Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
Computational aerodynamics predictions of airfoil drag
and maximum lift continue to be a challenge to aerodynamicists, even using large computer programs. The reliable
calculation of the drag break and maximum lift, including
the effects of Reynolds number, are simply not developed
to the stage where they can be used routinely in aerodynamic design. This is especially troubling in the case of
multidisciplinary design optimization, where thousands of
calculations are made, accurate sensitivities to geometry
changes are required, and the results are not clearly visible
during the process. This paper provides a survey of various
airfoil results and of parametric studies of boundary layer
solutions that illustrate the strong connection between
boundary layer development at the trailing edge and the details of the viscous flow near the leading edge for many
critical cases. With the exception of work by Cebeci and
co-workers, this problem has largely been ignored in computational research, although it is well known by the experimental aerodynamics community.
Introduction
Airfoil aerodynamics continues to present computational
challenges, even for apparently simple subsonic cases. The
difficulty is the accurate prediction of drag and the prediction of maximum lift trends with Reynolds number. Repeatedly, experts discover that the drag, in particular the
sudden break associated with the onset of separation, is difficult to predict. Figure 1 illustrates the problem, and is
taken from work by Cebeci, et al.1 He has been studying
this problem for many years. The work illustrated by Fig. 1
also shows a corresponding problem in obtaining reliable
experimental data. Of particular interest here, Cebeci, et
al,1,2 have found the results of their predictions to be extremely sensitive to transition details and transition location when it comes to the prediction of maximum lift and
drag.
came available.3,4 They didnt account for the initial laminar flow, and the starting conditions for the boundary layer
calculations appeared to be completely unimportant. Nevertheless, they got good results.
2.0
1.5
1.0
CL
0.5
Data: Woodcock
Data: Abbott & von Doenhoff
theory (Cebeci)
0.0
-0.5
0
Figure 1. Drag polar computed by Cebeci, et al.1, illustrating the continuing difficulty in computing drag.
-3.00
-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
Cp
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
-0.20
0.20
0.40 0.60
X/C
0.80
1.00
1.20
737
CLmax
747
1970 - 1980
Revised
CLmax
767
Original
Present
CLmax
x x
W.T.
106
Flight
107
Reynolds Number
108
The current explanation for this surprising behavior resides in the flow at the leading edge. At the lower Reynolds numbers the boundary layer is initially laminar,
and then transitions in a classical two-dimensional sense.
At higher Reynolds numbers the flow on the attachment
line is initially turbulent, and this results in a thicker boundary layer that tends to separate more readily, leading to
lower values of maximum lift. This explanation is originally due to Woodward, et al.8 Finally, there is a suggestion that as the Reynolds number increases further, the
strong favorable pressure gradient at the leading edge may
cause the flow to relaminarize, with the effect that the
maximum lift might start to increase again. Yip et al.9
provide further discussion. Note that this explanation is
fundamentally three dimensional. The leading edge must
be swept. However, Mcmasters7 says that Boeing has seen
evidence that this reversal in maximum lift with Mach
number has also been seen in two dimensional testing.
Computational Progress
So far we have described the problem using experimental
observations. Computational fluid dynamics is also being
used to study the same problems. Because of the presence
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
Cp -0.40
-0.20
Cp te = -.8
Cp te = -.4
Cp te = 0.0
0.00
0.20
-0.20 0.00
1.20
-3.00
-2.50
-2.00
Cp
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
-0.20 0.00
1.20
The second case uses an idealized peaky pressure distribution based on the real pressure distribution given in Fig. 2.
The idealized case pressure distribution is shown in Fig. 6.
This general class of methods has proven to be both accurate and reliable for the class of problems studied in this
paper.30 Calculations made using Greens lag entrainment
method31 produced virtually identical results.
Although not currently popular in the literature, Bradshaws method remains widely used in practice. This computational method provides an economical means of studying effects of varying pressure distribution, sweep, and
taper on the boundary layer development. In particular, the
trends rather than the absolute values of the various boundary layer properties are of primary interest in the present
study. These trends, or gradients, would be completely
consistent with results from more detailed and expensive
calculations.
The flow model concept described above has been investigated using a boundary layer computer program. The
boundary layer is calculated using the classic Bradshaw
method.26 The method uses the turbulent kinetic energy
equation, accounting for the inner portion of the boundary
layer by matching to the law of the wall. It could be considered an ancestor of the currently popular Johnson-King
turbulence model.27 The particular computer code used is
described in Bradshaw, et al.,28 and is an extension of the
two-dimensional compressible boundary layer code.29
4
CD/CD ref
2.40
This result illustrates why the initial viscous airfoil analysis programs were able to ignore the initial boundary
layer characteristics. They were interested in essentially attached flow calculations, and the transonic airfoils of interest did not have pressure peaks/recompressions that led to
laminar separations bubbles. However, for the case where
laminar separation is present, the details of the leading
edge viscous effects will show up at the trailing edge, resulting in a leading edgetrailing edge interaction phenomena that is crucial to the prediction of the drag.
1.20
2.20
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.00
Re = 12.5 million
0.80
0.
100
CD/CD ref
1.70
1.60
rooftop case
1.50
peaky case
1.30
1.20
1.40
1.30
1.10
1.20
1.00
1.10
0.90
1.00
Re = 12.5 million
0
/ ref 6
10
Re = 12.5 million
0
10
Cp,te = 0.0
Cp,te = -.4
Cp,te = -.8
1.50
0.80
/ref
1.40
1.60
0.90
CD/CD ref
Cp,te = 0.0
Cp,te = -.4
Cp,te = -.8
/ ref
for the turbulent boundary layer development are not particularly important.
The computational community associated with NavierStokes solutions is not adequately addressing the flow
field solution near the leading edge. Although the trailing
edge and wake regions are also important, experimental
evidence suggests that the leading edge details are equally
important.
Although difficult, experiments at moderately high Reynolds numbers directed specifically toward the determination of the effective starting conditions for the attached
turbulent boundary layer are required to identify precisely
the Leading Edge Trailing Edge interaction phenomena.
15. Drela, M., and Giles, M.B., Viscous-Inviscid Analysis of Transonic and Low Reynolds Number Airfoils,
AIAA Journal, Vol. 25, No. 10, Oct. 1987, pp. 1347-1355.
Acknowledgements
The analysis presented here arose from discussions with
Rudy Myer, formerly of the Grumman Aerospace Corporation, and is gratefully Acknowledged.
References
18. Crimi, P., and reeves, B.L., Analysis of LeadingEdge separation Bubbles on Airfoils, AIAA Journal, Vol.
14, No. 11, Nov. 1976, pp. 1548-1555.
3. Bavitz, P., An Analysis Method for TwoDimensional Transonic Viscous Flow, NASA TN-D7718, January 1975.
28. Bradshaw, P., Mizner, G.A., and Unsworth, K., Calculation of Compressible Turbulent Boundary Layers With
Heat Transfer on Straight-Tapered Swept Wings, Aero
Rept. 75-04, 1975, Imperial College, London.
29.
6