Linear Theories for 2D Airfoil in

Unsteady Flow
AE 528
By:
Srivatsan Mohan

Overview
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Introduction
History
Sears theory
Attasi-Goldstein
Graham-Possio
Ayton solver
Validation and results

Introduction
Interest in Unsteady aerodynamics of airfoils began in the 1920 when engineers tried to solve Aero
elastic problem arising due to increase flight speed. The basic tool used in analyzing the unsteady flow
back then were conformal mapping and Circulation theory.
The mathematical solution essentially consists of finding an irrotational and solenoidal flow field that
satisfies a certain boundary condition at the airfoil surface, kevins circulation theory and Kutta
condition at the trailing edge
Basically, the Circulation around the airfoil changes according to the motion of airfoil and the
unsteadiness in flow. This changes is then shed as a Vortex and carried by the mean flow. Therefore
these vortices serve as a record for the unsteady movement of the airfoil. And since the vortex induce
a velocity flowfield at a point directly proportional to the vortex circulation and inversely proportional
to the distance from the vortex . The total velocity field depends on the entire unsteady motion of the
airfoil

History of Unsteady theories

1935 - Theodorsen, Complete analysis of flat plate in sinusoidal motion
1938 - Von karman & sears, complete treatment of unsteady airfoil theory using circulation theory
1941 - sears, develops the Lift function for a rigid airfoil through a vortical sinusoidal gust.
1968 - Horlock, Lifting airfoil through a gust pattern .
1972 - Nauman and Yeh, Lifting airfoil with small camber through a gust pattern.
1976 Goldstein & Atassi, Interaction between a periodic two dimensional gust and an airfoil in
uniform motion
1978 - Graham J.M.R, small perturbation expansion in unsteady airfoil theory
2011 Ayton, Asymptotic approximation for the sound generated by aerofoil in unsteady flows

Sears Theory

= exp

Sears theory deals with 1-D Gust on thin aerofoil and flat plates , as seen from
the lift equation
It depends on the function S, known as sears function. The sears function depends on the variables , flat
plate, incompressible (M=0). The results of the real and imaginary parts of the sears function are plotted
and the distance of the point from the origin gives the lift at that point.

X axis- real part

y axis imaginary part
Sears Function

Atassi-Goldstein theory

Atassi Goldstein theory looks into the interaction between a 2-D periodical gust and an airfoil in a
uniform motion.
the main parameters in Atassi-Goldstein theory are Small AoA,Small Camber, Incompressible flow
(M=0).

Graham and possio theory

The graham possio solver deals with the 2-D gust in

the x & y direction over a flat plate. Graham solver
also includes compressibility effects into account
while calculating lift.
As seen from the lift equation the lift depends on
the reduced frequency , M, flat plate.

X axis- real part

y axis imaginary part

Ayton Theory
Ayton theory encompasses all the variables for an airfoil into the equation for lift.

Ayton theory is mainly used for NACA 4 digits airfoil. Ayton theory output is the pressure
distribution across the top and bottom surface of the airfoil. The Lift can then be found out by
integrating the pressure over the differential surface area.
The Goal of this project is to verify this solver verifies the previously established three
theories.

sears, Atassi and possio solver solution for the

same flat plate in an incompressible flow, with
zero AoA, and very small Camber
X axis- real part
y axis imaginary part
A- Graham possio solver
B- Sears & Attasi Equations
C- AytonFunction

Work to be done

Obtain similar solutions for a flat plate with Aytons solver completed
Vary Values to match Atassi and Possio solvers for Different sets of conditions - completed
Plot the resulting functions - completed

Attasi Goldstein solver for different values of k1 and K2

K2=0.01

K2=0.05

K2=0.5
K2=0.1
Xaxis- real part
Y axis -imag part
K1=0.1
M1=0.2

Comparison Between Attasi and Ayton solvers

Xaxis- real part

Y axis -imag part
K1=0.1
M1=0.3
K2=0.01

Graham-Possio Solver for different values of k3

Xaxis- real part

Y axis -imag part
K1=0.1
M1=0.2
K2=0
A)K3=0.01
B)k3=0.05
C)k3=0.5

Graham-Possio solver for same k3 but different mach no

Xaxis- real part

Y axis -imag part
K1=0.1
A)M1=0.2
B)M1=0.5
K2=0
k3=0.5

Ayton Vs Possio Comparision

Xaxis- real part

Y axis -imag part
K1=0.1
M1=0.05
K2=0
K3=0.1

Observations and Results

The Ayton solver when compared to the three established solver Doesatisfies most of
the conditions
The Discrepancies between Ayton and Possio arises due to the code where k2cannot
be set to zero
The Ayton solver is not does not work As intended when the mach no is high
The code still needs some work to give more accurate results for higher mach no.
Ayton solvers does not apply to values less than 0.5

Thank you