109/SYSCON.2017.7934758.
12.
TanDYChiWBin Mohamed SallehMFet al.Study on impact of separation distance to traffic management for small UAS operations in urban environment. Adv Transdisciplinary Eng2017; 5: 39–46. DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-779-5-39.
13.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Procedures for Air Navigation Services–Air Traffic Management–PANS-ATM Doc 4444. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 2016.
14.
WeibelREdwardsMFernandesC. Establishing a risk-based separation standard for unmanned aircraft self separation. In: 11th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) conference, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 20–22 September 2011. Reston, Virigina: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-6921.
15.
McFadyenAMartinT. Understanding vertical collision risk and navigation performance for unmanned aircraft. In: IEEE/AIAA 37th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), London, UK, 23–27 September 2018. IEEE, pp. 1–10. DOI: 10.1109/DASC.2018.8569707.
16.
WeinertACampbellSVelaA, et al.Well-clear recommendation for small unmanned aircraft systems based on unmitigated collision risk. J Air Transportation2018; 26(3): 113–122. DOI: 10.2514/1.D0091.
17.
McFadyenA. Probabilistic determination of maximum safe altitudes for unmanned traffic management. In: IEEE/AIAA 38th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), San Diego, CA, USA, 8–12 September 2019. IEEE, pp. 1–10. DOI: 10.1109/DASC43569.2019.9081741.
18.
KallinenVMartinTMcFadyenA. Required navigation performance specifications for unmanned aircraft based on UTM flight trials. In: International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Athens, Greece, 1–4 September 2020. IEEE, pp. 196–203. DOI: 10.1109/ICUAS48674.2020.9213980.
19.
SabanDWhidborneJFCookeAK. Simulation of wake vortex effects for UAVs in close formation flight. Aeronaut J2009; 113(1149): 727–738. DOI: 10.1017/S0001924000003389.
20.
TianPHeAChaoH, et al.Wake encounter simulation and flight validation with UAV close formation flight. In: AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference, Grapevine, Texas, 9–13 January 2017. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, pp. 1–12. DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-1910.
21.
KazarinPGolubevV. New results in wake vortex evolution, interaction and control. AIP Conf Proc2018; 2046:020033. DOI: 10.1063/1.5081553.
22.
MiBGZhanH. Numerical simulation of the static and dynamic aerodynamics of a UAV under wake flows. J Adv Transportation2019; 2019: 1–12. DOI: 10.1155/2019/6326794.
23.
KuttyHRajendranP. 3D CFD simulation and experimental validation of small APC slow flyer propeller blade. Aerospace2017; 4(1): 10. DOI: 10.3390/aerospace4010010.
24.
CéspedesJFLopezOD. Simulation and validation of the aerodynamic performance of a quadcopter in hover condition using overset mesh. In: AIAA aviation 2019 forum,Dallas, Texas, 17–21June2019. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-2824.
25.
Pérez GordilloAVillegas SantosJLopez MejiaO, et al.Numerical and experimental estimation of the efficiency of a quadcopter rotor operating at hover. Energies2019; 12(2): 261. DOI: 10.3390/en12020261.
26.
ThaiADJainRGraceSM. CFD validation of small quadrotor performance using CREATETM–AV helios. In: The vertical flight society–forum 75: the future of vertical flight–proceedings of the 75th annual forum and technology display, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 13–16 May 2019.
27.
YoonSLeeHCPulliamTH. Computational analysis of multi-rotor flows. In: 54th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, AIAA SciTech Forum, San Diego, CA, USA, 4–8 January 2016. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-0812.
28.
KayaDKutayATTekinalpO. Experimental investigation of optimal gap distance between rotors of a quadrotor UAV. In: AIAA atmospheric flight mechanics conference, Denver, CO, USA, 5–9 June 2017. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, pp. 1–9. DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-3894.
29.
ZhouWNingZLiH, et al.An experimental investigation on rotor-to-rotor interactions of small UAV propellers. In: 35th AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, Denver, CO, USA, 5–9 June 2017. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, pp. 1–16. DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-3744.
FengboYXinyuXLingZ, et al.Numerical simulation and experimental verification on downwash air flow of six-rotor agricultural unmanned aerial vehicle in hover. Int J Agric Biol Eng2017; 10(4): 41–53. DOI: 10.25165/j.ijabe.20171004.3077.
32.
ZhengYYangSLiuX, et al.The computational fluid dynamic modeling of downwash flow field for a six-rotor UAV. Front Agr Sci Eng2018; 5(2): 159–167. DOI: 10.15302/J-FASE-2018216.
33.
HwangJYJungMKKwonOJ. Numerical study of aerodynamic performance of a multirotor unmanned-aerial-vehicle configuration. J Aircraft2015; 52(3): 839–846. DOI: 10.2514/1.C032828.
34.
MisiorowskiMGandhiFOberaiAA. Computational study on rotor interactional effects for a quadcopter in edgewise flight. AIAA J2019; 57(12): 5309–5319. DOI: 10.2514/1.J058369.
35.
Ventura DiazPYoonS. High-fidelity computational aerodynamics of multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicles. In: AIAA aerospace sciences meeting,Kissimmee, FL, USA, 8–12 January 2018. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-1266.
36.
WenSHanJNingZ, et al.Numerical analysis and validation of spray distributions disturbed by quad-rotor drone wake at different flight speeds. Comput Electron Agric2019; 166(September): 105036. DOI: 10.1016/j.compag.2019.105036.
37.
JiaZLeeS. Acoustic analysis of a quadrotor evtol design via high-fidelity simulations. In: 25th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, Delft, the Netherlands, 20–24 May 2019. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, pp. 1–24. DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-2631.
38.
DiazPVJohnsonWAhmadJ, et al.Computational study of the side-by-side urban air taxi concept. In: The vertical flight society–forum 75: the future of vertical flight–proceedings of the 75th annual forum and technology display, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 13–16 May 2019.
39.
Ventura DiazPYoonS. Computational study of NASA's quadrotor urban air taxi concept. In: AIAA scitech forum, 6–10 January 2020. Orlando, FL, USA, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-0302.
40.
SagagaJLeeS. CFD hover predictions for the side-by-side urban air taxi concept rotor. In: AIAA aviation 2020 forum, virtual event 2020, 15–19 June 2020. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-2795.
41.
CernyMBreitsamterC. Investigation of small-scale propellers under non-axial inflow conditions. Aerosp Sci Technol2020; 106: 106048. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2020.106048.
42.
GurORosenA. Comparison between blade-element models of propellers. Aeronaut J2008; 112(1138): 689–704. DOI: 10.1017/S0001924000002669.
43.
CarrollJMarcumD. Comparison of a blade element momentum model to 3D CFD simulations for small scale propellers. SAE Int J Aerosp2013; 6(2): 721, 726. DOI: 10.4271/2013-01-2270.
44.
WinslowJOtsukaHGovindarajanB, et al.Basic understanding of airfoil characteristics at low reynolds numbers (104–105). J Aircraft2018; 55(3): 1050–1061. DOI: 10.2514/1.C034415.
45.
McCrinkMGregoryJW. Blade element momentum modeling of low- re small UAS electric propulsion systems. In: 33rd AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, Dallas, TX, USA, 22–26 June 2015. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, pp. 1–23. DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-3296.
46.
MacNeillRVerstraeteD. Blade element momentum theory extended to model low Reynolds number propeller performance. Aeronaut J2017; 121(1240): 835–857. DOI: 10.1017/aer.2017.32.
47.
ChiewJJAftosmisMJ. Efficient simulation of multi-rotor configurations with low reynolds number propellers. In: 36th Applied Aerodynamics Conference 2018,Atlanta, Georgia, 25–29June2018. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-4119.
48.
StremelPMAhmadJ. Overflow analysis of unmanned aircraft systems. In: AIAA scitech forum 2019, San Diego, California, 7–11 January 2019. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-1337.
49.
KusyumovAKusyumovSMikhailovS, et al.Main rotor-body action for virtual blades model. EPJ Web Conf2018; 180: 02050. DOI: 10.1051/epjconf/201818002050.
50.
BarakosGNFitzgibbonTKusyumovAN, et al.CFD simulation of helicopter rotor flow based on unsteady actuator disk model. Chin J Aeronaut2020; 33(9): 2313–2328. DOI: 10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.021.
51.
HolzäpfelFGerzTBaumannR. The turbulent decay of trailing vortex pairs in stably stratified environments. Aerosp Sci Technol2001; 5(2): 95–108. DOI: 10.1016/S1270-9638(00)01090-7.
52.
BreitsamterC. Wake vortex characteristics of transport aircraft. Prog Aerosp Sci2011; 47(2): 89–134. DOI: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.09.002.
53.
LewekeTLe DizèsSWilliamsonCHK. Dynamics and instabilities of vortex pairs. Annu Rev Fluid Mech2016; 48(1): 507–541. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-fluid-122414-034558.
54.
NathanaelJCWangCHJLowKH. Preliminary investigation of wake vortex generated by spinning quadrotor propellers using overset mesh. In: AIAA scitech 2021 forum virtual event, 11–15 & 19–21 January 2021. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-1309.
55.
WangCHJNathanaelJCNgEM, et al.Framework for the estimation of safe wake separation distance between same-track multi-rotor UAS. In: AIAA Scitech 2021 forum, virtual event, 11–15, & 19–21 January 2021. Reston, Virginia, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, pp. 1–14. DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-0708.
56.
NingZWlezienRWHuH. An experimental study on small UAV propellers with serrated trailing edges. In: 47th AIAA fluid dynamics conference,Denver, Colorado, 5–9June2017. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-3813.
57.
Computational Fluid Dynamics Committee. Guide for the verification and validation of computational fluid dynamics simulations (AIAA G-077-1998(2002)). Washington, DC: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 1998. DOI: 10.2514/4.472855.
58.
WahonoS. Openfoam script learning: Development of virtual blade model for modelling helicopter rotor downwash in openFOAM. Technical Report. Australia: Defense Science and Technology Organization, 2013.
59.
MoJ-OChoudhryAArjomandiM, et al.Effects of wind speed changes on wake instability of a wind turbine in a virtual wind tunnel using large eddy simulation. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2013; 117: 38–56. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2013.03.007.
60.
VlčekPKyselaBJiroutT, et al.Large eddy simulation of a pitched blade impeller mixed vessel–comparison with LDA measurements. Chem Eng Res Des2016; 108(1998): 42–48. DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2016.02.020.
61.
Tellez-AlvarezJStrijhakSKharchiR, et al.3D numerical simulation of wind turbines and fractal dimension analysis. In: International conference on wind energy and applications in Algeria (ICWEAA), Algiers, Algeria, 6–7 November 2018. IEEE, pp. 1–5. DOI: 10.1109/ICWEAA.2018.8605052.
62.
Kamliya JawaharHLinYSavillM. Large eddy simulation of airfoil self-noise using OpenFOAM. Aircr Eng Aerosp Technol2018; 90(1): 126–133. DOI: 10.1108/AEAT-05-2015-0130.
63.
WangCHJZhaoDSchlüterJ, et al.LES study on the shape effect of ground obstacles on wake vortex dissipation. Aerosp Sci Technol2017; 63: 245–258. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2016.12.032.
64.
WangCHJZhaoDSchlüterJ, et al.Computational investigation of varying plate-line geometry and placement on wake vortex dissipation. J Aircraft2018; 55(1): 133–144. DOI: 10.2514/1.C034346.
65.
AhmadNNProctorFHLimon DuparcmeurFMet al.Review of idealized aircraft wake vortex models. In: 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2014, pp. 1–28. DOI: 10.2514/6.2014-0927.
66.
Mohamed SallehMFBWanchaoCWangZ, et al.Preliminary concept of adaptive urban airspace management for unmanned aircraft operations. In: AIAA information systems-AIAA infotech @ aerospace. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2018, pp. 1–12. DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-2260.
