Numerical Simulation and Experimental Verification of Rotor Airflow Field Based on Finite Volume Method and Lattice Boltzmann Method

The primary focus of research in agricultural unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) pesticide application technology is the investigation of droplet drift and deposition. The influence of the rotor airflow on droplets is particularly significant, making numerical simulations a crucial tool for airflow field analysis. Among existing numerical simulation methods, the Finite Volume Method (FVM) and the Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM) are commonly used, but there is limited research that compares the two approaches. Therefore, this paper conducts numerical simulations of the rotor airflow of an agricultural UAV using Fluent, representing the FVM, and XFlow, representing the LBM. This research aims to reveal the distribution patterns of airflow field numerical simulations under different theoretical methods, validate them through practical experiments, and select the optimal method for simulating rotor airflow. The ultimate goal is to establish an effective airflow field model to enhance the precision of pesticide application by an agricultural UAV. The results indicate that the lift error calculated by XFlow in this paper is 2.57% smaller than that by Fluent. The wind field of Fluent entered the “stable state” earlier than XFlow, and the speed value of Fluent was smaller than that of XFlow. The difference between the two speed values became larger and larger as the distance from the rotor was longer. Compared with XFlow, Fluent changes more obviously in the core region, and the center region gradually disappears with the distance from the rotor. However, in the velocity field calculated by XFlow, there are still more turbulent flows outside the core region, indicating that the transient calculation method based on the LBM can better show the details of fluid flow than the steady-state calculation method based on the FVM. Through comparison with the actual test data, it is found that the relative error of the velocity value of XFlow at 0.2 m and 0.4 m is small, while that of Fluent at 0 and 0.2 m is small. It shows that XFlow simulation has higher accuracy for external turbulent flow, while Fluent simulation has higher accuracy for steady laminar flow. The research results provide data comparison and a basis for further analysis of the wind field model of the rotor wing of the plant protection UAV, and they lay a foundation for further research on precision application technology.