Shape considerations for the design of propellers with trailing edge serrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Noise reductions due to trailing edge serrations of several representative unmanned air vehicle propellers are calculated using a low-order methodology based on RANS simulations coupled with an extension of Ayton’s model proposed by Li and Lee, which provides a heuristic three-dimensional model for finite span applicable to rotor blades. The latter model is validated in the limit of zero serration amplitude against Amiet’s and Schlinker and Amiet’s models, finding good agreement at high frequencies for both airfoils and rotating blade elements. Similar good validation results are obtained for finite serrations by comparing with experiments achieved on the Controlled Diffusion airfoil at Université de Sherbrooke, and with calculations for a serrated blade element by Tian and Lyu. The coupled methodology is then validated both aerodynamically and acoustically with ISAE measurements for a representative drone propeller at different rotational speeds. The corresponding serrated model is then used to calculate noise reductions caused by different shapes. The square wave serration is shown to outperform the sawtooth and sinusoidal shapes for all frequencies and observer angles for small propeller blades typically used for drones. Yet, for larger chord blades typically used for ducted fans, combinations of sawtooth and sinusoidal serrations provide better noise reductions. • A semi-analytical methodology is validated to predict propeller trailing edge noise. • An analytical extension for serrated airfoils and propellers is evaluated. • Square wave serration outperforms the conventional sawtooth for small propellers. • Mixed sawtooth and sinusoidal serrations can tailor far-field noise for larger rotors. • Serration shape design guidelines are given based on blade tip Mach number.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".