Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Gianmarco Sahragard-Monfared

Publications and source records attributed to Gianmarco Sahragard-Monfared.

4 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Airfoil Table Modification for Improved Calculation of Ingenuity Rotor Performance

To better characterize the behavior of the Ingenuity helicopter, multiple test campaigns were conducted. These tests included the Engineering Design Model 1 (EDM1) tests and the Transonic Rotor Test (TRT), both of which assessed Ingenuity rotor performance at various conditions. Using a comprehensive rotorcraft analysis tool, CAMRAD II, test setups of the two different Ingenuity test campaigns were simulated. The EDM1 test used coaxial test stand which focused on varying collective at various feasible Martian atmospheric densities and the TRT test used a single rotor test stand which focused on varying RPM to assess performance at different blade tip Mach numbers. Initial CAMRAD II analyses yielded performance results which differed significantly from experimental results. To reconcile the experimental results and the CAMRAD II analyses, modifications were made to the input airfoil decks for CAMRAD II. After several iterations of modifications, a specific method of modification was found that more accurately predicted experimental behavior at all tested densities for the coaxial rotor. This same modification was less successful for the single rotor test results. There are a number of differences between coaxial and single rotor aerodynamics and between the two test stands (hub and control system); also, there is a small influence of RPM (mainly tip Mach number) on dimensionless performance. These differences may be causing the coaxial rotor modifications not being successful for the single rotor.

Airfoil↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comprehensive Analysis Aeroelastic Stability Predictions for the Mars Sample Recovery Helicopters and Ingenuity

A rotorcraft comprehensive analysis was used to generate aeroelastic stability predictions for both Ingenuity and the Mars Sample Recovery Helicopters. The analysis was performed multiple times for each rotor system with sequential increases to the level of modeling complexity. Initial cases used an independent blade analysis, trim inflow distribution, no airframe degrees of freedom, and a hover condition (a time-invariant problem). The final model used all blades, dynamic inflow, airframe degrees of freedom, and a Floquet theory approach to the flutter analysis. The approach of sequentially increasing modeling complexity was employed to ensure the causes of any observed instabilities could be identified. For each case, stability results were determined across a range of air densities, tip Mach numbers, and rotor collective pitch settings. For the Sample Recovery Helicopter, a forward flight condition analysis with the highest level of modeling complexity was also performed. The aeroelastic stability predictions showed both the Ingenuity and Sample Recovery Helicopter rotor systems to be stable for all analyzed conditions. Parameter excursions of structural properties were performed to explore conditions resulting in aeroelastic instabilities.

Aeroelastic↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Airfoil Table Generation Comparison Utilizing XFOIL and UNS2D Flow Solvers

The flow solvers XFOIL and UNS2D were utilized within the airfoil table generator AFTGen to generate airfoil performance tables, and these results were compared to determine accuracy at low Mach numbers that may be relevant to Urban Air Mobiltiy (UAM) applications. Airfoil tables were generated for the NACA 0012 airfoil as well as a set of three asymmetrical airfoils developed in this study from which the rotor blade CSUS 001 was comprised. To determine which solver more accurately represented real-world aerodynamics, the airfoils were experimentally tested in the CSU 2-foot by 2-foot wind tunnel. The results of XFOIL and UNS2D were compared to the experimental results. It is important to note that due to differences in the Reynolds numbers between simulations and experimental testing, the magnitude of the section lift and drag coefficient varies between the two methods. However, observations on the accuracy of XFOIL and UNS2D could still be made based on the trends of the data. For the symmetrical NACA 0012 airfoil, it was found that XFOIL and UNS2D accurately predicted the trends of the section lift and drag coefficients. However, XFOIL predicted slightly lower section drag coefficients than UNS2D for the tested angles of attack. For the asymmetrical CSUS 001 airfoils, XFOIL could not predict a steady to decreasing section lift coefficient phenomenon at negative angles of attack observed in both the UNS2D and experimental results. Similarly, XFOIL was unable to predict an increased section drag coefficient at negative angles of attack for the CSUS 001 airfoils as observed in the UNS2D and experimental results. Additionally, 3D computational fluid dynamics was utilized through RotCFD to compare the performance of a rotor blade using the CSUS 001 airfoils versus a rotor blade using the NACA 0012 airfoil.

UAM↗