Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
a
School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100083, China
b
National Laboratory for Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beihang University, Beijing 100083, China
KEYWORDS Abstract Trailing-edge flap is traditionally used to improve the takeoff and landing aerodynamic
Aerodynamic optimization; performance of aircraft. In order to improve flight efficiency during takeoff, cruise and landing
GA (W)-2 airfoil; states, the flexible variable camber trailing-edge flap is introduced, capable of changing its shape
Mechanism design; smoothly from 50% flap chord to the rear of the flap. Using a numerical simulation method for
Trailing-edge flap; the case of the GA (W)-2 airfoil, the multi-objective optimization of the overlap, gap, deflection
Variable camber angle, and bending angle of the flap under takeoff and landing configurations is studied. The opti-
mization results show that under takeoff configuration, the variable camber trailing-edge flap can
increase lift coefficient by about 8% and lift-to-drag ratio by about 7% compared with the tradi-
tional flap at a takeoff angle of 8°. Under landing configuration, the flap can improve the lift coef-
ficient at a stall angle of attack about 1.3%. Under cruise state, the flap helps to improve the lift-to-
drag ratio over a wide range of lift coefficients, and the maximum increment is about 30%. Finally,
a corrugated structure–eccentric beam combination bending mechanism is introduced in this paper
to bend the flap by rotating the eccentric beam.
Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2017.03.003
1000-9361 Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Aerodynamic optimization and mechanism design 989
2. Model design
4. Results
Fig. 6 Close-up of grid for 30P30N airfoil. 4.1. Results under takeoff configuration
4.1.1. 2D results
The Pareto optimal solutions of the takeoff configuration are
shown in Fig. 10. According to the optimization objective,
the lift coefficient and lift-to-drag ratio of the optimized con-
figuration are better than those of the baseline configuration.
Three typical results (A, B, and C) on the Pareto Frontier
are selected for further analysis. The geometries of the different
takeoff configurations are shown in Fig. 11, and the geometric
parameters of the selected takeoff configurations are shown in
Table 4. In order to simplify the legend, ‘‘base” is used instead
of ‘‘baseline” in the figure below.
The aerodynamic performances of selected takeoff configu-
rations is shown in Fig. 12, and the lift coefficient and the max-
imum lift-to-drag ratio of the three optimized takeoff
Fig. 7 Comparison of lift coefficients distribution obtained in configurations are greater than the baseline configuration
numerical simulation with wind tunnel test 31. before the stall angle.
In the lift coefficient linear section, the lift coefficients of
configurations A and B are larger than that of the baseline
configuration, and the increment of lift coefficient is about
0.2. The stall angles of attack of configurations A and B are
decreased by 1° compared with the baseline takeoff configura-
tion. Configuration C basically maintains the original stall
angle of attack, and the lift coefficient is 0.1 higher than that
of the baseline configuration.
Compared with the baseline configuration, the lift-to-drag
ratios of the three optimized configurations have been slightly
increased. The maximum lift-to-drag ratio of configurations A
and C is at 8°, whereas that of configuration B is at 4°. At an
angle of 8°, the drag coefficient is obviously increased, leading
to a decrease of the lift-to-drag ratio. When the angle of attack
increases, the drag coefficient is sharply increased to be near
the stall angle of attack (13°), and the lift-to-drag ratio is
Fig. 8 Comparison of pressure coefficient distributions obtained decreased.
in numerical simulation with wind tunnel test 31. The pitching moments Cm of the three optimized takeoff
configurations are higher than that of the baseline configura-
tion. Here, the pitching moment of configuration B is the
its experimental value. When the angle of attack is 8°, the largest.
boundary layer of the main section (x = 0.45c) is plump and The pressure distributions of different takeoff configura-
uniform, whereas that of the flap section is not, which is con- tions at 8° are shown in Fig. 13. It can be seen that the suction
sistent with the pressure-coefficient curves. The flap section peaks of the front of main body and the flap of the optimized
(x = 0.89c, x = 1.03c, x = 1.11c) shows an inverse-pressure takeoff configurations are higher than that of the baseline con-
gradient trend in the flap. The wake of the main body appears figuration. Because of the change of the camber and seam
992 W. LU et al.
4.1.2. 3D results
The locations of the spanwise stations are shown in Fig. 15. By
stretching the wing sections given by configuration A and the
baseline configuration into three dimensions while maintaining
equal proportions, the wing and fuselage are determined.
Because the twist angle is set to 5°, the geometrical shapes
Fig. 11 Geometries of different takeoff configurations.
Aerodynamic optimization and mechanism design 993
4.2.1. 2D results
The Pareto optimal solutions of the landing configurations are
shown in Fig. 21. According to the optimization objective for
the landing configuration, three better landing configurations
Fig. 13 Pressure distributions of different takeoff configurations A, B, and C are selected from the optimization result. A com-
at a ¼8°. parative analysis of the aerodynamic characteristics of the
three optimized landing configurations and the baseline land-
ing configuration is studied. The geometries of the landing
of different spanwise positions are shown in Fig. 16. The half configuration are shown in Fig. 22, and the geometric param-
models and surface meshes are shown in Fig. 17. eters of the different takeoff configurations are shown in
The 3D results of the optimal and baseline takeoff configu- Table 5.
rations are shown in Fig. 18. In the 3D case, the growth trend The aerodynamic performances of different landing config-
of the aerodynamic performance is similar to that of the 2D urations is shown in Fig. 23. It can be seen that the lift coeffi-
results. Because of the presence of the incidence angle of the cient of configuration C in the linear section is larger than the
wing and the washing effect of the fuselage, the wing and fuse- others by 0.15, but the stall characteristics of configuration C
lage stall angle of attack is smaller by about 4° in the 3D case. are clearly inferior to the others in terms of the stall angle of
The pressure coefficient distributions of various takeoff attack.
configurations are shown in Fig. 19.The negative pressure val- When the angle of attack is less than 8°, the drag coefficient
ues of the main upper surface decrease gradually from root to of configuration A is slightly less than that of the baseline land-
tip, and the pressure distribution of the flap remains basically ing configuration. Therefore, the advantages of configuration
unchanged. Compared with the baseline configuration, the A in terms of the lift-to-drag ratio are obvious, and this config-
suction peak, the upper-surface negative-pressure value, and uration, having the maximum lift-to-drag ratio, maintains this
lower-surface positive-pressure value of the main body and advantage up to the stall angle. However, the lift-to-drag ratios
flap are larger, as was the case for the 2D calculation results; of configurations B and C are lower than that of the baseline
994 W. LU et al.
Fig. 14 Local pictures of streamlines and velocities for different takeoff configurations at a ¼14°.
Fig. 25 Local pictures of streamlines and velocities for different landing configurations at a = 12°.
4.3.1. 2D results
Under cruise configuration, the different conditions for the
bending angle of the flexible variable-camber flap are calcu-
lated separately using the method of computational fluid
dynamics. The values of the bending angle are 0°, 6°, 10°,
6°, and 10°, and the geometries of the cruise configurations
with different bending angles are shown in Fig. 31.
Fig. 31 Geometries of variable-camber trailing edge flap in
The effects of the variable-camber trailing-edge flap upon
cruise configuration.
the aerodynamic force in the cruise configuration are shown
in Fig. 32, and as the lift coefficient and drag coefficient
Fig. 32 Effects of variable-camber trailing-edge flap upon aerodynamic force in cruise configuration.
Aerodynamic optimization and mechanism design 999
increase, the stall angle decreases with the increase of flap cam- the wing and fuselage are determined. The incidence angle is set
ber. Below the stall angle, the lift coefficient undergoes a clear to 3.2° and the twist angle is set to 5°. The geometrical shapes
increase when bending angle is greater than 0°, and the greater at different spanwise positions are shown in Fig. 34. The half
the value of dangle is, the larger the increment of the lift coeffi- model and surface meshes are shown in Fig. 35.
cient will be. But this increment is close to 0 when the attack The 3D calculation results for the cruise configuration are
angle is near the stall angle of attack, and even afterward, shown in Fig. 36, and appear to be similar to those for the
the lift coefficient presents negative growth. At the same time, takeoff and landing configurations. The 3D stall angle of
the increase of the flap camber leads to flow separation in attack is smaller by about 3° than the 2D case, and the lift
advance, reducing the stall angle of attack by 2° when the coefficient of the 3D wing is significantly smaller than that of
bending angle is 10°. The pitching moment increases along the 2D airfoil. The lift-to-drag ratio is also decreased.
with the effective airfoil camber. It can be seen from Fig. 37 that negative-pressure value on
From the lift-to-drag ratio curve, the increase of effective upper-wing surface decreases gradually from root to tip. As
airfoil camber reduces the angle of attack corresponding to with the 2D calculation results, the larger the bending angle
the maximum lift-to-drag ratio. When the bending angle is is, the larger the negative-pressure value on upper surface
greater than 6°, the increase of the camber is conducive to and the positive-pressure value on lower surface are; this is
enhancing the maximum lift-to-drag ratio, but doing so will especially true at the wing tip because of spanwise flow.
be harmful. From Fig. 32(c), which show the envelope of the The pictures of the pressure contours and streamlines, as
lift-to-drag ratio, it can be seen that this ratio can be improved shown in Fig. 38, indicate that larger bending angles corre-
with the lift coefficient ranging from 0 to 2 by changing the flap spond to lower upper-surface pressure values on the wing.
bending angle during the cruise. The flow separation is most serious when the bending angle
The effect of the variable camber trailing-edge flap upon the is 10°.
pressure coefficient distribution in the cruise configuration at
8° is shown in Fig. 33. It can be seen that negative-pressure 5. Mechanism design
value of the upper surface and the positive-pressure value of
the lower surface are higher for the optimized configurations Throughout the above analysis of the effect of a flexible vari-
than those for the baseline configuration when the bending able camber flap upon airfoil aerodynamic performance and
angle is greater than 0°, leading to an increased inverse- the optimization results, the bending angle was not assumed
pressure gradient between the upper and lower surfaces. More- to be too large. At the same time, stress and strain analyses
over, there is no sudden pressure change at the bending posi- of skin materials in the literature4 have indicated that skin is
tion. Compared with the traditional flap and aileron, a prone to wrinkling with bending angles beyond 8°. Therefore,
flexible variable camber flap reduces the loss of lift at the in the design of the bending mechanism, the bending angle is
deflection position. set from 8° to 8°.
In the design of the bending mechanism for the flexible
4.3.2. 3D results variable-camber trailing-edge flap, as shown in Fig. 39, a cor-
Using the GA(W)-2 airfoil as a wing section and stretching it rugated structure is used as the stringer in the skin (Fig. 39(b))
into three dimensions whilst maintaining the same proportions, and an eccentric beam is used as the deformation mechanism
from the 50% flap chord to the rear of the flap (Fig. 39(c)).
Here, the corrugated structure is not in the stress state, and
the flap is not distorted.
The corrugated structure is strongly deformable along the
chordwise direction but strongly resistant to deformation
along the spanwise direction. This mechanism can decrease
the drive force required for the realization of flap deformation.
It can also better maintain the flap shape along the spanwise
direction and decrease the number of eccentric beams, thereby
decreasing its necessary weight.
In order to realize the flexible deformation of the flap, it is
necessary to use the deflection curve of the skin material. The
deflection is the centroid of the cross-section along the vertical
axis, and the direction of the line displacement refers to the
Fig. 33 Effect of variable camber trailing-edge flap on pressure- bending deformation. The axis of the beam will be changed
coefficient distribution in cruise configuration. into a plane curve in the longitudinal plane of the beam, which
32
Fig. 40 Deflection curve .
CL8/CD8, at a takeoff angle of 8°. Under the landing configu- 9. Li DC, Guo SJ, He YY, Xiang JW. Nonlinear aeroelastic analysis
ration, the optimization objective was to maximize the lift of morphing flap. Inter J Bifurcation and Chaos 2012;22(5):125009.
coefficient CL8 at an attack angle of 8° and the lift coefficient 10. Nguyen N, Precup N, Urrnes J, Nelson C, Lebofsky S, Ting E,
CL12 at an attack angle of 12°. The influence of the bending et al. Experimental investigation of a flexible wing with a variable
camber continuous trailing edge flap design32nd AIAA applied
angle upon the aerodynamic performance in the cruise state
aerodynamics conference. Reston: AIAA; 2014.
has been analyzed. A bending mechanism has been designed 11. Lebofsky S, Ting E, Nguyen N. Aeroelasticmodeling and drag
according to the deformation characteristics of the flexible optimization of aircraft wing with variable camber continuous
variable camber trailing-edge flap. trailing edge flap32nd AIAA applied aerodynamics confer-
ence. Reston: AIAA; 2014.
(1) For the optimized takeoff configuration, the effective 12. Urnes JM, Morris C, Sheahan J, Dykman J, Clingman D. Control
camber of the airfoil was increased slightly, which system design for a variable camber continuous trailing edge flap
improved the lift coefficient at the takeoff angle (8°) system on an elastic wing55th AIAA/ASMe/ASCE/AHS/SC
by 8% and the lift-to-drag ratio by 7%, although the structures, structural dynamics, and materials confer-
stall angle of attack decreased by 1°. ence. Reston: AIAA; 2014.
13. Urnes JM, Nguyen N, Ippolito C, Totah J, Trinh K, Ting E. A
(2) For the optimized landing configuration, the deflection
mission-adaptive variable camber flap control system to optimize
angle of the flap was decreased. The flexible variable high lift and cruise lift-to-drag ratios of future N+3 transport
camber trailing-edge flap not only made up for the defi- aircraft51st AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new
ciency of flap deflection but also improved the lift coef- horizons forum and aerospace exposition. Reston: AIAA; 2013.
ficient at the stall angle by 1.5% while maintaining the 14. Ting E, Dao T, Nguyen N. Aerodynamic load analysis of a
original stall characteristics. variable camber continuous trailing edge flap system on a flexible
(3) For the cruise configuration, the flexible variable camber wing aircraft56th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural
trailing-edge flap not only improved the lift characteris- dynamics, and materials conference. Reston: AIAA; 2015.
tics by 0.4 at a cruise angle of 3° in the 2D case but also 15. Lebofsky S, Ting E, Nguyen N. Multidisciplinary drag optimiza-
improved the lift-to-drag ratio in the lift-coefficient tion of reduced stiffness flexible wing aircraft with variable camber
continuous trailingedge flap56th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC struc-
range from 0 to 2. Here, the maximum lift-to-drag ratio
tures, structural dynamics, and materials conference.. Reston: AIAA;
was increased by 1.2%. 2015.
(4) The corrugated structure was used as the stringer in the 16. Nguyen N, Ting E, Lebofsky S. Aeroelasticanalysis of a flexible
skin, and the eccentric beam was used as the deforma- wing wind tunnel model with variable camber continuous trailing
tion mechanism. The bending mechanism satisfied the edge flap design56th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural
requirements of deformation from 8° to 8°. dynamics, and materials conference. Reston: AIAA; 2015.
17. Nguyen N, Tal E. A multi-objective flight control approach for
performance adaptive aeroelasticwing56th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/
ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials confer-
References
ence. Reston: AIAA; 2015.
18. Rodriguez DL, Aftosmis MJ, Nemec M, Anderson GR. Opti-
1. Sinapius M, Monner HP, Kintscher M, Riemenschneider J. mized off-design performance of flexible wings with continuous
DLR’s morphing wing activities within the European network. trailing-edge flaps56th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, struc-
Procedia IUTAM 2014;10(1):416–26. tural dynamics, and materials conference. Reston: AIAA; 2015.
2. Ahmed S, Guo S. Optimal design and analysis of a wing with 19. Yokozeki T, Sugiura A, Hirano Y. Development of variable
morphing high lift devices54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC camber morphing airfoil using corrugated structure. J Aircraft
structures, structural dynamics, and materials confer- 2014;51(3):1023–9.
ence. Reston: AIAA; 2013. 20. Yokozeki T, Sugiura A, Hirano Y. Development and wind tunnel
3. Matteo ND, Guo S, Morishima R. Optimization of leading edge test of variable camber morphing wing22nd AIAA/ASME/AHS
and flap with actuation system for a variable camber wing53rd adaptive structures conference. Reston: AIAA; 2014.
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures structural dynamics and 21. Joo JJ, Mark CR, Zientarski L, Culler AJ. Variable camber
materials conference. Reston: AIAA; 2012. compliant wing - design23rd AIAA/AHS adaptive structures
4. Matteo ND, Guo S, Li D. Morphing trailing edge flap for high lift conference. Reston: AIAA; 2015.
wing52nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural 22. Marks CR, Zientarski L, Culler A, Hagen B, Smyers B, Joo JJ.
dynamics and materials conference. Reston: AIAA; 2011. Variable camber compliant wing - wind tunnel testing23rd AIAA/
5. Matteo ND, Guo S, Ahmed S, Li D. Design and analysis of a AHS adaptive structures conference. Reston: AIAA; 2015.
morphing flap structure for high lift wing51st AIAA/ASME/ 23. Yin WL. Aerodynamic characteristics of multi-sectional variable
ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials trailing-edge airfoil. Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology
conference. Reston: AIAA; 2010. 2010;42(11):1758–61 [Chinese].
6. Perera M, He Y, Guo S. Structural and dynamic analysis of 24. Chen J, Bai P, Yin WL, Leng JS. Analysis on the aerodynamic
seamless aeroelastic wing51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC characteristics of variable camber airfoils with continuous smooth
Structures, structural dynamics, and materials confer- morphing trailing edge. Acta aerodynamics sinica 2010;28(1):46–53
ence. Reston: AIAA; 2010. [Chinese].
7. Perera M, Guo S. Optimal design of a seamless aeroelastic wing 25. Wentz WH, Seetbaram HC, Fiscko KA. Pressure distribution for
structure50th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, struc- the GA (W)-2 airfoil with 20% aileron 25% slotted flap and 30%
tural dynamics, and materials conference. Reston: AIAA; 2009. Fowler flap. Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space
8. Monner HP, Kintscher M, Lorkowski T, Storm S. Design of a Administration; 1978. Report No.: NASA- CR-2948.
smart droop nose as leading edge high liftsystem for transporta- 26. Wang Q, Zhao QJ, Wu Q. Aerodynamic shape optimization for
tion aircrafts50th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, alleviating dynamic stall characteristics of helicopter rotor airfoil.
structural dynamics, and materials conference. Reston: AIAA; Chin J Aeronaut 2015;28(2):346–56.
2009.
Aerodynamic optimization and mechanism design 1003
27. Zhao K, Gao ZH, Huang JT, Li Q. Aerodynamic optimization of 30. Phan MK, Shin J. Numerical investigation of aerodynamic flow
rotor airfoil based on multi-layer hierarchical constraint method. actuation produced by surface plasma actuator on 2D oscillating
Chin J Aeronaut 2016;29(6):1541–52. airfoil. Chin J Aeronaut 2016;29(4):882–92.
28. Reckzeh D. Aerodynamic design of Airbus high-lift wings. 31. Chin VD, Peters DW, Spaid FW, Mcghee RJ. Flow field measure-
Braunschweig: DLR; 2005. Germany. ments about a multi-element airfoil at high Reynolds numbers24th
29. Han ZZ, Wang J, Lan XP. The case and application of FLUENT AIAA fluid dynamics conference. Reston: AIAA; 1993.
fluid engineering simulation. Beijing: Beijing Institute of Technol- 32. Hu QM. Encyclopedia of China. Beijing: China Encyclopedia
ogy Press; 2004. Press; 1987 [Chinese].