Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

Investigation of hybrid laminar ow control (HLFC) surfaces

T.M. Younga,*, B. Humphreysb, J.P. Fieldingc
a

Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

b
Aerospace Systems and Technology, Consett, Durham, DH8 6SR, UK
c
College of Aeronautics, Craneld University, Craneld, Beds, MK43OAL, UK

Abstract
Hybrid laminar ow control (HLFC) is an active drag reduction technique. A delay in transition of the
boundary layer from laminar to turbulent ow is usually achieved by the application of suction over the
rst 1020% of the chord. The design of the suction surface and the chambers underneath the perforated
skin represents one of the most signicant engineering challenges concerning HLFC. A review of design
requirements, candidate materials and drilling methods for the production of the suction surface, is
presented. Materials considered include titanium, aluminium and carbon bre composite. Laser (Excimer
or NdYAG) and electron beam drilling has been used to produce satisfactory suction panels. r 2001
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Hybrid laminar ow control; Suction surfaces; Laser drilling

1. Objectives
An objective of this study was to investigate the requirements for the suction surface
of a laminar ow control (LFC) skin panel, suitable for use on the wing, empennage and
engine nacelle of civil jet transport aircraft. The paper provides an overview of the subject
of hybrid laminar ow control (HLFC) and reviews previous solutions adopted for
the manufacture of porous/perforated skin panels. It discusses current thinking on the subject
and reports on an investigation conducted by the authors into the characteristics of laser
drilled aluminium, titanium and carbon bre composite panels and their suitability for this
application.

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +353-61-202-700; fax: +353-61-202-944.

E-mail address: trevor.young@ul.ie (T.M. Young).
1369-8869/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 6 9 - 8 8 6 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 0 - 6

128

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

2. Background to hybrid laminar ow control

2.1. Advantage of HLFC
The transition from a laminar to turbulent boundary layer is marked by a sudden increase in
the thickness of the boundary layer and a signicant change in the local ow behaviour. The
random variation of velocity and ow direction within the turbulent boundary layer results in an
order of magnitude increase in the skin friction compared to that of laminar ow. As skin friction
drag accounts for nearly 50% of the total drag of a civil jet transport aircraft in cruise,
technologies that enable laminar ow to be maintained oer the potential for enormous economic
and environmental benet.
HLFC is an active drag reduction technique that permits extended laminar ow on an aircraft
surface at chord Reynolds numbers normally associated with turbulent ow. The delay in
transition of the boundary layer is usually achieved by the application of suction over the rst
1020% of the chord. A correctly proled wing, empennage or engine nacelle would allow laminar
ow to extend back, to about 50% of the chord, resulting in a substantial drag reduction (Fig. 1).
The laminar ow aircraft would thus have a greater range, lower direct operating cost and lower
emissions, than current turbulent designs.
2.2. Historical background
The rst practical in-ight demonstration of HLFC on a jet transport aircraft took place on
a modied Boeing 757 in 1990 [1]. Since then HLFC has been demonstrated by Dassault Aviation
on the wing of a modied Falcon 900 business jet and most recently on the n of an Airbus A320
aircraft [2]. In addition, two separate HLFC engine nacelle ight test campaigns (on a GEAE
nacelle installed on an A300 testbed and on the Rolls-Royce/DLR nacelle on a VFW 614 test
aircraft) have taken place [3,4]. Supersonic demonstration of HLFC was accomplished on a
modied F-16XL aircraft in 1996 [3].
The development of HLFC for high subsonic transport aircraft has made signicant progress
over the last 20 years. One issue that has been a common problem for all test articles is the design
and manufacture of the porous or perforated skin surface (through which the air is sucked) and
the supporting substructures.
2.3. The suppression of laminar ow transition by HLFC
HLFC is being considered for the wing, horizontal tailplane, n and engine nacelles of jet
transport aircraft. The ow over the wing, horizontal tailplane and n is a complex 3D ow eld

Fig. 1. Principle of sucking the boundary layer to achieve laminar ow.

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

129

which is signicantly inuenced by leading edge sweep. The engine nacelle is dierent, as there
is essentially no sweep on the nose section and the laminar to turbulent ow transition
mechanisms, which exist due to sweep, are thus not present. For complex 3D ow on the upper
surface of a swept wing or empennage, there are three ow mechanisms, which may cause
transition.
(1) If a critical ow parameter, like Reynolds number is exceeded, TollmienSchlichting waves
within a laminar boundary layer will be amplied as they propagate downstream resulting in
transition. The point of transition is dependent on the ow Reynolds number, pressure
distribution and the presence of surface roughness elements.
(2) A major concern for high Reynolds number ow for subsonic transport aircraft is cross ow
instability, which arises from the spanwise ow on swept wing planforms. It is the
predominant transition mechanism in the forward 510% of the chord where the magnitude
of spanwise ow is at its greatest [5].
(3) Attachment line contamination is the phenomenon by which turbulent air at the wing root
(coming from a turbulent boundary layer on the fuselage) is propagated along the attachment
line of a swept leading edge, causing ow over the whole of the wing (or empennage surface)
to become turbulent.
By sucking a small amount of the air in the external ow through the skin surface, these
transition mechanisms can be suppressed. This has been described by Poll and Danks [5], Juillen
and Arnal [6], Reneaux et al. [7], Joslin [3] and others. In the case of an engine nacelle, which has
no leading edge sweep there is no need to apply suction at the nose of the nacelle. This makes for
a simpler design solution and the ow is stabilised by applying suction aft of the nacelle lip skin
section.
2.4. Physical contamination of HLFC surfaces
Physical contamination of the leading edge and suction surface is a major operational concern
for HLFC aircraft. Contamination can be caused by ice, rain and airborne particles such as dust
or pollen, and insects. In the case of contamination by insect residue (Fig. 2), this impacts on the
ow by causing boundary layer transition if the debris height exceeds the critical excrescence
height. The residue may also block the suction holes and if the area of contamination is
suciently large, the lack of suction may result in a region of turbulent ow aft of the impact site.
Coleman [9], Humphreys [10] and Joslin [3] discuss proposed solutions for contamination
avoidance for laminar ow surfaces.

3. HLFC suction surface

3.1. Types of suction surfaces
The aerodynamic requirement is that air be sucked through the skin surface with minimal
pressure loss, and in such a way that it does not instigate transition of the boundary layer. Various

130

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

Fig. 2. Insect impact test on a titanium HLFC suction surface [8].

means of producing a skin surface, which will allow air to be sucked through it, have been studied
as part of the laminar ow control research that started in the 1940s. The suction surfaces that
have been developed can essentially be divided into three categories.
3.1.1. Porous materials
Porous materials create little disruption to the ow and were used for much of the early LFC
experimental work. Gregory [11] provides a review of these porous LFC suction surface designs.
Braslow et al. [12] report on the wind tunnel testing of a LFC aerofoil manufactured using a
porous bronze sheet covering a perforated inner shell made of aluminium. Porous materials like
foams, fabrics, nylons and sintered meshes, tend however to have little structural integrity and
shear stiness, rendering them unsuitable for use on their own as a skin material, unless supported
by a load bearing underlayer.
3.1.2. Micro slotted surfaces
The air can be sucked through narrow slots cut into the skin. Gregory [11] describes the use of
this technique in LFC experimental work. A NASA Jetstar (Lockheed C-140) test aircraft
evaluated LFC from 1983 to 1986. Douglas Aircraft and Lockheed Georgia constructed LFC test
sections for the right and left wings, respectively. The Lockheed design consisted of a titanium
skin with 27 rows of 0.1 mm wide slots [3]. Slotted surfaces cannot, however, be considered for
highly swept wings, due the disturbance of the ow by the slot.
3.1.3. Discrete drilled holes
Discrete holes can be produced by electron beam or laser drilling (Fig. 3). Electron beam
drilling, for example, was used for the Douglas designed right wing test section for the LFC
Jetstar tests. The design utilised a 0.64 mm thick titanium sheet that was supported by a
corrugated glass and carbon bre epoxy substructure. The holes were 64 mm in diameter and
spaced 0.76 mm apart [13]. Drilling by NdYAG or Excimer laser has been the preferred
technique since the mid-1980s. The Boeing 757 and F-16XL ight tests, as well the recent CEC
(Commission of the European Communities) supported HLFC research programs (ELFIN,

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

131

Fig. 3. NdYAG laser perforated aluminium sheet.

LARA, HYLDA and HYLTEC) have all used laser drilling for the production of suction
surfaces. (Techniques for drilling holes are discussed in Section 4, below.)
3.2. Design requirements for HLFC suction surfaces
The design of the suction surface and the chambers underneath the perforated skin represents
one of the most signicant engineering challenges concerning HLFC. In addition to the
manufacturing cost, which must be kept to a minimum, there are a number of specic design
requirements that exist for the suction surface. These are discussed.
3.2.1. Aerodynamic contour
Stringent mould line requirements exist in terms of waviness and aerodynamic prole.
The surface denition needs to be maintained when subjected to inertia, aerodynamic and
suction loads.
3.2.2. Suction velocity
Suction of the boundary layer through discrete holes can create local 3D disturbances in the
boundary layer and for this reason, the mean suction ow velocity through the holes needs to be
kept below a critical value. If the hole suction velocity exceeds this critical value (for a given hole
size) then transition of the boundary layer will occur at the hole position or downstream of it [14].
It is the largest hole diameter in a HLFC panel which will be critical with respect to suction
velocity.
3.2.3. Uniformity of hole size and shape
It is acknowledged that inhomogeneities of suction velocity, resulting from non-uniformity of
hole size and shape, can have an impact on the stability of the local boundary layer. Priest and
Paluch [14] report on the importance of uniformity of suction velocity across a HLFC panel; but
state that the impact remains dicult to assess due to lack of experimental data devoted to this

132

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

subject and the complexity of the aerodynamics of a boundary layer with suction applied through
discrete holes. Techniques for assessing perforated panels based on pressure loss measurement
and optical inspection of the holes were developed by ONERA [14] as part of a broader objective
to quantify and understand the signicance of suction velocity inhomogeneities.
3.2.4. Mechanical properties
The HLFC skin surface is a primary structural element. For safety and certication it must be
treated as a Class 1 part, i.e. failure and separation of the panel from the wing structure must be
prevented [15]. Satisfactory strength, stiness and fatigue properties are required. Special
considerations for composite materials include the impact of increased moisture absorption into
the resin and UV damage (due to the fact that the surface cannot be painted).
The skin panel thickness will be determined by considerations of deection requirements
under aerodynamic and suction loading, load transfer in the joints, panel buckling and impact
resistance.
3.2.5. Damage tolerance
The most likely causes of in-ight damage is hailstone or bird impact. Ground handling impacts
and FOD (foreign object damage) during take-o and landing are also of concern. Current
requirements in terms of impact damage on the leading edge are based on retaining structural
integrity of the component following an impact. In addition to this requirement, for HLFC
surfaces, a surface dent is also of concern as it could cause transition of the boundary layer,
resulting in turbulent ow downstream of the impact site.
For carbon bre composite materials, the presence of holes increases the electrical resistance in
the panel and changes the nature of the damage caused by lightening strike. The author (Young)
and associates ODriscoll et al. [16] evaluated this issue for a HLFC engine nacelle panel which
would not be protected by wire mesh. Simulated lightening strike tests on NdYAG laser drilled
carbon bre epoxy panels indicated that contrary to expectation, the extent of the damage was less
than that seen on the control panels, which represented a current nacelle design.
3.2.6. Durability, corrosion and erosion resistance
Durability of the nished product must include the long-term stability of the surface in terms of
its dimensions, surface nish and porosity. Good corrosion resistance of the base material is
critical, as the nal product cannot be painted (as this will block the holes). This requirement
favours titanium over aluminium, for example. Trials conducted by the author (Humphreys)
indicated that the porosity level in HLFC panels can change over time due to environmental
exposure. Rain erosion is a serious concern for perforated composite material skins.
3.2.7. Compatibility with de-contamination and de-icing systems
Both insect contamination and ice adherence generate roughness-induced transition and loss of
laminar ow due to blockage of the holes. The prevention of insect and ice contamination may be
achieved using a single systemFsuch as a liquid (probably glycol based) systemFor the functions
may be separated, by having a barrier system for the insects and a hot air or liquid system for
the ice.

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

133

Various methods to prevent insects from disrupting the ow are presented by Coleman [9].
These include preventative methods and cleaning methods. The adherence of insect debris to
the wing surface depends on the perforated skin material, surface roughness, coatings and the use
of de-contamination uids. Hot air de-icing systems would probably prevent the use of epoxy
adhesive bonding between a metal suction surface and a composite substructure, for example.
3.2.8. Resistance to uid damage
The surface should display adequate resistance to uids that may be encountered, such as fuel,
oil and hydraulic uids and cleaning agents. The presence of the holes implies that uids may
ingress directly into the bulk of the material, rather than just through the surface. This is of
particular concern for composite materials. A modest increase in the rate of water absorption has
been measured on tests conducted by the author (Young) on perforated carbon bre epoxy
composite coupons.
3.2.9. Structural compatibility
The HLFC surface must be compatible with the surrounding and supporting structure. The
stiness incompatibility between a titanium skin panel, for example, and an aluminium wing
structure results in high strain-induced stresses caused by wing exure under load. For this reason,
a relatively low modulus titanium skin would be better suited to this application than higher
modulus titanium.
3.2.10. Surface quality, steps and gaps
Discontinuities, such as steps, gaps and surface irregularities may either trip the boundary
layer or destabilise the ow, resulting in transition occurring at a nite distance downstream of the
point of disruption. To prevent transition of the boundary layer, manufacturing tolerances at any
manufacturing joint (or junction for an access panel, for example) in the suction surface or in the
laminar ow region, will be substantially tighter than those used in current aircraft structures. An
important element for the design of a HLFC structure is the structural joint that may be required
between the aft part of the suction surface and the laminar ow region.
The critical height that will cause transition of the ow depends on the local boundary layer
conditions. A small discontinuity could thus be tolerated at one location on the surface, but not at
another location where the ow is less stable. The precise geometry of the discontinuity has been
shown to be important. Forward facing steps, for example, are less of a problem than rear facing
steps. Holmes et al. [17] discuss manufacturing requirements for laminar ow and report on the
relative tolerance of laminar ow over dierent shaped discontinuities.
3.2.11. Repair
In addition to the requirement for repair schemes to restore the structural integrity of the
surface, it is necessary that the repair has a minimal aerodynamic impact. This implies that the
repair is ush and perforated. Standard repairs for metal or composite material involve a patch
that may not be ush with the original surface. A scarf repair on a composite surface, for example,
will have a forward and backward facing step equal to the thickness of a single ply (or about
0.25 mm). As stated above, the critical height that will cause transition of the ow depends on the
local ow conditions, however, it is likely that this critical value will be exceeded in this case.

134

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

Furthermore, it will not be possible to nish the repair using a ller or paint, as this will block
the holes.
The viability of re-drilling the repaired section depends on the detailed design of the structure. If
it is possible to perform this operation in situ, then the holes will be larger on the outside than on
the inside. The presence of a non-perforated section with a step will result in a wedge of turbulent
ow downstream of the repair.
3.3. Surface porosity, hole size and shape
The airow through the suction surface is a function of the porosity. Referring to Fig. 4 the
porosity is calculated as follows:

Porosity

 
 
p d12
p d1 2

4 AB
4 A

if A B:

A typical hole diameter (d1 ) on the outer surface is 50 mm and the hole centre-to-centre distance is
500 mm. This gives a pitch-to-hole diameter ratio of 10 and a porosity of 0.00785.
It is desirable for the position of the holes on subsequent rows to be oset to prevent the airow
striking a straight line of holes. This may be achieved by randomly osetting the rst hole in the
row by a time delay in the laser drilling operation.
Ideally, the shape of the hole should be tapered with the larger diameter on the inside. The
advantage of this is that should dust (or any other particulate matter) enter the hole, it will be
sucked through and will not block the hole. This hole shape occurs naturally to some extent, when
holes are produced by electron beam or laser drilling, as the hole on the beam entry side is always
bigger than on the exit side. For NdYAG drilled panels of about 1 mm thick, the hole diameter
on the beam entry side was established by the authors to be about 22.6 times that of the beam
exit side. Schwab [18] indicates very similar ratios for electron beam drilled holes.
However, there exists an aerodynamic advantage of having the larger hole diameter on the
surface (i.e. having the taper in the opposite direction to that described above). For the same

Fig. 4. HLFC perforated panel.

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

135

pressure drop and mass ow, the hole inlet velocity will be comparatively lower (resulting in less
disturbance to the external airow) because the hole area is larger.
It is apparent that the parameters of hole size, pitch and skin thickness are not independent of
each other and need to be considered together in the design of the suction surface.

4. Techniques for producing holes

4.1. Electron beam
Schwab [18] investigated the drilling of holes for LFC using an electron beam gun. He reports
that this technique can produce 3000 holes per second with hole diameters as small as 60 mm in
1.0 mm thick (and 40 mm in 0.5 mm thick) stainless steel sheet. A high power electron beam pulse
initially melts and then vapourises the material locally at the point of impact. When the beam
penetrates the back face of the workpiece and strikes the backing piece, this material vapourises
explosively and the molten material is ejected through the hole [18].
The cross-section of the holes was observed to be uniformly tapered with the hole diameter on
the beam entry side about 22.5 times that of the beam exit side. Due to the backing technique
adopted by Schwab [18], the exit holes were reported to be burr-free and round.

4.2. NdYAG laserFsingle pulse

Holes can be drilled by a NdYAG laser, which produces pulses of radiation at a wavelength of
1.06 mm with a pulse duration of about 0.11 ms [19]. The laser beam is focused by means of a lens
to produce the holes individually by means of a single laser pulse. Fig. 5a is a scanning electron
microscope (SEM) image of a series of NdYAG laser drilled holes in a sheet of thermoplastic

Fig. 5. (a) NdYAG laser perforated APC-2, (b) Excimer laser perforated APC-2 (irregular hole shape caused by
vibration).

136

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

carbon bre composite. The heat from the drilling process results in a heat aected zone around
the hole, which can aect the mechanical properties of the material.
4.3. Nd-YAG laserFmulti-pulse
The multi-pulse method involves ring the laser several times in order to penetrate through the
panel. The drilling technique can cause irregular shaped holes resulting from vibrations of the
drilling process, which is not ideal for laminar ow. The authors investigated the notion that this
technique would reduce the size of the heat aected zone in carbon bre composite epoxy panels
around the drilled hole, however, the extent of resin damage was observed to be very similar to
that of the single pulse method.
4.4. Excimer laser
An Excimer laser produces pulses of radiation at a wavelength of 308 nm with a pulse duration
of 20150 ns [19]. The short pulse duration removes a small amount of material necessitating
several hundred pulses to penetrate a panel of 1 mm thick. Practical techniques to produce large
perforated panels use a diractive lens array to drill an array of holes simultaneously. An
advantage of this technique over the NdYAG laser is that smaller holes can be produced. Hole
diameter of 1050 mm can be produced.
Williams [19] reports that highly regular holesFin terms of shape and sizeFcan be produced
using this technique. However, any relative movement of the panel will result in holes that are not
exactly round (Fig. 5b).

5. Materials
5.1. Candidate materials
Candidate materials for laser drilled HLFC surfaces include titanium, stainless steel, aluminium
and composites. What is needed is a lightweight material that can be drilled or manufactured
in a way that produces an acceptable porosity for sucking the boundary layer and will still
retain sucient durability and structural integrity. Candidate materials are rated by the authors in
Table 1.
5.2. Titanium
Commercially pure (CP) titanium and titanium alloys have been the material of choice for
many HLFC projects as they may be slotted or drilled and will still retain adequate strength.
Titanium has proven to be durable under harsh rain erosion tests and is regarded as the
benchmark against which other materials are measured. It does, however, present some design
diculties. For an engine nacelle, the additional weight that results from the use of titanium (in
place of the composite material used on current designs) reduces the performance gain from the
HLFC system. For a wing surface, titanium has a higher modulus of elasticity than aluminium

137

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

Table 1
Candidate materials for HLFC suction surfaces
Materials

Design weight

Corrosion resistance

Rain erosion resistance

Titanium
Stainless steel
Aluminium alloy
Thermoset composites
Thermoplastic composites

Fair
Poor
Good
Good
Good

Good
Good
Poor
Good
Good

Good
Good
Fair
Very poor
Fair

and the incorporation of a sti panel in a conventional aluminium wing creates high strain
induced loads.
Candidate titanium materials are TA10 and Ti-15V-3Cr-3Sn-3Al. The advantage of the latter
titanium alloy over the more widely used titanium alloy, Ti-6Al-4V, is that the former alloy has
a lower modulus of elasticity (82 versus 110 GPa) and this will reduce the strain-induced loads on
the joint between the perforated skin and the primary wing structure [20,15].

5.3. Stainless steel

The material can be slotted or drilled by electron beam or laser. Like titanium, it does not suer
from corrosion problems, but results in a heavier structure, as the density of the material is about
1.8 times greater than that of titanium alloy.

5.4. Aluminium alloy

Aircraft grade aluminium alloys can be drilled without diculty by electron beam or by laser.
Unprotected aluminium alloy, however, suers from serious corrosion and erosion problems. The
diculty here is that the base material cannot be protected by cladding with pure aluminium or by
painting the surface.
To investigate the nature of corrosion of perforated aluminium, a 1 mm thick panel of anodised
unclad L166 aluminium was drilled by NdYAG laser and subjected to a salt spray test
in accordance with ASTM B117 standard by HAL Consultants, Manchester, under contract
to the author (Young). The salt solution of 5% NaCl in de-ionised water was used in a oncethrough basis, with an average run-o rate of 2.6 ml per day. The cycling was continuous over
ve days, thereafter the sample was removed and inspected. Fig. 6 is a SEM image of two holes
taken after the salt spray trails. The panels inspected by the author (Young), indicated signs of
corrosion and micro-cracking at the edges of the holes. The results backed up the concern that
unprotected perforated aluminium would have poor long term corrosion resistance, however, it
was not possible to correlate exposure time in a salt spray cabinet to actual ight hours. Postdrilled anodisation of the aluminium sheet may however oer acceptable protection against
corrosion.

138

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

Fig. 6. SEM images of laser drilled holes in aluminium following salt spray trails [23].

Fig. 7. SEM image of perforated carbon bre epoxy panel (laser entry side) [21].

5.5. Epoxy composite materials

Carbon bre reinforced epoxy composite can be drilled by Excimer and NdYAG laser,
however, the drilling process results in damage to the resin around the holes, due to the heat from
the laser being conducted along the bres. The damaged area is approximately equal to one hole
diameter on either side of the drilled hole (Fig. 7). Kevlar reinforced epoxy has also been
successfully drilled using Excimer laser. Williams [19] reports that uniform holes with a lack of
thermal eects were produced. Glass bre composites do not lend themselves to laser drilling
because the glass bres tend to be transparent to the laser beam.
The author (Young) investigated the eect of single and multi-pulse NdYAG laser drilling on
the mechanical properties of carbon bre epoxy panels [21]. It was noted that the ultimate tensile
strength was reduced by between 2% and 48% depending on the drilling technique, material type
and drilling pattern. The laser drilled hole through the material is not uniform in diameter and
features a bell-mouth opening on the laser entry side (Fig. 8). A serious concern for epoxy

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

139

Fig. 8. SEM image of laser drilled hole in carbon bre epoxy panel [21].

materials is that the resin burnout around the holes leads to poor rain erosion characteristics.
This is discussed in Section 5.7.
5.6. Thermoplastic composite materials
Thermoplastic composite materials can also be drilled by Excimer and NdYAG laser. Because
of the relatively good impact resistance of thermoplastic materials, they were investigated for use
as the perforated suction surface. The two selected materials were APC-2, a carbon bre
composite of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) resin and carbon bre reinforced PPS (polyphenylene
sulphide). Quasi-isotropic APC-2 specimens of 1 mm thickness were produced and drilled by
NdYAG laser. Static testing conducted by the author (Young) revealed an average reduction in
ultimate tensile strength of about 30% compared to the undamaged material.
The NdYAG drilled APC-2 thermoplastic composite demonstrated superior rain erosion
resistance to that of drilled carbon bre epoxy composite, in spite of the presence of a heat
aected zone around the hole (Fig. 9).
5.7. Rain erosion resistance
To evaluate the impact resistance of laser drilled composite materials, a series of rain erosion
tests were carried out by the author (Humphreys) using a custom designed rain erosion rig
(Fig. 10). A specimen of 25 mm diameter can be clamped to a rotating arm and the impact angle
varied from 901 (i.e. normal to the impact trajectory) to 12.51. A rain fall rate of 25 mm per hour
was used and the droplet size was selected to be 1 mm.
Dierent materials were tested. Thermoset composite specimens were fabricated from seven
layers of Fiberite 914C carbon bre unidirectional material in perforated and non-perforated
condition. The thermoplastic composite was APC-2 and was tested in the perforated condition.
The aluminium was anodised L166 Alclad and the titanium specimen was CP in a perforated
condition.

140

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

Fig. 9. SEM image of NdYAG laser drilled hole in APC-2.

Fig. 10. Rain erosion rig (built by AS&T).

Dening the limit of the useful life in these tests was somewhat subjective. It was decided to
stop the test when bre bundles were being removed from the composite specimens or when
pitting started to occur on the metal specimens. The relative performance of the dierent materials
is presented in Table 2.
The aluminium was seen as the benchmark material as this was similar to what is used on
leading edges of current wing and nacelle designs. Titanium, as expected, was largely unaected
by the erosion impacts and displayed essentially no damage after 36 h of testing. The carbon bre
thermoset composite however displayed very poor erosion resistance. Fig. 11a shows the
commencement of damage from 901 rain impact after just a few minutes. Loose bres on the
surface are seen to have broken o at the hole edge (initiated most likely by the heat damage to
the resin). After about 30 min, bres were removed between adjacent holes (Fig. 11b). The laser
drilled thermoplastic material also suered some bre removal but this was considerably less than
that of the carbon bre epoxy specimens. The perforated thermoplastic material after 11 h was

141

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

Table 2
Rain erosion test results
Materials

Rain erosion resistance

Perforated carbon bre epoxy composite

Non-perforated carbon bre epoxy composite (unpainted)
Perforated PEEK thermoplastic composite
Anodised L166 Alclad aluminium (non-perforated)
Perforated titanium

Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

Fig. 11. SEM images showing rain erosion on NdYAG perforated carbon bre epoxy specimens.

approximately similar in damage to the carbon bre epoxy specimens after 30 s under the same
conditions.

6. Manufacturing considerations
The function of the suction chambers (plenum chamber, ducts or utes as they may also be
called) is to conduct the air bled from the external boundary layer, to a suction pump. It is
required that a series of narrow suction chambers run under the skin, in a spanwise direction in
the wing. The suction within the rows of chambers is not equal and is tailored to suit the external
ow conditions (characterised by pressure, pressure gradient and Reynolds number). The material
used for the suction chambers and the method of manufacture has to be considered in an
integrated manner with the selection of the skin material.
A further design requirement is that the suction system could also function as part of the anticontamination and de-icing system. For liquid anti-contamination systems, the ducts would serve
to conduct the liquid or foam from a reservoir to the skin. An alternative de-icing system, based
on hot air would require that hot air be ducted through the suction chambers (during which
time the suction system will be shut-o ).

142

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

The requirement for an almost airtight seal between the suction chamber and skin surface
complicates the manufacturing process. Brazing, welding, adhesive bonding and superplastic
forming/diusion bonding have all been considered for joining the suction chambers to the
perforated skin. Providing a durable bond in a lightweight structure, without blocking too many
holes, is the primary objective.
The relative merits of alternative manufacturing techniques have been evaluated by the author
Humphreys [22]. These are shown in Table 3 and illustrated in Fig. 12. Options a2c involve the
welding or brazing of the outer skin to the substructure or stringers. The advantage of these design
concepts is that there is little blockage of the holes and narrow plenum chambers can be produced,
which is particularly desirable in the leading edge region. A disadvantage is that both parts need
to made from the same material and if the skin material is titanium, then this leads to a heavy
structure. Brazing and welding can also result in heat distortion of the thin skins. For a titaniumto-titanium joint, laser welding was advocated by Jagger and Davies [15]. A titanium substructure
was used on the A320 HLFC n test, to eliminate problems with dissimilar materials.
The superplastic forming/diusion bonding technique (option d) oers the opportunity to
manufacture a light weight structure with little reduction in the porous area. The development
cost of this process will however be relatively high and the technique will place a constraint on the
allowable width of the plenum chambers.
To reduce the weight of the complete design, glass bre composite material has been considered
for the suction chambers. The outer skin could be bonded or riveted to a light weight substructure
(option e). This results in an area along the attachment line where no suction can be achieved.
Bonding also introduces concerns regarding delamination resulting from possible leading edge
impact (from a birdstrike, for example).
It is clear that no single technique solves all of the problems associated with this complex
structural design.

7. Discussion
The design and manufacture of the suction surface and the chambers underneath the perforated
skin is one of the critical technologies that is being investigated as part of the on-going laminar
ow research. There are a large number of specic design requirements for the suction surface.
These include: an accurate aerodynamic contour, uniformity of hole size and shape (resulting in
the correct suction velocity), adequate mechanical properties (i.e. strength, stiness and fatigue
life), and adequate damage tolerance, durability, corrosion and erosion resistance. Furthermore,
the suction surface design would have to be compatible with the de-contamination and de-icing
systems and should not introduce excessively high loads into the skin due to a stiness
incompatibility with the rest of the aircraft structure.
Candidate materials for laser drilled HLFC surfaces include titanium, stainless steel, aluminium
and composites. Titanium has proven to be durable under rain erosion tests and is generally
regarded as the best candidate material for wing and empennage applications. Unprotected
aluminium suers from corrosion problems, although further work is needed to fully quantify
this. The diculty is that the aluminium cannot be protected in the conventional way by cladding
or painting.

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

143

Table 3
Advantages and disadvantages of alternative manufacturing techniques, based on [23]
Description

Advantages

(a) Welded
construction

*
*

*
*
*

(b) Brazed construction

*
*

*
*

(c) Stringers welded or

brazed to outer skin,
inner skin attached with
mechanical fasteners

*
*

*
*
*

(d) Super plastic

formedFdiusion
bonded

*
*

Disadvantages

Very little reduction in porous area

Allows narrow plenum chambers,
when required
Structure relatively strong
Moderate tooling costs
Can be applied to high and low volume
production

Very little reduction in porous area

Allows very narrow plenum chambers,
when required
Structure relatively strong
Can be applied to high and low volume
production

Very little reduction in porous area

Allows narrow plenum chambers,
when required
Inner skin material can dier from
other (lighter weight)
Structure relatively strong
Moderate tooling costs
Can be applied to high and low volume
production

Very little reduction in porous area,

as structure can be perforated
after manufacture
Structure very strong
Potentially low production unit cost

*
*
*

*
*
*
*

*
*
*

(e) Outer skin

bonded and
riveted (optional)
to substructure

*
*

*
*

Low tooling cost

Inner skin material can dier from
outer skinFcould be composite
Low weight
Good for low volume production

*
*
*

Materials of inner parts must be same as

outer skin
Structure heavy if titanium is used
Poor in regard to crack propagation
Moderate production unit cost

Materials of inner parts must be same as

outer skin
Structure heavy if titanium is used
Poor in regard to crack propagation
Relatively expensive tooling costs
Moderate production unit cost
Moderate production unit cost
Poor in regard to crack propagation

High tooling costs

Process unsuitable for low volume
manufacture
Poor in regard to crack propagation
Worse than average reparability
Some restriction on plenum chamber width
No porosity over bond region
Bond may fail with impact (e.g. bird strike)
Moderate production unit cost

It has been demonstrated that thermoset carbon bre epoxy material has very poor rain erosion
properties, particularly after it has been laser drilled. In the perforated condition, the material is
unsuitable for use on the leading edge on a HLFC surface. NdYAG laser drilled carbon bre
PEEK was substantially better than the epoxy material in regard to rain erosion and could be
considered as a candidate material for a HLFC nacelle, where a light weight solution is
particularly important and it is not required that suction occur at the leading edge. There is,

144

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

Fig. 12. Alternative manufacturing techniques for HLFC structure [22].

however, a concern regarding the increased cost of this design concept compared to current
carbon bre epoxy nacelles.
The selection of the skin material needs to be considered as part of an integrated design solution that also considers the design and manufacturing technique of the suction chambers.
A complexity concerning the design of these chambers is that they may also be required to
function as part of the anti-contamination and de-icing systems. Brazing, welding, adhesive
bonding and superplastic forming/diusion bonding have all been considered for joining the
suction chambers to the perforated skin. No single technique, however, solves all of the problems

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

145

associated with the design. Indeed, the optimum solution may be a combination of more than one
technique.

8. Conclusions
*

The design of the suction surface and the chambers underneath the perforated skin represents
one of the most signicant engineering challenges concerning the implementation of HLFC.
Candidate materials for laser drilled HLFC surfaces include titanium, stainless steel,
aluminium and carbon bre composites. Titanium is widely regarded as the best candidate
material for the wing and empennage, while thermoplastic carbon bre composites may be
most suitable for the engine nacelle.
The selection of the skin material needs to be considered as part of an integrated design
solution, that considers the design and manufacturing technique of the suction chambers.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Commission of the European
Communities for providing funding for this work under the HYLDA (CEC contract number
BRPR CT95-0135) and HYLTEC (CEC contract number BRPR-CT97-0606) projects.

References
[1] Collier Jr. FS. An overview of recent subsonic laminar ow control ight experiments. AIAA-93-2987, Fluid
Dynamics Conference. Orlando, July 1993.
[2] Bulgubure Ch. Laminar ow wing design applied to business jets. DragNet European Drag Reduction Workshop.
Toulouse, June 1999.
[3] Joslin RD. Overview of laminar ow control. NASA TP-1998-208705, Langley Research Centre, October 1998.
[4] Mullender AJ, Riedel H. A laminar ow nacelle ight test programme. Second European Forum on Laminar Flow
Technology. Bordeaux, June 1996.
[5] Poll DIA, Danks M. Relaminarisation of the swept wing attachment line by surface suction. IUTAM Symposium
on Laminar-Turbulent Transition. Sendai, September, 1994.
[6] Juillen JC, Arnal D. Experimental study of boundary layer suction eects on leading edge contamination along the
attachment line of a swept wing. IUTAM Symposium on Laminar-Turbulent Transition. Sendai, September 1994.
[7] Reneaux J, Priest J, Juillen JC, Arnal D. Control of attachment line contamination. Second European Forum on
Laminar Flow Technology. Bordeaux, France, June 1996.
[8] ODonoghue D, Pembroke T, ODwyer T, Young T. Novel approaches to combat insect contamination on HLFC
wings. Condential Report HYLTEC TR43. Departments CES and MAE, University of Limerick, February 2001.
[9] Coleman WS. In: Lachmann GV, editor. Roughness due to insects, boundary layer and ow control, vol. II.
New York: Pergamon Press, 1961.
[10] Humphreys B. Contamination avoidance for laminar ow surfaces. First European Forum on Laminar Flow
Technology. Hamburg, March 1992.
[11] Gregory N. In: Lachmann GV, editor. Research on suction surfaces for laminar ow. Boundary layer and ow
control, vol. 2. New York: Pergamon Press. 1961. p. 92460.
[12] Braslow AL, Burrows DL, Tetervin N, Visconti F. Theoretical and experimental studies of area suction for the
control of laminar boundary layer on an NACA 64A010 airfoil. NACA TR 1025, 1951.

146

T.M. Young et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 127146

[13] Fischer MC, Wright AS, Wagner RD. A ight test of laminar ow control leading edge systems. NASA
TM-85712, 1983.
[14] Priest J, Paluch B. Design specication and inspection of perforated panels for HLF suction systems. Second
European Forum on Laminar Flow Technology. Bordeaux, June 1996.
[15] Jagger DH, Davies AJ. Design and engineering issues of a hybrid laminar ow wing. Second European Forum on
Laminar Flow Technology. Bordeaux, June 1996.
[16] ODriscoll D, Hardwick J, Young T, Ryan J. Lightning strike of perforated carbon bre epoxy laminar ow
panels. Journal of Composites Technology and Research 2000;22(2):715.
[17] Holmes BJ, Obara CJ, Martin GL, Domack CS. Manufacturing requirements, laminar ow aircraft certication.
NASA CP-2413, 1986.
[18] Schwab U. Electron beam drilled holes for laminar ow control. First European Forum on Laminar Flow
Technology. Hamburg, March 1992.
[19] Williams SW, Marsden PJ. New laser drilling techniques for porous surfaces. Second European Forum on
Laminar Flow Technology. Bordeaux, June 1996.
[20] Timetal. Specication sheet for Timetal 15-3 Titanium alloy. Broadway, Denver, Colorado, 1997.
[21] Young T, ODriscoll D. Impact of NdYAG laser drilled holes on the strength and stiness of laminar ow carbon
bre reinforced composite panels. Journal of Composites, Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, in press.
[22] Humphreys B. Working towards the ideal laminar ow structure. Fourth Aeronautics Days Conference.
Hamburg, January 2001.
[23] HAL Consultants, Manchester, UK. Eects of salts on aluminiumFresults of preliminary study carried out for
University of Limerick. Ireland. 25th July 1998.