Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
PREM ANAND.T.P
RAJAVANNIAN.R
SREEKANTH.A
in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree
of
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
in
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
During the year 2010-2011 in partial fulfillment for the award of the
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING degree in AERONAUTICAL
ENGINEERING at RAJALAKSHMI ENGINEERING COLLEGE.
Associate Professor,
Rajalakshmi Nagar,
Rajalakshmi Nagar,
Chennai 602105.
Chennai 602105.
CERTIFICATE OF EVALUATION
COLLEGE NAME: RAJALAKSHMI ENGINEERING COLLEGE
BRANCH
: AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
SEMESTER
: 8th SEMESTER
S.NO
NAME OF THE
TITLE OF THE
NAME OF THE
STUDENT
PROJECT
GUIDE
EFFECT OF
TRAILING EDGE
RAJAVANNIYAN.R
FLAP ON THE
Mr.YOGESH
(21107101037)
KUMAR SINHA
OF KLINE
SREEKANTH.A
FOGLEMAN
(21107101049)
AIRFOIL
(INTERNAL EXAMINER)
(EXTERNAL EXAMINER)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are sincerely grateful to our guide, Mr.Yogesh kumar sinha for guiding us
throughout the course of our project work.
PREM ANAND.T.P
RAJAVANNIAN.R
SREEKANTH.A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER NO
1.
2.
3.
TITLE
PAGE NO
ABSTRACT
LIST OF FIGURES
ii
LIST OF TABLES
iii
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE SURVEY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
4.
5.
11
11
12
13
13
16
19
22
25
29
5.1 CATIA
29
5.2 GAMBIT
31
31
5.2.2 MESHING
32
33
40
41
43
46
49
52
56
56
60
6.
CONCLUSION
64
7.
REFERENCES
65
ABSTRACT
LIST OF FIGURES
TITLE
PAGE.NO
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Plain flap
Figure 2.3
Figure 3.1
3d view of airfoil
Figure 3.2
Photograph of model
10
Figure 4.1
11
Figure 4.2
12
Figure 5.1
30
Figure 5.2
30
FIGURE NO
Workbench
Figure 5.3
ii
32
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO
TITLE
PAGE NO
EXPERIMENTAL
Table 4.1
13
Table 4.2
16
Table 4.3
19
Table 4.4
22
Table 4.5
25
THEORETICAL
Table 5.1
41
Table 5.2
44
Table 5.3
46
Table 5.4
49
Table 5.5
52
iii
CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Ever since the beginning of first flight by mankind there has been a
constant endeavour to enhance the wing performance by various means such
as improvement and refinement of wing design, addition of auxiliary lifting
devices, using light weight materials, Laminar Flow Control (LFC) and other
flow optimization methods. The usage of auxiliary lifting surfaces such as
flaps, slats, leading edge slots has gained prominence in the designing of
wings for aircrafts nowadays along with other developments in wing
designs. The usage of a trailing edge plain flap in a wing enables the wing
to operate at higher angles of attack in situations like landing and take-off
without losing lift.
also to achieve highest possible CLmax without stalling. Besides the stand
alone configuration of Kline Fogleman airfoil with trailing edge flap has not
been reported in the literature.
The present study focuses on the effect of a trailing edge plain flap
on the lift and drag of a Kline Fogleman airfoil. The focus is on finding
out the lift coefficient and study the effect of plain flap on the lift and
drag of an airfoil by deflecting the flap to different deflection angles at a
flow velocity of 30m/s and varying angles of attack. The study aims at
finding the maximum lift coefficient for different angles of deflection of
flap and thereby finding the maximum lift coefficient at the stalling angle of
attack of Kline Fogleman airfoil.
CHAPTER-2
LITREATURE SURVEY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The investigation of Kline Fogleman airfoil performance was first
performed by NASA in the year 1960 by Richard KLINE & Floyd
FOGLEMAN wherein he established the CL vs angle of attack (alpha) curve
for various velocities. It was established that the maximum C L is found to
be 0.742 at angle of 9 degrees and stalling angle is 9 degrees.
The
demonstrated
possibility
in
late
of
using
1919
by
the
auxiliary
NACA
lifting
where
they
device
tested
is
first
various
The airfoil and the location of flaps are fabricated on the basis of coordinates
given
for
Kline
Fogleman
airfoil
in
the
website
Airfoil
CHAPTER-3
KLINE FOGLEMAN AEROFOIL MODEL FABRICATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The NACA airfoil are generally preferred because the symmetric
airfoil works better in small angle of attack and the cambered airfoil works
better in higher angle of attack. But the usage of Kline Fogleman airfoil
compensates
for
this
disadvantage
and
increases
the
maximium
lift
coefficient when it is used with flaps at the trailing edge. The Kline
Fogleman airfoil has been used only in a paper airplane. The airfoil was
chosen with trailing edge flap for its inherent advantages and ease of
fabrication.
3.2 FABRICATION
The Kline Fogleman airfoil model with trailing edge flap whose
deflection angle can be varied has been fabricated from Balsa wood with
the following specifications.
Chord
: 10 cm
Span
: 25 cm
Flap location
Flap
The model is designed in CATIA using the co-ordinates for the Kline
Fogleman airfoil with the trailing edge plain flap being located at 20% of
the chord whose deflection angle can be varied. The angle of attack of
model can be changed by raising and lowering the rod inside the pipe fitted
with screw. A 3d view of model is given in the following figure 3.1.
10
CHAPTER-4
WIND TUNNEL AND EXPERIMENT RESULT
4.1 LOW SPEED WIND TUNNEL
Experiments are performed in the subsonic wind tunnel of test section
Size 30cm length * 30cm width * 30cm height with a maximum speed of
50m/s at a drive speed of 720 rpm as shown in figure 4.1 Wind tunnel is
fitted with a drive panel incorporating various accessories for the speed
control of the fan using the speed control unit, and it also consists of lift,
drag, side force and velocity indicators.
11
deflection
angles
of
degrees. For
these
four
configurations lift and drag are found out in a flow velocity of 30m/s. The
experiments were repeated for different angles of attack (-8 degrees to +20
degrees).
12
CL
CD
L/D
-4
0.008341
-2
0.0960
0.00776
1.2616
0.2917
0.0070
4.226
0.3486
0.0073
4.851
0.4766
0.0079
6.0909
0.5763
0.0088
6.6393
0.6332
0.0097
6.5925
7.5
0.6154
0.0101
6.1785
0.5940
0.0126
4.7715
10
0.5514
0.0177
3.1632
13
GRAPH
CL vs Angle of Attack
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Cl
0.3
Cl
0.2
0.1
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
0
-2-0.1 0
10
12
-0.2
Angle of Attack
CD vs Angle of Attack
Cd
0.02
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
-15
-10
-5
Cd
Angle of Attack
14
10
15
4
3
L/D
2
1
0
-15
-10
-5
-1
10
15
-2
Angle of Attack
The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil without flap is 0.6332 and the
stalling angle is found to be 13 degrees.
15
CL
CD
L/D
-4
0.149
0.0953
1.567
-2
0.263
0.0853
3.083
0.430
0.0889
4.84
0.508
0.0924
5.5
0.584
0.1003
5.822
0.747
0.1152
6.686
0.839
0.1351
6.210
0.784
0.1387
5.656
10
0.777
0.1479
5.256
16
GRAPH
CL vs Angle of Attack
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Cl
0.5
0.4
Cl
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-10
-5
10
15
Angle of Attack
CD vs Angle of Attack
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
Cd
0.1
0.08
Cd
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-10
-5
5
Angle of Attack
10
15
L/D
5
4
L/D
3
2
1
0
-10
-5
10
15
Angle of Attack
The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil with flap at 15 is 0.839 and the
stalling angle is found to be 11 degrees.
18
CL
CD
L/D
-6
0.3813
0.0544
7.006
-4
0.3984
0.0562
7.088
-2
0.4695
0.0569
8.25
0.5442
0,0586
9.272
0.7385
0.0718
10.277
0.8544
0.0758
11.660
0.9597
0.0853
11.241
0.9782
0.0928
10.536
10
0.9986
0.0946
10.563
11
1.0138
0.0964
10.516
12
0.9676
0.1006
9.611
19
GRAPH
CL vs Angle of Attack
1.2
1
0.8
Cl
0.6
Cl
0.4
0.2
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
Angle of Attack
CD vs Angle of Attack
0.14
0.12
0.1
Cd
0.08
0.06
Cd
0.04
0.02
0
-10
-5
10
Angle of Attack
20
15
20
8
6
L/D
4
2
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
Angle of Attack
The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil with flap at 25 is 1.0138 and the
stalling angle is found to be 10 degrees.
21
CL
CD
L/D
-6
0.5165
0.0114
4.594
-4
0.5485
0.0116
4.818
-2
0.6054
0.0119
5.157
0.7449
0.0146
5.183
0.9156
0.0149
6.247
0.9939
0.0160
6.321
1.011
0.0182
5.661
1.059
0.0196
5.494
10
1.075
0.0209
5.231
12
1.055
0.0224
4.753
14
0.988
0.0240
4.196
22
GRAPH
CL vs Angle of Attack
1.2
1
0.8
Cl
0.6
Cl
0.4
0.2
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
Angle of Attack
CL vs Angle of Attack
0.03
0.025
Cd
0.02
0.015
Cd
0.01
0.005
0
-10
-5
10
Angle of Attack
23
15
20
L/D
4
3
L/D
2
1
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
Angle of Attack
The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil with flap at 30 is 1.075 and the
stalling angle is found to be 9 degrees.
24
CL
CD
L/D
-6
0.7506
0.2276
3.296
-4
0.8039
0.2241
3.587
-2
0.8445
0.2312
3.652
0.9050
0.2419
3.741
0.9391
0.2454
3.826
1.004
0.2575
3.900
1.0014
0.2646
3.838
1.0053
0.2717
3.874
10
0.9569
0.2774
3.448
12
0.7648
0.2860
2.674
25
GRAPH
CL vs Angle of Attack
1.2
1
0.8
Cl
0.6
Cl
0.4
0.2
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
10
12
14
Angle of Attack
CD vs Angle of Attack
0.35
0.3
0.25
Cd
0.2
0.15
Cd
0.1
0.05
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
Angle of Attack
10
12
14
2.5
2
L/D
1.5
1
0.5
0
-10
-5
10
15
Angle of Attack
The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil with flap at 35 is 1.0053 and the
stalling angle is found to be 7 degrees.
27
Comparison of CL
1.2
1
0.8
WITHOUT FLAP
0.6
Cl
WF15
WF 25
0.4
WF 30
WF 35
0.2
0
-15
-10
-5
0
-0.2
10
15
Angle of Attack
28
20
CHAPTER-5
ANALYSIS SOFTWARES AND RESULTS
5.1 ANSYS
CATIA (Computer Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application) is a
multi-platform CAD/CAM/CAE commercial software suite developed by the
French company Dassault Systems and marketed worldwide by IBM. Written in
the C++ programming language, CATIA is the cornerstone of the Dassault
Systems product lifecycle management software suite.
The software was created in the late 1970s and early 1980s to develop
Dassault's Mirage fighter jet, and then was adopted in the aerospace, automotive,
shipbuilding, and other industries.
called CAA. V5 can be adapted via the Visual Basic and C++ programming
languages, an API called CAA2 or CAA V5 that is a component object model
(COM)-like interface.
CATIA is widely used throughout the engineering industry, especially in the
automotive and aerospace sectors. CATIA V4, CATIA V5, Pro/ENGINEER, NX
(formerly Unigraphics), and SolidWorks are the dominant systems
Fig 5.2 Kline Fogleman airfoil with plain flap in CATIA workbench
30
5.2 GAMBIT
5.2.1 PREPARING THE MODEL
The model is prepared in the GAMBIT software by importing the coordinates as a dat file and the geometry is created around the model to
make it a valid CFD model.
An important thing in this is creating the mesh surrounding the object.
This needs to be extended in all the directions to get the physical properties
of the surrounding fluid. The mesh and the edges must also be grouped in
order to set the necessary boundary conditions.
31
5.2.2 MESHING
An environment consisting of 2 squares and 1 semicircle surrounds the
KFm airfoil. The mesh is constructed to be very fine at regions close to the
airfoil. For this airfoil a structured quadratic mesh was used. The grid size
of the mesh is given as 0.20.
32
Grid Check.
33
Models-Materials-Create/Change-Density-Constant(1.2256kg/m3)-Close
35
36
37
38
Solve-Iterate.
39
ANGLE OF ATTACK
CL
CD
L/D
-8
0.095
0.0314
3.025478
-6
0.156
0.0354
4.40678
-4
0.21
0.037
5.675676
-2
0.287
0.0388
7.396907
0.35129
0.039927
8.798307
0.4482
0.0477
9.291405
0.55
0.0588
9.353741
0.6088
0.0735
8.282993
0.7051
0.0932
7.565451
10
0.891
0.11533
7.023324
12
0.81
0.1442
6.178918
14
0.9769
0.1751
5.579098
16
1.056
0.20869
5.060137
18
1.1296
0.2446
4.618152
20
1.2037
0.2829
4.25486
40
22
1.281
0.33
3.881818
23
1.346
0.366
3.677596
24
1.329
0.42
3.164286
25
1.296
0.452
2.867257
26
1.25
0.47
2.659574
27
1.222
0.48
2.545833
CL vs Angle of Attack
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Cl
0.8
Cl
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-10 -8
-6
-4
-2
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Angle of Attack
41
CD vs Angle of Attack
0.6
0.5
Cd
0.4
0.3
Cd
0.2
0.1
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
Angle of Attack
6
5
4
L/D
3
2
1
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
Angle of Attack
ANGLE OF ATTACK
CL
CD
L/D
-8
0.5143
0.06
8.571667
-6
0.6521
0.0641
10.17317
-4
0.8682
0.0789
11.0038
-2
0.9654
0.0845
11.42485
1.1009
0.0895
12.30056
1.1841
0.09355
12.6574
1.2585
0.12095
10.40513
1.3228
0.15087
8.767813
1.3753
0.18248
7.536716
10
1.4147
0.21504
6.578776
12
1.441
0.247
5.834008
14
1.4574
0.2951
4.938665
16
1.4609
0.3111
4.695918
18
1.4709
0.3446
4.268427
19
1.458
0.3468
4.204152
43
20
1.4125
0.3782
3.734796
21
1.3782
0.3923
3.513128
22
1.3502
0.4235
3.188194
GRAPH
CL vs Angle of Attack
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Cl
0.8
Cl
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-10
-5
10
15
Angle of Attack
44
20
25
CD vs Angle of Attack
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Cd
0.25
0.2
Cd
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
Angle of Attack
8
6
L/D
4
2
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
Angle of Attack
CL
CD
L/D
-6
0.956
0.1345
7.107807
-4
1.056
1.456
7.252747
-2
1.258
0.1678
7.49702
1.4512
0.1799
8.066
1.5165
0.1822
8.3232
1.5735
0.2143
7.342
1.6234
0.2524
6.431
1.6745
0.2915
5.743
10
1.712
0.3297
5.192
12
1.7338
0.3675
4.717
14
1.7418
0.4039
4.312
16
1.7418
0.4417
3.944
17
1.7423
0.4601
3.782
46
GRAPH
CL vs Angle of Attack
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Cl
1
Cl
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
Angle of Attack
CD vs Angle of Attack
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
Cd
0.3
0.25
Cd
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-10
-5
10
Angle of Attack
15
20
5
4
L/D
3
2
1
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
Angle of Attack
The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil with flap at 30 is 1.7418 and the
stalling angle is found to be 14 degrees
48
CL
CD
L/D
-6
0.9651
0.1043
9.253116
-4
1.0954
0.1186
9.236088
-2
1.268
0.1296
9.783951
1.6195
0.1479
10.94997
1.6605
0.183
9.07377
1.6955
0.2195
7.724374
1.7267
0.2578
6.697828
1.739
0.2966
5.863115
10
1.7472
0.332
5.262651
12
1.7157
0.361
4.752632
49
GRAPH
CL vs Angle of Attack
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Cl
1
0.8
Cl
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
10
12
14
Angle of Attack
CD vs Angle of Attack
0.4
0.35
0.3
Cd
0.25
0.2
Cd
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
Angle of Attack
10
12
14
L/D
8
6
L/D
4
2
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
10
12
14
Angle of Attack
The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil with flap at 30 is 1.7472 and the
stalling angle is found to be 10 degrees.
51
CL
CD
L/D
-6
1.054
0.1329
7.930
-4
1.2143
0.1471
8.254
-2
1.456
0.1598
9.111
1.7234
0.1691
10.1916
1.7726
0.2066
8.579
1.8128
0.2433
7.450
1.8367
0.2853
6.437
1.8475
0.3248
5.688
1.8461
0.329
5.445
10
1.8432
0.3435
5.365
52
GRAPH
CL vs Angle of Attack
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Cl
1
0.8
Cl
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
10
12
Angle of Attack
CD vs Angle of Attack
0.4
0.35
0.3
Cd
0.25
0.2
Cd
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
Angle of Attack
53
10
12
L/D
8
6
L/D
4
2
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
10
12
Angle of Attack
The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil with flap at 35 is 1.8475 and the
stalling angle is found to be 8 degrees
54
Comparison of CL
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
WF15
without flap
Cl
1
0.8
WF25
0.6
WF 30
WF35
0.4
0.2
0
-10
-5
10
15
Angle of Attack
55
20
25
ANGLE
OF
ATTACK
15
25
56
57
58
10
12
59
30
35
60
61
62
10
12
63
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
The usage of flaps at different deflection angles reveal that the
flap deflection does alter the lift and drag on the airfoil and compared to
the 15, 25 and 30 deflection, the 35 deflection does not contribute favorably
on the stalling angle due to the flow separation and resulting in excessive
drag. The optimal deflection of flap is found to be within the 15, 25 flap
deflection which yields maximum lift coefficient at lower angles of attack
and higher stalling angle compared to the other deflection angles in the
experiment.
The result reveals that the deflection of flap increases the
maximum lift coefficient by nearly 50% and reduced the stalling angle by 4
degrees respectively.
64
CHAPTER 7
REFERENCES
1. Aerodynamic performance of an airfoil with step-induced vortex for
lift augmentation by Fathi Finaish, journal of Aerospace engineering,
vol no.11, 1998.
2. Kline-Fogleman airfoil comparison study
airslanes by Rich Thompson, Feb 15, 2008.
for
scratch-bulit
foam
65