Chapter 1

Numerical Analysis on the effect of

fluidic on demand winglet on the
aerodynamic performance of the wing

1.1 Introduction

The primary concern at present regarding operating aircraft are efficient usage of fuel and environmental
impact. A lot of research interest is attracted over the reduction of drag of the aircraft. By reducing the
drag, the fuel burnt per kg of cargo or human per nautical mile is reduced. This reduces carbon foot print
of the aircraft and hence the efficient fuel usage and environmental impact can be justified.

In aircrafts, induce drag is created by the wing tip vortex that is generated due to the difference in pressure
between top and bottom surface of the wing near the tip as shown in figs and 1.1 and 1.2.

The major challenge for the designer of an aircraft is to have a highest L/D ratio possible. This can be
done by reducing the drag. Since the induced drag is a major portion of the drag, by reducing the induced
drag, the L/D ratio can be increased.

The induced drag is usually reduced in wings by using winglets. Spiroid, flat-plate and blended winglets
are some of the winglets used for reducing induced drag. The size and position of the winglet plays
important role in reducing the drag.

Different winglets such as blended winglets are generally a structural modification and hence forms a

1
permanent fixture which is present during the entire flight envelope. Even though this kind of winglets are
found to be efficient in reducing the induced drag, they offer additional drag due to the skin friction drag
added by them.

The aircraft cruise conditions include a angle of attack at a lower range in which the fraction induced drag
to the total drag may not be significant. The induced drag, being a function of angle of attack, forms a
major portion of drag during landing and take off. Hence it is more optimistic to use a winglet whis can be
present only when there is a need arises.

This is not possible with a existing permanent winglet and we propose a fluidic winglet which is an on
demand approach. Here fluid will be injected in the spanwise direction as shown in figure 1.3. The flow
in the spanwise direction will discourage the flow from bottom to the top surface of the wing thatwill result
in reduction in induced drag.

The dimensions of both wing and injection slot, and the operational regime will be finalised based on the
literature review.

This work will be carried out using computational fluid dynamics. A software will be used to solve the
governing equations and its details are given below.

1.2 Test Matrix

This will be decided based on the literature review.

1.3 Flow field variables to be analyzed

• Pressure field

• Velocity field

• Lift, drag and pitching moment

1.4 Softwares to be used for the work

• For grid generation (Structured or unstructured) - Gambit

2
• For pre processing, sollution and post processing - Fluent

3
1.5 Images

Figure 1.1: Induced flow created on wing with and without winglets

Figure 1.2: Concept of induced flow

4
Figure 1.3: Schematic of spanwise injection

5
Chapter 2

Literature Survey

Thipyopas and Intaratep[1] studied a tailless, fixed-wing MAV named KuMAV-001. They introduced Vortex
Lattice Method in the conceptual design phase to find the effects of winglets. They conducted wind tunnel
tests on powered and unpowered MAV models. The investigation aimed to understand the influence of
propeller induced flows on CL , CD and CM .

The MAV used by them had a propulsive tractor and elevon configuration as shown in fig 2.1. The span
of the MAV was set at 50 cm due to operational constraints for smaller size air vehicle. They estimated
the mass mass of the MAV to be around 500 grams. The model is a combination of E212 aerofoil and a
fuselage. The MAV could fly between 7 to 15 m/s with a minimum endurance of 20 minutes. The design
configuration of the MAV is shown in fig 2.2.

They studied the effect of winglets using a half scaled MAV model as shown in fig 2.3. In that investigation,
they studied winglet parameters such as winglet span, cant angle, leading edge sweep angle, and leading
edge location as shown in the figure. They used a six component balance to measure the forces and
moments on the half scaled MAV. The corresponding experimental setup is shown in fig 2.4.

The winglet was observed to affect the lateral stability of the MAV as shown in the fig 2.5. They observed
a different where the winglet is seen to reduce the l/d ratio as shown in fig 2.6.

Reddy et.al[2] studied multi element winglets featuring three smoothly blended elements as shown in
fig 2.7. 11 parameters were used to define the geometry of the three elements resulted in a total of
33 parameters. They used a second order, 3D geometry generation algorithm which can create 3D
geometries with minimal number of specified design parameters, based on locally analytical smoothly
connected surface patches.

6
The test conditions were of Mach number to be 0.25 and angle of attack of 11 degrees. These values
represent the takeoff conditions of a passenger aircraft. They carried out multi-objective optimization
using mode frontier. The objectives of the stuy are to obtain maximum lift and lift yto drag ratio along with
minimum drag and moment. They found that the multi-winglet concept was performing better at subsonic
and transonic speeds.

They observed that the baseline case (wing without winglet) experiences wingtip vortices and associated
pressure change as shown in fig 2.8. However, when the winglets are introduced, minimum pressure
increases and dispersed over a greater area which indicates vortices are made weaker by the winglets.
This is shown in fig 2.9 and 2.10.

They compared the streamlines around the wing with different wingtips as shown in fig 2.11 and concluded
that the wingtips offer netter performance based on the data shown in fig 2.12.

Smith et.al[3] conducted wind tunnel tests in a wing having NACA 0012 airfoil section and flat plates with
and without winglets. The photograph of the model with the winglets is shown in fig 2.13. They carried
out the tests at Reynolds number between 161,000 and 300,000. They measured drg and lift through
force balance and visualised wing tip vortex using laser flow visualization. The They carried out numerical
simulations also that solved Euler equations of motion for which a sample grid is shown in fig 2.14. The
winglets were assembled in such a manner that different combination of dihedral angle was obtained.
The details of the combination of dihedral angle of the winglets is shown in fig 2.15. They observed that
the introduction of the winglets reduced the induced drag and in increased L/D ratio by 15-30% as shown
in fig 2.16. When the dihedral spread of winglets was set at zero incidence relative to the wing, the lift
curve slope was seen to increase and the dihedral spread also lead to distribution of the tip vortex as
shown in fig 2.17.

Guerrero et.al[4] stated that the lift-induced drag of an aircraft can be as high as 40 and 80 to 80% of
the total drag during cruise and conditions respectively. They used spiroid wingtips, which look like an
extended blended wingtip that bends upward by 360 degrees to form a large rigid ribbon. They have given
the schematic of different types of winglets as shown in fig 2.18. They have also shown how a bio inspired
winglet is obtained as shown in fig 2.19. With spiroid winglet, both the lift curve slope and the stall angle
of the wing are seen to increase as shown in the figure 2.21. The drag beyond an angle of attack of 12o
is seen to decrease by using the winglet (fig 2.22). The l/d ratio also increases with the introduction of
the winglet. The spiroid wingtip also dissipates vortices much faster compared to the baseline case as
shown in figs 2.24 and 2.25, and also results in shorter wake extension.

Afshar et.al[5] designed and fabricated of a bodyless MAV as shown in figs 2.26 and 2.27. They stated
that the Bodyless MAVs can offer higher lift accompanied by a lower drag. They studied the effect
of winglets on winglet on aerodynamic properties such as roll and yaw stability. They found that the

7
winglets resulted in improved aerodynamic performance, better maneuverability characteristics compared
to baseline wings and improved stability.

Yu et.al[6] used winglets on a saucer shaped aircraft (fig 2.28) that is a result of blending fuselage with
wing. This saucer aircraft is highly advantageous over conventional airplanes since this eliminatd the use
of fuselege. The advantages are simple structure, compact scale and high load capability. Due to the low
aspect ratio of the aircraft, the induced drag reaches larger values due to the induced vortex as shown in
figs 2.29 and 2.30. When a sweepback fin-shaped winglet is added, the ratio of lift to drag increases by
75% (fig 2.31) and the coefficient of lift also increases by adding the winglet as shown in fig 2.32. They
have also found out from flight test that the load capability and lateral stability are improved by using the
winglets.

8
2.1 Images

Figure 2.1: Photo of KUMAV-001, from [1]

Figure 2.2: Specification of MAV KUMAV-001, from [1]

9
 Figure 2.3: Wind tunnel model for winglet study., from [1]

Figure 2.4: 6-component balance and set up of the half-scale model, from [1]

10
Figure 2.5: Effect of winglet on lateral static stability, from [1]

Figure 2.6: Effect of winglet on L/D ratio, from [1]

11
 ”

Figure 2.7: The wing-tail-body configuration and multi element winglets The wing-tail-body configuration
used to analyze each winglet design a), the three elements used for each multi-winglet geometry b), and
some parameters used to define each winglet element c)., from [2]
”

Figure 2.8: Flow field of base line case (without winglet) Low pressure region due to vortices around a
naked wing, depicted at four chord lengths down stream a) and streamlines around the wingtip of the
naked wing used in this study b)., from [2]
”

12
 ”

Figure 2.9: Change in pressure field change due to the winglet Low pressure region due to vortices
around a random multi-winglet geometry, depicted at four chord lengths downstream from the wing tip
trailing edge, from [2]
”

Figure 2.10: Streamlines around a wing with multi winglets, from [2]

13
 ”

Figure 2.11: Streamlines around the wing tips Streamlines around the wing tips of: a) naked wing, b)
blended horns-up winglet, c) optimized split-scimitar winglet, d) and Pareto 4213 optimized three-element
multi-winglet, from [2]
”

Figure 2.12: Variation of Cl , Cd , Cm and Cl /Cd vs α Variations of: a) Cl vs α b) Cd vs α, c) Cm vs α

and d) Cl /Cd vs α for the naked wing,optimized split-scimitar configuration and Pareto 4213 optimized
multi-winglet., from [2]

14
Figure 2.13: Wing model with winglets, from [3]

15
 ”

Figure 2.14: Euler Grid for the Baseline Winglet Configuration, from [3]
”

Figure 2.15: Multi-Winglet Combinations having the dihedral angle of the winglets, from [3]

16
Figure 2.16: Effect of winglet on CL , CD and L/D, from [3]

17
Figure 2.17: Flow visualisation of flow over wing with winglets, from [3]

18
Figure 2.18: Wingtip devices currently in use or in testing stage, from [4]

19
 Figure 2.19: Spiroid winglet design by biomimetics abstraction., from [4]

Figure 2.20: Geometric details of spiroid winglet used by Guerrero et.al, from [4]

20
Figure 2.21: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for the clean wing (CW) and the wing with the spiroid
wingtip (WSW), from [4]

Figure 2.22: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for the clean wing (CW) and the wing with the spiroid
wingtip (WSW), from [4]

21
Figure 2.23: CL / CD ratio for the clean wing (CW) and the wing with the spiroid wingtip (WSW), from [4]

Figure 2.24: Wingtip vortices (in light blue), visualization for baseline case, from [4]

22
Figure 2.25: Wingtip vortices (in light blue), visualization for spiroid wingtip, from [4]

Figure 2.26: Dimensions of delta wing MAV, from [5]

23
 Figure 2.27: Photo of delta wing MAV, from [5]

Figure 2.28: ketch of saucer-shaped aircraft, from [6]

Figure 2.29: Induced vortices of the saucer aircraft, from [6]

24
Figure 2.30: Numerical simulation of flow field of saucer showing tip vortex, from [6]

Figure 2.31: Comparison of of lift to drag curves of saucer, from [6]

25
Figure 2.32: Comparison of of lift curves of saucer, from [6]

26
Chapter 3

Current status

This chapter provides the details on the task completed and the tasks to be executed in the future.

3.1 Tasks completed

• Literature survey

• Problem definition

3.2 Future Plan

• CFD Validation

• 3D model design

• CFD simulation of the finalised design

• Analysis of the results and report generation

27
References

[1] C. Thipyopas and N. Intaratep, “Aerodynamics study of fixed-wing mav: Wind tunnel and flight
test,” in International Micro Air Vehicle conference and competitions 2011 (IMAV 2011),’t Harde, The
Netherlands, September 12-15, 2011, Delft University of Technology and Thales, 2011.

[2] S. R. Reddy, G. S. Dulikravich, A. Abdoli, and H. Sobieczky, “Multi-winglets: Multi-objective

optimization of aerodynamic shapes,” in 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, p. 1489, 2015.

[3] M. Smith, N. Komerath, R. Ames, O. Wong, and J. Pearson, “Performance analysis of a wing with
multiple winglets,” No. AIAA 2001-2407, 2001.

[4] J. E. Guerrero, D. Maestro, and A. Bottaro, “Biomimetic spiroid winglets for lift and drag control,”
Comptes Rendus Mecanique, vol. 340, no. 1, pp. 67–80, 2012.

[5] S. AFSHAR and H. SHAHI, “Design and fabrication of a delta wing micro aerial vehicle,” International
journal of mechanics, no. 4, pp. 51–58, 2007.

[6] J.-l. YU, L.-l. WANG, and G. Ge, “Using wing tip devices to improve performance of saucer-shaped
aircraft,” Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 309–314, 2006.

28