Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 26 June 2013
Received in revised form 30 January 2014
Accepted 30 January 2014
Available online 15 February 2014
Keywords:
Conguration aerodynamics
Drag reduction
Adaptive wings
Aircraft aerodynamics
Aircraft design
a b s t r a c t
An approach, applicable to multiple-lifting-surface xed-wing aircraft operating at subcritical Mach
numbers, is presented for minimizing induced and prole drag with a constraint on the pitching moment.
The approach allows the designer to select surface incidence, twist, and ap angles as variables for the
optimization. The numerical formulation uses superposition to construct the spanwise lift distribution
from basic and additional loadings, and decomposes the ap-angle distributions for each surface into
mean and variation distributions. Together, these elements enable the solution of the problem using
semi-analytical methods that also provide insight. Results are presented for a three surface aircraft which
highlights low drag possibilities with positive static margins, presents the trade-offs between induced
and prole drag, and provides insight into the aerodynamics of multiple lifting surface congurations.
2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Aircraft congurations with adaptive lifting surfaces offer the
capability for in-ight alteration of the aerodynamics to suit different ight conditions. The resulting drag-reduction and loadalleviation possibilities could translate to potential benets in reduced fuel burn and emissions. Adaptive, or morphing, wing and
aircraft technologies therefore is an active area of research interest within aircraft aerodynamics and design [5,36,37]. Multiple trailing-edge aps distributed along the aircraft surfaces offer a simple method of aerodynamic adaptation, as it allows for
the in-ight redistribution of spanwise lift for minimum drag.
Benets of such approaches have been shown in several studies
for drag reduction and load alleviation [33,35,7,34,25], and adaptive trailing-edge aps are used frequently on high performance
sailplanes today. Recent research at North Carolina State University has shown benets from multiple trailing-edge aps on both
tailed [14] and tailless [9] congurations with constraints. The current study presents a similar optimization method for use on multiple surface congurations with trim constraints. As an example
application, a three surface conguration with trailing edge aps
and twist-distribution control sections is shown in Fig. 1.
Multiple surface congurations have been studied extensively.
Prandtls biplane equation [29], which assumes elliptically loaded
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ashok_g@ncsu.edu (A. Gopalarathnam).
1
Graduate Research Assistant; currently Senior Aerodynamics Engineer, UTC
Aerospace Systems, Burnsville, MN, USA.
2
Associate Professor.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2014.01.012
1270-9638/ 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Planform for example aircraft. The left side shows sections used for dening
twist relative to wing root. The right side shows ap locations.
36
versions of Prandtls equation [24,20,21] for multiple surface congurations, each presenting steps forward in understanding optimal spanwise lift and surface lift ratios. The study by Kroo and
McGeer [18] on conventional, tailed and canard congurations has
provided much inspiration for this work, as comparisons of surfaces twisted for minimum induced drag and trim have highlighted
shortcomings of canard congurations. Three surface congurations provide unique opportunities for aerodynamic analysis, as the
availability of three surface-lift variables opens up the possibilities
for satisfying longitudinal trim, thus allowing for optimal lift and
trim to occur simultaneously. This redundancy in design variables
has increased interest in three surface aircraft, as indicated by several references [17,26,31,13].
The current methodology builds on earlier work by the authors [9] and differs from earlier approaches for multiple-surface
optimization [24,20,21,18,17,26,31,13] in the use of basic and additional loading to formulate the optimization problem. Also, prole drag is considered. The formulation allows for minimization of
induced drag with or without trim constraints, with design variables that include incidence, twist, and ap angles. In addition,
the method allows for some ap angles to be set for prole drag
reduction. The method is very ecient and requires only the solution of simple matrix equations. Further, the information for these
equations can be obtained using standard vortex-lattice type methods.
2. Background
The following three subsections briey provide background material for the methodology developed in the paper.
2.1. Basic and additional lift distributions
The concept of basic and additional lift distributions is described in several references [4,1,19]. As explained in detail in
a recent article on multiple TE aps [14], the use of this concept enables the determination of ap angles using a simple,
semi-analytical approach. In this subsection, the highlights of this
concept are briey presented. For further details and an example showing the accuracy of the approach, the reader is referred
to [14].
Within the assumption of linear aerodynamics (linear C l
variation and linear C l relationship) and so long as the component of the induced velocities along the freestream direction are
small compared to V , the spanwise distribution of the section
lift coecient, C l ( y ), can be written as a sum of two contributions: (1) basic distribution, C lb ( y ), and (2) additional distribution,
C la ( y ). The basic distribution is the C l distribution at C L = 0, and
is the result of spanwise variations in geometric twist, aerodynamic twist due to camber, and ap deections. The additional C l
distribution, C la , is due to changes to for the wing with zero
geometric and aerodynamic twist.
The advantage of using the linear superposition concept is that
the net C l distribution for a particular conguration with N independent variables, (which can be TE ap angles, f , or twist
angles, t ), at a given C L can be posed in terms of the unknown
ap/twist angles:
C l = C L C la,1 + C lb,0 +
N
C lb, j j
(1)
j =1
C D ind =
2S ref
2 (k)
M
c ( y )C l ( y )
k =1
b2 (k)
w ( y)
V
dy
(2)
C D ind = f T Df
(3)
fT = [ C L
1 1
(4)
. . . N ]
C D a0
C D a1
...
C D aN
C D 0a
C D 1a
D=
..
.
C D 00
C D 01
...
C D 0N
C D 10
C D 11
...
..
.
..
.
C D Na
C D N0
C D N1
D aa
C D 1N
..
.
(5)
. . . CD NN
in which, for each element of the D matrix, the rst subscript indicates the source of the c ( y )C l ( y ) distribution and the second
subscript indicates the source of the w ( y )/ V distribution. As an
illustration, C D a0 is written as:
b
C D a0 =
1
2S ref
2 (k)
M
c ( y )C la,1 ( y )
k =1
b2 (k)
w b,0 ( y )
V
dy
(6)
C M NP =
37
N
(C M sections, j + C M basic, j ) j
j =1
+ C M sections,0 + C M basic,0
(9)
The subscript sections refers to the airfoil section pitching moment, and the subscript basic refers to the pitching moment on
the conguration caused by a basic lift distribution. The sections
and basic terms that are subscripted with 0 relate to those contributions when no aps are deected and the twist is xed during
the design; these two terms, when added up, will be referred to as
C M 0 . C M sections, j and C M basic, j , which together will be referred to as
C M j , are the pitching moment contributions from a unit ap/twist
angle of variable j, which can be precomputed using Eqs. (10)
and (11):
y j ,end
C M sections, j =
Fig. 2. Effect of TE ap angle on the drag polar for the NASA NLF(1)-0215F airfoil
from wind-tunnel experiments [32] at a Reynolds number of 6 million. The division
of the drag polar into three regions, illustrated for the 0-deg ap, is discussed later
in Section 3.6.
to 10 deg, beyond which ow separation near the ap hinge results in large pressure drag, which negates the benet from the
reduction in skin-friction drag. These limiting values of ap angle,
when the ap is used for drag reduction, are referred to in this paper as the most-negative ap angle, f min , and the most-positive
ap angle, f max . Using the results for the NLF(1)-0215F airfoil in
Fig. 2 as an example, low C d can be achieved over a C l range from
C l low of 0.2, achieved with f min of 10 deg ap, to C l up of 1.3,
achieved with f max of +10 deg ap. For any value of operating C l
that lies between C l low and C l up , using a ap angle that is determined by linear interpolation between f min and f max will result
in a smooth variation of the TE ap angle with operating C l , while
ensuring low C d .
2.3. Static margin and pitching moment constraint
For longitudinal static stability, the aircraft center of gravity
should be forward of the neutral point, resulting in a positive
value for the static margin (SM), where SM = (xNP xcg )/c with
the x-axis pointing toward the rear of the aircraft. The pitching
moment coecient about the CG for an aircraft for a given lift coecient can be expressed as:
C M cg = C M NP C L SM
(7)
C M NP = C L SM
(8)
2
S c
(C m f ) j c ( y )2 dy
(10)
y j ,start
b
2 (k)
M
2
C M basic, j =
c ( y )C lb, j ( y )x( y ) dy
S c
(11)
k =1 0
f = f + f
(12)
3. Methodology
A deection of a TE ap will result in a change to the pitching moment about the aircrafts neutral point from two sources:
(1) the change in the airfoil section properties, resulting from a
change in the airfoil camber line, and (2) the change in the basic lift distribution. A change in section twist will result in only
the second contribution as there is no change in section pitching
moment. Note that the neutral point of the aircraft is located at
the centroid of the additional loading. Therefore, the additional lift
distribution does not cause any pitching moment about the neutral point. Eq. (9) displays how the pitching moment coecient is
decomposed for a series of ap/twist angles:
C D ind
= (C D aj + C D ja )C L + (C D 0 j + C D j0 ) +
(C D i j + C D ji )i
j
N
i =1
=0
(13)
A constraint is introduced on the pitching moment about the aircraft NP which satises the trim requirement for a desired SM and
C L . Building on Eqs. (8) and (9), the constraint equation, g () = 0,
is:
38
g () =
N
C M j j + C M 0 (SM C L ) = 0
(14)
j =1
C D 11
.
.
.
C D N1
. . . C D 1N
..
.
. . . C DNN
C M1
..
C MN
C M1
1
..
.
/2
. . . C MN
0
C D a1 C L + C D 01
..
.
=
C D aN C L + C D 0N
( S M C L ) + C M 0
(15)
W 1 f ,1 + + W 4 f ,4 = 0
(16)
f = f min +
C L C llow
C l up C llow
( f max f min )
(17)
Thus, the mean ap for a surface can be set to ensure that the
surface will operate with low prole drag. Considering Eq. (15), if
one of the ap angles is xed at a value for drag-bucket control,
the order of the system reduces by one and the remaining aps
can still be optimized for minimum C D ind . Displayed in Eq. (18) is
the example where ap j has been xed at a value of X f , j .
..
.
... CD
j 1 j 1
. . . C D j +1 j 1
..
.
..
.
C D j 1 j +1
C D j +1 j +1
..
.
..
. . . f , j 1
...
f , j +1
..
Fig. 3. Surface lift variation for a three surface aircraft from the current approach
compared with LOTS [13]. Optimization variables are the canard and tail incidence
angles.
CD
..
C
+
C
L
D
aj 1
0 j 1
C D aj+1 C L + C D 0 j+1
..
.
.
..
CD
j 1 j
C D j +1 j
..
.
[X f , j]
(18)
39
Fig. 4. Polar plots for the wing and canard airfoils at Re C l = 3 106 .
Fig. 5. Variation of C D ind and span eciency, e with static margin (SM) for the threesurface conguration at C L = 0.5, showing results from schemes A and B.
Fig. 6. Comparison of span eciency, induced, prole, and total C D for the three-surface conguration from schemes A, B, and C.
40
Fig. 7. Spanwise C l , drag polars, and twist distributions from scheme B compared
with those from scheme A for C L = 0.3 and C L = 0.7. Flap angles are zero for both
schemes.
Fig. 8. Spanwise C l , drag polars, ap angles, and twist distributions from scheme C
for C L of 0.3 and 0.7. Spanwise C l distributions from scheme A are shown for comparison.
41
Fig. 9. Comparison of span eciency, induced, prole, and total C D for the three-surface conguration from schemes C, D, and E.
ap/twist variables were determined, the aerodynamics were determined from full analysis of the conguration. For this full analysis, the AVL vortex lattice method [12] was used to determine
the lift, induced drag, C l distributions, and pitching moment. The
XFOIL code [10] was then used several times to determine the
drag polars for the apped sections at the appropriate Reynolds
numbers. This information was used in spanwise integration to determine the prole drag. Thus, even though approximations (superposition approach for lift distributions and curve ts for the section
drag polars) were used in the drag reduction schemes for determining the optimum ap/twist variables, the results presented in
this section are from full analysis without those approximations.
The airfoils used on the conguration were a custom natural
laminar ow (NLF) airfoil on the wing, the MH201 airfoil [15] on
the canard, and an NACA 0012 airfoil on the tail. Information about
the wing and canard airfoils is presented in Fig. 4. Other aircraft
parameters include the aircraft weight ( W ) = 18 000 N, reference
chord (c ref ) = 3.9 ft, and reference area ( S ref ) = 177.9 ft2 .
5.1. Induced drag minimization: Comparison of results from schemes A,
B, and C
In schemes A, B, and C, induced drag is minimized without
any consideration given to prole drag. When scheme A is used,
there is no constraint on the pitching moment. Thus the method
in scheme A is free to choose the optimum distribution of lift between the three lifting surfaces. To achieve pitch trim with the lift
distribution resulting from scheme A, the CG has to be placed aft
of the neutral point, corresponding to a static margin of 35%, and
resulting in a statically unstable aircraft. When a pitch-trim constraint is enforced with scheme B for a static margin of 10%, there
is a very small increase in C D ind (of 0.0003) compared to that of
scheme A. This additional induced drag is associated with an upward loading on the canard. Fig. 5 shows the variation of C D ind and
span eciency with static margin for C L = 0.5.
Another approach is to take the conguration with xed twist
values, but use aps to minimize the induced drag using scheme C.
42
Fig. 10. Spanwise C l , drag polars, ap angles, and twist distributions from scheme D
for C L of 0.3 and 0.7. Spanwise C l distributions from scheme C are shown for comparison.
and curve-ts for the drag polars in Section 3.6) supports the argument that those approximations are accurate enough to be used
in the optimization schemes.
The reasons for the lower prole C D with schemes D and E can
be seen by studying Figs. 10 and 11, which show the spanwise C l
distributions and section drag polars on the three surfaces for C L
of 0.3 and 0.7 from schemes D and E. For scheme D, it is seen from
Fig. 10 that adjusting the wings mean ap angle has successfully
resulted in the wing operating within the drag bucket at both lift
coecients. Thus, for a small penalty in induced drag compared
to scheme C, this scheme achieves a signicant benet in prole
drag. As seen from Fig. 11, the results from scheme E for the two
lift coecients are nearly the same as that from scheme D, except
43
method. For this example aircraft it is seen that when the surfaces
are twisted for minimum induced drag without any pitching moment constraint minimum induced drag occurs at a negative static
margin. Using twist to minimize induced drag with a trim constraint for a positive static margin results in only a slight increase
in induced drag. As opposed to twist which cannot be controlled
in ight, trailing-edge aps distributed along the span of the lifting surfaces may be used for in-ight adjustment of the spanwise
lift distribution to suit the ight condition. When aps are used
to minimize the induced drag with a trim constraint there may
be signicant prole drag penalties, as with the example conguration used in this paper. If the ap optimization is done with a
further constraint that the wing mean ap is set to operate the
wing sections within their low-drag ranges, then the small penalty
in induced drag that results is far outweighed by the prole drag
reduction. The results show the importance of considering all components of drag when designing adaptive lifting surfaces. With the
constrained minimization of total drag using a nonlinear optimization, the total drag was minimized, but the solution was found
to be sensitive to initial values used to start the minimization. In
the current work, the detrimental effect of initial-value sensitivity
was mitigated by using the ap angles from the other closed-form
methods as initial values.
The example airfoils, conguration geometries, ap numbers
and sizes used in this paper were chosen only to illustrate the
methods developed in this effort and are not intended as recommendations for any particular application. While there are certainly several other design considerations for multiple-surface aircraft, drag reduction is an important goal. The current method,
therefore, can form an important part of a designers toolbox for
complex congurations and for adaptive lifting surfaces.
References
Fig. 11. Spanwise C l , drag polars, ap angles, and twist distributions from scheme E
for C L of 0.3 and 0.7. Spanwise C l distributions from scheme C are shown for comparison.
[1] I.H. Abbott, A.E. von Doenhoff, Theory of Wing Sections, Dover, New York, 1959.
[2] D. Althaus, Niedrig-geschwindigkeits-prole, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, 1996.
[3] D. Althaus, F.X. Wortmann, Stuttgarter Prolkatalog I, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn,
Braunschweig, 1981.
[4] R.F. Anderson, Determination of the characteristics of tapered wings, NACA
Rept. 572, 1936.
[5] S. Barbarino, O. Bilgen, R.M. Ajaj, M.I. Friswell, D.J. Inman, A review of morphing aircraft, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 22 (2011)
823877.
[6] L.M.M. Boermans, A. van Garrel, Design and windtunnel test results of a
apped laminar ow airfoil for high-performance sailplane applications, in:
ICAS 94-5.4.3, 1994.
[7] A. Bolonkin, G.B. Gilyard, Estimated benets of variable-geometry wing camber
control for transport aircraft, NASA TM 1999-206586, 1999.
[8] A.A. Cusher, A design and analysis approach for drag reduction on aircraft with
adaptive lifting surfaces, Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University, 2008,
http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/handle/1840.16/5063.
[9] A.A. Cusher, A. Gopalarathnam, Drag reduction methodology for adaptive tailless aircraft, Journal of Aircraft 49 (2012) 161172.
[10] M. Drela, XFOIL: an analysis and design system for low Reynolds number airfoils, in: T.J. Mueller (Ed.), Low Reynolds Number Aerodynamics, in: Lecture
Notes in Engineering, vol. 54, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989, pp. 112.
[11] M. Drela, Elements of airfoil design methodology, in: P.A. Henne (Ed.), Applied Computational Aerodynamics, in: Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, vol. 125, AIAA, Washington, DC, 1990, pp. 167189.
[12] M. Drela, H. Youngren, AVL 3.26 user primer, MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Cambridge, MA 02139, http://web.mit.edu/drela/
Public/web/avl/, accessed 23 May 2013.
[13] K.H. Goodrich, S.M. Silwa, F.J. Lallman, A closed-form trim solution yielding
minimum trim drag for airplanes with multiple longitudinal-control effectors,
NASA TP 2907, 1989.
[14] A. Gopalarathnam, R.K. Norris, Ideal lift distributions and aps angles for adaptive wings, Journal of Aircraft 46 (2009) 562571.
[15] M. Hepperle, Design of two airfoils for a canard airplane, MH AeroTools, http://www.mh-aerotools.de/company/paper_3/yaka.html, accessed 23
May 2013.
[16] J. Katz, A. Plotkin, Low-Speed Aerodynamics, second edition, Cambridge
Aerospace Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001.
44
[17] E.R. Kendall, The theoretical minimum induced drag of three-surface airplanes
in trim, Journal of Aircraft 22 (1985) 847854.
[18] I. Kroo, T. McGeer, Optimization of canard congurations, ICAS 82-1498, 1982.
[19] A.M. Kuethe, C.Y. Chow, Foundations of Aerodynamics: Bases of Aerodynamic
Design, fth edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1997.
[20] E. Laitone, Positive tail loads for minimum induced drag of subsonic aircraft,
Journal of Aircraft 15 (1978) 837842.
[21] E. Laitone, Prandtls biplane theory applied to canard and tandem aircraft, Journal of Aircraft 17 (1980) 233237.
[22] C.W. McAvoy, A. Gopalarathnam, Automated cruise ap for airfoil drag reduction over a large lift range, Journal of Aircraft 39 (2002) 981988.
[23] R.J. McGhee, J.K. Viken, W. Pfenninger, W.D. Beasley, W.D. Harvey, Experimental
results for a apped natural-laminar-ow airfoil with high lift/drag ratio, NASA
TM 85788, 1984.
[24] M. McLaughlin, Calculations and comparison with an ideal minimum of
trimmed drag for conventional and canard congurations having various levels
of static stability, NASA TN-D 8391, 1977.
[25] H.P. Monner, E. Breitbach, T. Bein, H. Hanselka, Design aspects of the adaptive
wing the elastic trailing edge and the local spoiler bump, The Aeronautical
Journal (2000) 8995.
[26] C. Ostowari, D. Naik, Experimental study of three-lifting-surface conguration,
Journal of Aircraft 25 (1988) 106112.