Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:17:03.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transonic small disturbance unsteady potential flow over very high aspect ratio wings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2022

J. R. Kwon  and
R. Vepa Open the ORCID record for R. Vepa [Opens in a new window]
J. R. Kwon
Affiliation:
Aerospace Technology Research Institute, Agency for Defense Development, Daejeon, 34186, Republic of Korea
R. Vepa*
Affiliation:
School of Engineering and Material Science, Queen Mary, University of London, London, E14NS, UK
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, the prediction of the unsteady flow field over typical high aspect ratio (AR) wings in the transonic flow regime but below the sonic Mach number is of interest. The methodology adopted is a computational approach based on the transonic small disturbance unsteady potential equation. It is shown that the higher AR wings generally have a higher lift coefficient as well as a higher lift-to-drag ratio. With NASA’s common research model (CRM) wing, there is an increase in maximum lift with increasing AR while the induced drag is almost the same. There is also an optimum sweep angle, which is different for each angle-of-attack so that variable sweep lifting surfaces may be designed to provide optimum solutions. The computed flutter speeds indicate an expected reduction with increasing AR.

Keywords

Unsteady transonic flowPotential flowFull potential equationTransonic small disturbanceHigh aspect ratio wings
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 126 , Issue 1305 , November 2022 , pp. 1834 - 1852
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Jameson, A. Transonic flow calculations, MAE Report #1651, Princeton University, March 22, 2014 (based on a lecture presented at the CIME Third Session, on Numerical Methods in Fluid Dynamics, held at Como, July 4–12, 1983.Google Scholar
Murman, E.M. and Cole, J.D. Calculation of plane steady transonic flows, AIAA J, 1971, 9, pp 114–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batina, J.T. Efficient algorithm for solution of the unsteady transonic small-disturbance equation. J. Aircr., 1988, 25, (10), pp 962–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batina, J.T. Unsteady transonic algorithm improvement for realistic aircraft applications, J. Aircr., 1989, 26, (2), pp 131–139.Google Scholar
Kim, J., Kwon, H., Kim, K., Lee, I. and Han, J. Numerical investigation on the aeroelastic instability of a complete aircraft model, JSME Int J, Ser B, 2005, 48, (2), pp 212–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hung, H., Gear, J.A. and Phillips, N.J.T. Transonic flow calculations using a dimensional splitting method, ANZIAM J, 2000, 42, (E), pp C752–C773.Google Scholar
Goura, G.S.L., Badcock, K.J., Woodgate, M.A. and Richards, B.E. Implicit methods for the time marching analysis of flutter, Aeronaut J, 2001, 105, pp 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodgate, M.A. and Badcock, K.J. Fast prediction of transonic aeroelastic stability and limit cycles, AIAA J, 2007, 45, (6), pp 1370–1381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ly, E. and Nakamichi, J. Time–linearised transonic small disturbance code including entropy and vorticity effects, Proc. 23rd ICAS Congress, Toronto, 8–13 September 2002, pp 1–10.Google Scholar
Tamayama, M., Weisshaar, T. and Nakamichi, J. Unsteady shock wave motions on a thin airfoil at transonic speeds caused by an aileron oscillation, International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics - Amsterdam, June 4–6 2003.Google Scholar
Greco, P.C. Jr. and Sheng, L.Y. A fast viscous correction method applied to small disturbance potential transonic flows in the frequency domain, Proc. of 24th ICAS Congress, Yokohama, 29 Aug–3 Sept. 2004.Google Scholar
Schewe, G., Knipfer, A., Mai, H. and Dietz, G. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Nonlinear Effects in Transonic Flutter, DLR IB 232-2002 J 01, DLR Institute of Aeroelasticity, Göttingen, 2002.Google Scholar
Sekar, W.K. and Laschka, B., Calculation of transonic dip of airfoils using viscous-inviscid aerodynamic interaction method, DGLR Kongress 2003, München, Germany, 17–20 Nov. 2003. Also published in Journal of Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 9, November 2005.Google Scholar
Holst, T.L. Transonic flow computations using nonlinear potential methods, Prog Aerosp Sci, 2000, 36, pp 1–61.Google Scholar
Timme, S. and Badcock, K.J. Oscillatory behaviour of transonic aeroelastic instability boundaries, AIAA J, 2009, 47, (6), pp 1590–1592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batina, J.T., Bennett, R.M., Seidel, D.A., Cunningham, H.J. and Bland, S.R. Recent advances in transonic computational aeroelasticity, Comput Struct, 1988, 30, (1/2), pp 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batina, J.T. A finite-difference approximate-factorization algorithm for solution of the unsteady transonic small-disturbance equation, NASA Technical Paper 3129, January 1992, NASA-TP-3129, 19940028359.Google Scholar
Kwon, J.R., Yoo, J.-H., Lee, I., Effects of structural damage and external stores on transonic flutter stability, Int J Aeronaut Space Sci, 2018, 19, pp 636–644, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42405-018-0063-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuster, D.M., Vadyak, J. and Atta, E., Static aeroelastic analysis of fighter aircraft using a three-dimensional Navier-Stokes algorithm, J. Aircr., 1990, 27, (9), pp 820–825.Google Scholar
Guruswamy, G.P. and Byun, C. Direct coupling of Euler flow equations with plate finite element structures, AIAA J, 1994, 33, (2), pp 375–377.Google Scholar
Guruswamy, G.P. and Byun, C., Fluid-structure interactions using Navier stokes flow equations coupled with shell finite element structures, AIAA-93-3087, 23rd Fluid Dynamics, Plasma dynamics, and Lasers Conference, 06–09 July 1993, Orlando, FL, U.S.A., https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1993-3087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farhat, C. and Lesoinne, M. Two efficient staggered algorithms for the serial and parallel solution of three-dimensional nonlinear transient aeroelastic problems, Comput Methods Appl Mech Engg, 2000, 182, pp 499–515.Google Scholar
Soulaimani, A., A finite element based methodology for computational nonlinear aeroelasticity, AIAA-2000-2335, Fluids 2000, Denver, Co., USA, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, F., Cai, J., Zhu, Y., Tsai, H.M. and Wong, A.S.F. Calculation of wing flutter by a coupled fluid-structure method, J. Aircr., 2000, 38, (2), pp 334–342.Google Scholar
Williams, M.H., Bland, S.R. and Edwards, J.W. Flow instabilities in transonic small disturbance theory, AIAA J, 1985, 23, pp 1491–1496.Google Scholar
Caughey, D.A. Stability of unsteady flow past aerofoils exhibiting transonic nonuniqueness, Comput Fluid Dyn J, 2004, 13, pp 427–438.Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Luo, S., and Liu, F. Multiple solutions and stability of the steady transonic small-disturbance equation, Theor Appl Mech Letts, 2017, 7, pp 292–300.Google Scholar
Giddings, T.E., Rusak, Z. and Fish, J., A transonic small-disturbance model for the propagation of weak shock waves in heterogeneous gases, J Fluid Mech, 2001, 429, pp 255–280.Google Scholar
Woeber, C.D., Gantt, E.J.S. and Wyman, N.J. Mesh Generation for the NASA High Lift Common Research Model(HL-CRM), 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA SciTech Forum, 9–13 January 2017, Grapevine, Texas.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartieri, A., Hue, D., Chanzy, Q. and Atinault, O., Experimental Investigations on the Common Research Model at ONERA-S1MA - Comparison with DPW Numerical Results, AIAA 2017-0964, 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA SciTech Forum, 9–13 January 2017, Grapevine, Texas.Google Scholar
Yates, E.C. Jr. AGARD Standard Aeroelastic Configuration for Dynamic Response, Candidate Configuration I.-Wing 445.6, NASA TM 100492, 1987.Google Scholar
Schmitt, V. and Charpin, F. Pressure distributions on the ONERA-M6-Wing at transonic Mach Numbers, experimental data base for computer program assessment, Report of the Fluid Dynamics Panel Working Group 04, AGARD AR 138, May 1979. (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/wind/valid/m6wing/m6wing.html).Google Scholar
Batina, J.T. Accuracy of an unstructured-grid upwind-Euler algorithm for the ONERA M6 Wing, J. Aircr., 1991, 28, (6),pp 397–402.Google Scholar
Rivers, M. NASA Common Research Model: A History and Future Plans, AIAA 2019-3725, AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum, 17–21 June 2019, Dallas, Texas.Google Scholar
Beaubien, R.J., Nitzsche, F. and Feszty, D. Time and Frequency Domain Flutter Solutions for the AGARD 445.6 Wing, Paper No. IF-102, International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, (IFASD), Munchen, July 2005.Google Scholar
Zhang, B., Ding, W., Ji, S. and Zhang, J. Transonic flutter analysis of an AGARD 445.6 wing in the frequency domain using the Euler method, Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech, 2016, 10, (1), pp 244–255.Google Scholar
Chaitanya, J.S., Prasad, A., Pradeep, B., Sri Harsha, P.L.N., Shali, S. and Nagaraja, S.R. Vibrational characteristics of AGARD 445.6 Wing in transonic flow, ICMAEM-2017, IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 225, 2017, 012036.Google Scholar
Li, H. and Ekici, K. Aeroelastic modeling of the AGARD 445.6 Wing using the harmonic-balance-based one-shot method, AIAA J, 2019, 57, (11), pp 4885–4902.Google Scholar
Kwon, H.J., Park, S.H., Lee, J.H., Kim, Y., Lee, I. and Kwon, J.H. Transonic Wing Flutter Simulation Using Navier-Stokes and k-ω Turbulent Model, AIAA 2005-2294, 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 18–21 April 2005, Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
Lee-Rausch, E.M. and Batina, J.T. Wing flutter boundary prediction using unsteady euler aerodynamic method, J. Aircr., 1995, 32, (2), pp 416–422.Google Scholar
Lee-Rausch, E.M. and Batina, J.T. Wing flutter computations using an aerodynamic model based on the Navier-Stokes equations, J. Aircr., 1996, 33, (6), pp 1139–1147.Google Scholar
Gordnier, R.E. and Melville, R.B. Transonic flutter simulations using an implicit aeroelastic solver, J. Aircr., 2000, 37, (5), pp 872–879.Google Scholar
Vepa, R. and Kwon, J.R. Synthesis of an active flutter suppression system in the transonic domain using a computational model, Aeronaut J, 2021, 125, (1293), pp 2002–2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waszak, M.R. Modeling the Benchmark Active Control Technology Wind-Tunnel Model for Active Control Design Applications, NASA/TP-1998-206270, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 23681–2199, June 1998.Google Scholar
Bennett, R., Scott, R. and Wieseman, C. Test cases for the benchmark active controls model: spoiler and control surface oscillations and flutter, In Verification and Validation Data for Computational Unsteady Aerodynamics, RTO Technical Report – 26, October 2000, pp 201–224.Google Scholar
Elsayed, M.S.A., Sedaghati, R. and Abdo, M. Accurate stick model development for static analysis of complex aircraft wing-box structures, AIAA J, 2009, 47, (9), pp 2063–2075.Google Scholar
Ricciardi, A.P., Canfield, R.A., Patil, M.J. and Lindsley, N. Nonlinear aeroelastic scaled-model design, J. Aircr., 2016, 53, (1), pp 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, M., NASA CRM Model, https://commonresearchmodel.larc.nasa.gov/fem-file/, Updated April, 2015, Accessed online April 2021.Google Scholar
De, S., Jrad, M., Locatelli, D., Kapania, R.K., Baker, M. and Pak, C.-G. SpaRibs geometry parameterization for wings with multiple sections using single design space, AIAA 2017-0570, AIAA SciTech Forum, 58th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 9–13 January 2017, Grapevine, Texas.Google Scholar
Jutte, C.V., Stanford, B.K., Wieseman, C.D. and Moore, J.B. Aeroelastic tailoring of the NASA common research model via novel material and structural configurations, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140007306.pdf, Accessed online, March 2020.Google Scholar