A study of the full-potential modeling of a blade-vortex interaction was made. A primary goal of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of the various methods of modeling the vortex. The model problem restricts the interaction to that of an infinite wing with an infinite line vortex moving parallel to its leading edge. This problem provides a convenient testing ground for the various methods of modeling the vortex while retaining the essential physics of the full three-dimensional interaction. A full-potential algorithm specifically tailored to solve the blade-vortex interaction (BVI) was developed to solve this problem. The basic algorithm was modified to include the effect of a vortex passing near the airfoil. Four different methods of modeling the vortex were used: (1) the angle-of-attack method, (2) the lifting-surface method, (3) the branch-cut method, and (4) the split-potential method. A side-by-side comparison of the four models was conducted. These comparisons included comparing generated velocity fields, a subcritical interaction, and a critical interaction. The subcritical and critical interactions are compared with experimentally generated results. The split-potential model was used to make a survey of some of the more critical parameters which affect the BVI.
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
