AerodynamicShapeDesign-FinalReport-Fall2010 | Airfoil | Lift (Force)

EML 4905 Senior Design Project

A SENIOR DESIGN PROJECT PREPARED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets
Gianluca Minnella 1737720 Yuniesky Rodriguez 2086370 Jose Ugas 1603084

Advisor: Dr. George S. Dulikravich

Professor: Dr. Sabri Tosunoglu October 25, 2010 This report is written in partial fulfillment of the requirements in EML 4806. The contents represent the opinion of the authors and not the Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering.

Page |2

Ethics Statement

The work submitted in this project is solely prepared by a team consisting of Gianluca Minnella, Jose Ugas and Yuniesky Rodriguez it is original. Excerpts from others’ work have been clearly identified, their work acknowledged within the text and listed in the list of references. All of the engineering drawings, computer programs, formulations, design work, prototype development and testing reported in this document are also original and prepared by the same team of students.

Gianluca Minnella Team Member

Jose Ugas Team Member

Yuniesky Rodriguez Team Member

Dr. Sabri Tosunoglu Faculty Professor

Dr. George S. Dulikravich Thesis Advisor

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering

Page |3

Table of Contents
Ethics Statement .................................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures.......................................................................................................................................... 6 List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Chapter 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 12 Problem Statement ................................................................................................................. 12 Motivation............................................................................................................................... 12 Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 12 The Kutta-Zhukowsky Condition ..................................................................................... 13 Aerodynamic Characteristics of Airfoils .......................................................................... 15 The Finite Wing ............................................................................................................... 17 Flow Fields around Finite Wings ..................................................................................... 17 Downwash an Induced Drag ............................................................................................. 1 The Fundamental Equations of Finite-Wing Theory ......................................................... 3 The Elliptical Lift Distribution ............................................................................................ 6 Winglets ............................................................................................................................ 8 Boeing 757-200 Background and Winglet Benefits ........................................................ 10

1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4 1.3.5 1.3.6 1.3.7 1.3.8 1.3.9

1.3.9.1 Technical features: ................................................................................................... 10 1.3.9.2 Range Capability ....................................................................................................... 12 1.3.9.3 Addition of Winglets................................................................................................. 12 1.3.10 1.3.11 **********KUBRINSKI******* ................................................................................. 15 Optimization................................................................................................................ 15

1.3.11.1 Optimization Overview........................................................................................... 16 1.3.11.2 Optimization Algorithm .......................................................................................... 17 1.3.11.3 Particle-Swarm ....................................................................................................... 18 1.3.11.4 Pareto Front Overview ........................................................................................... 19 1.3.12 OpenFOAM Software .................................................................................................. 21

1.3.12.1 Case Setup: Mesher................................................................................................ 24 1.3.12.2 Case Setup: Solver .................................................................................................. 27 1.3.12.3 Case Setup: Parallel Computing ............................................................................. 28 1.3.13 Experimental Aerodynamics and Wind Tunnel Testing .............................................. 32

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering

41 1...................................................................................4 Project Formulation and Management.....13....................1......................................................................... 41 1.....................................13....................13.......................................................................................................4. 55 3..............................................2 3...................................... 44 1.............4....................13.....................................................................................1...........................1 3.3.......1 2....................................................................1.......................... 39 1... 42 1............. 49 Design Parameters ..............................13............................................................................13.............1.............................3...5 Total pressure.......................1 Test Parameters ...........1............4 Static pressure .............2 Analysis of Winglets with Camber Pointing Inwards ............................. 48 Constraints and Other Specifications....................................................13.........16 Profile Drag by Momentum Loss Measurement ..........................................................13..................6 Proximity to walls or model surfaces .3 2.. 41 1................. 51 3............... 45 Chapter 2 2..................................................................................3.....1.............................. 50 Chapter 3 3.............14 Finite Span Wings ............. 40 1.................................................................3.2 Analysis of a Wing with Winglets that are Vertically Downwards ............. 41 1......... 42 1..............................1 Analysis of a Simple Swept-Back Wing ............................................13............... 52 3.......13...1......................................11 Smoke Flow ...........................3................3.................................4.............3.... 47 Design Specifications.....3...................................................15 Force Measurements Using a Balance System...................................................................................................................................4 Design Alternate 3.3 Analysis of a Wing with Winglets that are vertically Upwards .....3 Analysis of a Winglet with Camber Pointing Outwards ....1..............10 Tufts......... 50 Design Parameter 1 ..... 33 1........3................2 Types of Wind Tunnels .............3......8 Pressure Measurement Devices..Page |4 1........3.................... 67 3....................................................1...........................................3 Overview of Conceptual Designs Developed ...............................2 2.. 50 Design Parameter 2 ...........................................................................................................................................7 Pressure rakes .........................................9 Flow Visualization .................................. 44 1.................................................................................. 44 1....... 60 3.............................................................................................................................1.............3..............13.........13........... 47 Overview ........... 69 Optimization..................................3.3...........................5 Proposed Design .............................................................13....................................... 36 1.....................3....................13...........................1............................................. 47 Project Objectives ...... 61 3........................... 43 1. 58 3..............1......... 69 Chapter 4 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering ....................................3................................................................13 General Testing Considerations ....................................13... 45 1...........12 Airfoil Testing ......................................1 Analysis of a Simple Rectangular Wing ...3.............13... 64 3........................3............3.................3 Measurement of Airflow Pressure ...

......5............1 Boeing 757 Simple Wing ...............1 9.................................................................................................3 Optimal Boeing 757 Winglets ............1..............................2 9.........................................................................................................................................................Page |5 4....................................................................................................................................1 4......................................................................................................6 4......................................................4 4................................................... 115 Environmental Impact ..........................................7 Design Variables ...1.....................................................3 Aerodynamic Analysis ...... 137 Chapter 10 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .......................................................... 122 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 9.1........7.......................7.......................................................... 74 Discontinuous Pareto Front Graphs .............3 4...................................................................................................................................... 112 Chapter 6 6..............2 Optimal Winglet Configuration # 2 ..............................3 5............. 69 Objectives...... 103 6........................................................................... 121 Appendix ..............2 5.........1..................................................................................................... 122 Appendix B: Engineering Drawings of Parts .................................. 88 4..........2 Testing ....................................................... 112 Manufacturing..........1 Environmental Impact of Winglets ............................................................... 76 Optimal Winglet Configurations ............................1 6...2 Optimal Winglet Configuration #1 ...........1............................ 100 6....5 4................ 100 Original Boeing 757 Winglets ............ 119 Chapter 7 7...............................2 4................................................3 Appendix A: Boeing 757-200 technical data ................................ 70 Optimization of 100 Winglets Configurations.................7...................................... 69 Parameters and Ranges for Optimization ........................................................................................................................................................................... 91 4............ 69 Optimization Algorithm .................................. 108 Testing and Evaluation ..... 119 Conclusion ................................1...........................................................................1 Simple NACA 2412 ........................................................................................ 89 4....................................................................................................................................... 95 Chapter 5 5....................................1 5........................ 131 References............. 125 Appendix C: Sample of the three winglets elliptical curves ...............................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................Winglet parameters................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 21: OpenFOAM logo .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 19: Visualization of Dominance ........................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................... Time for Plain Swept-Back Wing ..... 18 Figure 9: Formation of trailing vortices at wing tips ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 11: Formation of trailing vortices at wing tips ................. No Viscosity........................................................................................ 43 Figure 38: Smoke Flow ............. 50 Figure 43: Isometric View of Domain of Simple Sweptback Wing .......... 4 Figure 16 ......................................... 13 Figure 3: Starting Vortices .... 45 Figure 40: Drag by Momentum Loss ................................................... 17 Figure 8: Superposition of elliptical vortices in steady flow.............................................. 23 Figure 23: OpenFOAM Case Directory Chart ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 15: Finite wing Theory representation ......................... 30 Figure 30: Subdomains Visualization......................................................................................... 36 Figure 33 ................................ Viscosity ............................................................................................. 1 Figure 13: Downwash contribution from trailing vortex filament .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. air pressure and temperature .............................. 13 Figure 2: Kutta-Zhukowsi Condition.......................................................................................................Smoke Wind Tunnel ............................. 29 Figure 28: Tesla-128 Parallel Computing Lab ........................................ 18 Figure 10: Wing tips flow vortices ................ 13 Figure 18: Retrofitting mechanism of blended winglets...Page |6 List of Figures Figure 1: Kutta-Zhukowski Condition........................................................................................ 48 Figure 42: Blended..................................................................................................... 24 Figure 24: blockMesh .................................................................................. 22 Figure 22: Sample Dict file for OpenFOAM ................ 53 Figure 44: Residuals vs................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 6: Flow around an airfoil................. 37 Figure 35 ....................................... 25 Figure 25: Mesh and Refinement Box for snappyHexMesh .......................... Elliptical and Wing-Tip Fence Winglets ............................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 26: Final Stage of snappyHexMesh......................................................... 38 Figure 36 ............................................. 43 Figure 39: Force Balance support ................................................................................ created by the Aviation Partners Boeing Company ................................................................................ 29 Figure 29: Tesla-128 Cluster Diagram................................................................... created by the Aviation Partners Boeing Company for the 737-200 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 34 ..................................................................Open Section Wind Tunnel.................... 26 Figure 27: MAIDROC Station ........................................................... 16 Figure 7: Vortex Configuration ....................................................................................Closed Circuit Wind Tunnel ........................................................................... 31 Figure 31: Shell Script .............................................................................. 9 Figure 17: Retrofitting mechanism of blended winglets.......................... 20 Figure 20: Pareto Fronts for 2 Objectives..............................................................Pitot Static Probe .................. 3 Figure 14: Finite wing Theory parameters .......................... 1 Figure 12: Downwash velocity w induced by trailing vortices....................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4: Airfoil Pressure Distribution ............ 15 Figure 5: Airfoil characteristics ................................................ 54 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering ....................................................................... ....................................................... 40 Figure 37: Tufts Visualization ...................... 31 Figure 32: vs........................................... 46 Figure 41: Elliptic winglet Design parameters.....................................

........... 57 Figure 50: Isometric View of Trefftz Plane for Winglets Up ... 60 Figure 53: Plain Wing NACA 2412 Trefftz Plane ........................... Cl/Cd .................................... 83 Figure 79: Isometric View of Cl/Cd....... Maximum Cl/Cd maximum Cl ................ minimum Cd and maximum Cl ........................................................................................... Time for Winglets Down ......................................... 78 Figure 69: Discontinuous Pareto Front for Objective 5...................................................................................................................................................................... 83 Figure 78: Cl/Cd vs....................................................... Time for Plain Rectangular Wing................................. maximum Cl/Cd minimum Cd ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 66 Figure 58: Top View of a Winglet with Camber Out.... 63 Figure 54: Residuals vs... 76 Figure 66: Discontinuous Pareto Front for Objective 2...................................................................................................................................... Cl ...................................... 86 Figure 85: Cl/Cd vs............................. 67 Figure 59: Trefftz Plane of Winglets with Camber Out ................................................ Cd .................. Cl........................................... 77 Figure 67: Discontinuous Pareto Front for Objective 3...................................................................Page |7 Figure 45: Isometric View of Trefftz Plane Behind the Wing .............................................................................................................................................. 77 Figure 68: Discontinuous Pareto Front for Objective 4.......................................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 60: Residuals vs....... 82 Figure 77: Cl/Cd vs ............................................................. 71 Figure 62: Graphic definition of optimization parameters .............................................. Cl ............................................... Time for Winglet Camber In ........ Cd .... 91 Figure 91: Plot of Residuals vs....... 59 Figure 52: Streamlines for Winglets Up..... 65 Figure 56: Front View of Trefftz Plane for Camber In .................... Cm...................................... 79 Figure 71: Cl....... 68 Figure 61: Graphical representation of optimization limits .............................. Cl/Cd ........................................ 58 Figure 51: Residuals vs..... 87 Figure 87: Domain of Simple NACA 2412 with a Symmetry Plane .......................... 81 Figure 74: Cm vs Cl ........ 84 Figure 81: Cd vs......................................... Cd ....................................................... Cm ...............................................................................Cm ............................................ Cm..... 80 Figure 73: Cm vs Cd .... Cl .. 56 Figure 48: Residuals vs.......................................... 55 Figure 47: Isometric View of Trefftz Plane with Winglets Down.................................................................................................................................................................. 90 Figure 89: Streamlines at Wing-Tip for Simple NACA 2412 Wing ........ 64 Figure 55: Top View of a Cambered In Winglet........................................ 57 Figure 49: Streamlines at Wing-Tip with Winglets Down..................................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 72: Cl vs............................................................................................................... 89 Figure 88: Front View of Trefftz Plane for Simple NACA 2412 Wing . Cm......................................................... Time for Winglet Camber Out ............................................................................................................................ 54 Figure 46: Streamlines for Plain Swept-Back Wing ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. minimum Cd minimum Cm..................................................... 85 Figure 83: Isometric View of Cl/Cd....... 87 Figure 86: Cl/Cd vs.............. Time for Simple NACA 2412 Wing ................................... 81 Figure 75: Cl........................................................................................................................ 85 Figure 82: Cd vs.................... 92 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering ................. 78 Figure 70: Discontinuous Pareto Front for Objective 6............. 90 Figure 90: Pressure Field of Simple NACA 2412 Wing ........................ Time for Winglets Up .............................. maximum Cl/Cd minimum Cm ............................................... 72 Figure 64: Side View (b vs c) of Elliptic Profile................................................................... 82 Figure 76: Cm vs............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Cl/Cd .............................................................. 65 Figure 57: Residuals vs................... 71 Figure 63: Front View (b vs a) of Elliptic Profile ........................................................................................................... Maximum Cl minimum Cm ................ 73 Figure 65: Discontinuous Pareto Front for Objective 1.............. 91 Figure 92: Front View of Optimal Winglet #1 ....................... Cd............. 84 Figure 80: Cl vs...................... Cm ......... Cd....................................................................................... 86 Figure 84: Cd vs...

...................................................................................................................................................................................... 106 Figure 117: Plot of Residuals vs.................. 116 Figure 130: De-powdering Excess of the Parts ..................................... 94 Figure 97: Streamlines at Wing-Tip for Optimal Winglet #1 ........... 109 Figure 121: Front View of Trefftz Plane for Optimal Boeing 757 Winglets .................................................................................... T .............................. 113 Figure 127: Test Section of Embry-Riddle Wind Tunnel ...................... 102 Figure 109: Streamlines at Wing-Tip of 757 Simple Wing ................................................................................. 114 Figure 128: 1/8’’ Steel Pin for Retrofitting Winglets ............................................................. 101 Figure 108: Pressure Field around 757 Simple Wing............................ 96 Figure 101: Side View of Optimal Winglet #2.................... 105 Figure 114: Front View of Trefftz Plane of Original Boeing 757 Winglet ............................................................................................................ .. Half 757 Wing with a Symmetry Plane .................................................................................................................................................................... 102 Figure 110: Plot of Residuals vs............. Time for Simple 757 Wing ... 127 Figure 140: Technical drawings of the wing for a 757 Boeing aircraft............................... 109 Figure 120: Side View of Optimal Boeing 757 Winglets .......... 113 Figure 126: Smoke Tunnel Test Section at Embry-Riddle........................................................................................................................................................ 94 Figure 98: Plot of Residuals vs Time for Optimal Winglet #1 ....................................................................................................... 93 Figure 95: Front View of Trefftz Plane for Optimal Winglet #1 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 108 Figure 119: Top View of Optimal Boeing 757 Winglets...... 99 Figure 106: Top View of Domain of Simple.................... 96 Figure 100: Front View of Optimal Winglet # 2 ........ 117 Figure 134: Sanding Parts .......... 125 Figure 138: General parts of a commercial airplane................................................................................... 95 Figure 99: Top View of Optimal Winglet #2 ..................................... 116 Figure 131: Parts Heating in Oven ............................................... 110 Figure 122: Side View of Pressure Field for Optimal Boeing 757 Winglets ............. 117 Figure 133: Parts After Curing Process ....... 128 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering ................... 111 Figure 125: Clearance for Wind Tunnel ...................... 120 Figure 137: Boeing 757 aircraft SolidWorks model............................................... 98 Figure 104: Streamlines Around Wing-Tip For Optimal Winglet #2 .......................................................................... Time for Original Boeing 757 Winglets ....................................... 103 Figure 111: Side View of Original Boeing 757 Winglet ...................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 104 Figure 113: Top View of Original Boeing 757 Winglet......... 111 Figure 124: Plot of Residuals vs........... 101 Figure 107: Front View of Trefftz Plane for Simple 757 Wing .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 97 Figure 102: Front View of Trefftz Plane for Optimal Winglet #2 ........................................................................................ 107 Figure 118: Front View of Optimal Boeing 757 Winglets ............. 104 Figure 112: Front View of Original Boeing 757 Winglet ...................................... 126 Figure 139: Comparison of dimension between a 757-200 and a 757-300 aircrafts......................................................................................................................... 118 Figure 136: The structure of the atmosphere below 50 km [6] ................. 105 Figure 115: Side View of Pressure Field for Original Boeing 757 Winglets .... Time for Optimal 757 Winglets ............ 98 Figure 105: Plot of Residuals vs............................................................................................................................................ These are our target aircraft wings ............................................................................ 92 Figure 94: Top View of Optimal Winglet #1 .................... 118 Figure 135: Drilling Holes in the Wing and Winglets ......................................................................................................... ..................................... 97 Figure 103: Pressure Field for Optimal Winglet #2 ............... 110 Figure 123: Streamlines at Wing-Tip of Optimal Boeing 757 Winglet ..............Page |8 Figure 93: Side View of Optimal Winglet #1.................. 114 Figure 129: Removing Parts from 3D Printer ..................................................................................................... 106 Figure 116: Streamlines at Wing-Tip for Original Boeing 757 Winglets ................................. 93 Figure 96: Side View of Pressure Field of Optimal Winglet #1 ........ 116 Figure 132: Applying Epoxy to the Wing and Winglets ..........................

............ 130 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering ...... ........................................ n....... b.............. cw and β are shown also in this figure....................................... 129 Figure 142: Technical drawing of a random elliptic blended winglet configuration......Page |9 Figure 141: Technical drawings for a rectangular camber wing NACA 2412 with the same average chord length as the wings of the 757 Boeing aircraft............................... The optimization parameters a..

............ 11 Table 1............................................................................8: Values of Forces for Optimal Winglet #2 ............................ 59 Table 3.................1: Technical specifications of Boeing 757-200 aircraft serie ..................... 52 Table 3......................................5: Forces for Winglets Down ............................................ 123 Table 9............... 122 Table 9.. 108 Table 5.................................3: Workload of the Boeing 757-200 aircraft [11] ..............................2: Range of Optimization Parameters ..................... 63 Table 3.. 123 Table 9..............................P a g e | 10 List of Tables Table 1....................................................................4: External dimensions of Boeing 757-200 aircraft [11] ............................................... 49 Table 3........................ 61 Table 3.........................8: Domain Box for Winglets Camber In/Out ............ 95 Table 9: Parameters for Boeing 757 CFD Analysis............................................ 74 Table 4............................. 89 Table 4......11: Forces for Winglet Camber Out .. 62 Table 3........................................................................................................................................... 74 Table 4......................... 103 Table 12: Values of Forces for Optimal Boeing 757 Winglets ...7: Flight performance parameters of the Boeing 757-200 [11] .....7: Values of Forces for Optimal Winglet #1 ....... 124 Table 9............................................................................. 55 Table 3..... 88 Table 4.....................................................1: Types of Boeing 757-200 aircraft [] ... 122 Table 9.......................................................................................................................................................8: Raw data for the 100 winglet configurations ........................................................9: Data for winglet 1 LMT ............................... 131 Table 9..................................... 33 Table 2.......................................5: Parameters for Optimal Winglets CFD Analysis............................................................................................................... 68 Table 4...........................2: ......... 73 Table 4...1: Project cost analysis...4: Corresponding winglets configurations for maximum Cl and Cl/Cd and minimum Cd and Cm .................................................. 70 Table 4.............................................................................................................................. 91 Table 4................................4: Forces for Simple Swept-Back Wing ...........................................................................1: Winglet Comparison ............................................................... 66 Table 3......6: Forces for Winglets Up ............ 112 Table 9......................... 56 Table 3....................................................................... 53 Table 3.................................................10: Forces for Winglet Camber In ...........................................2: Engines types used by Boeing 757-200 aircrafts [11] .............. 123 Table 9.............................................................................................6: Operational external weights of the Boeing 757-200 aircraft [11] .....................................................3: Domain for Winglets Up/Down .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9: Forces of Simple Rectangular Wing .....7: Parameters for Winglets Camber In/Out.........................................2: Parameters for Winglets Up/Down ............6: Values of Forces for Simple NACA 2412 Wing ......... 51 Table 3........................................................................... 100 Table 10: Values of Forces for 757 Simple Wing ............ 133 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering ............................................... 100 Table 11: Values of Forces for Original Boeing 757 Winglets ..................................3: Aerodynamic coefficientes for the NACA2412 without winlgets ..........................................................................................1: Variables that define elliptical winglets.....................13: Comparison of aerodynamic efficiency of 757 with and without winglets .........................................

The intent being. The significance of the obtained result parameters will be considered by manufacturing and testing the optimized winglet configuration in Embry-Riddles’s subsonic wind-tunnel under different angles of attack. designing and optimizing a wing. optimization.P a g e | 11 Abstract The problem being addressed is the design.tip winglet configuration capable of reducing induced drag by 2% with respect to currently implemented wing-tip designs. in an attempt to maximize lift while maintaining (or decreasing) the resultant drag unvaried. and to design and optimize a winglet that best matches the obtained results. whereas the optimization method will be accomplished by implementing non-gradient-based methodology algorithms. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . The inverse method originates from the attainment of a target pressure distribution for a functional winglet. The main objective of this report is to formulate the inverse design procedure so that the mathematical principles are well-posed both theoretically and numerically. while comparing test results obtained by similar methods for currently manufactured and commercialized winglet configurations. construction and testing of a wing tipwinglet configuration.

Recent avionics have shown that wing-tip disturbances are particularly effective in developing adverse conditions during takeoff and landing procedures. which impact the overall flight safety by inducing high-speed longitudinal currents and considerable rolling effects on neighboring aircraft.3 Literature Review Although it is more efficient and accurate to have finite-wing computations carried out by computers using readily available computational engineering languages such as FORTRAN. while attempting to optimize the volatile consumption of fuel and to increase system life. parameters which reflect actual flight conditions.3 with 8° angle of attack with respect to the free stream. The aircraft will be travelling at Mach 0. at an altitude of 6000ft. It was soon understood that these objectives are strictly correlated to one another and.2 Motivation Within the past 15 years.P a g e | 12 Chapter 1 1. all must be accomplished. it is incredibly important to have a firm understanding of the theories involved in aerodynamic shape design. While understanding complex aerodynamics has always been a needed priority. during which lift to drag ratio of a flying aircraft is maximized in order to slow down. our intent lies in producing a design project capable of delivering a well thought-out winglet configuration.1 Introduction Problem Statement The approach and landing phases of a commercial B757-200 passenger aircraft will be considered. A number of critical failures involving medium to small aircrafts have been recorded within recent years during which. Aircraft specifications are given below. great attention has been devoted to the study drag-inducing flow structures in an attempt to strive for better aerodynamic efficiency of an aircraft. conditions especially unfavorable during low altitude scenarios like take-off and landing. 1. The intent being. It is for this purpose that our emphasis begins with the foundations of aerodynamics. 1. the most plausible cause for malfunction points toward the effects of trailing vortices. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . design and test a wing tip-winglet configuration capable of increasing the lift-to-drag ratio by 2% with respect to currently implemented applications. Vortices are generated at wing’s extremities. It is to compensate for this lack of aerodynamic efficiency that a number of wing-tip devices have steadily appeared in both the private and commercial sector. that in order to achieve one.

For a body with a cusped trailing edge where the upper and lower surfaces meet tangentially.1 The Kutta-Zhukowsky Condition The Kutta-Zhukowski Theorem predicts with remarkable accuracy the magnitude and distribution of the lift of airfoils up to angles of attack of 15 degrees. which fixes the magnitude of the circulation around the body. Figure 1: Kutta-Zhukowski Condition. the action of the fluid viscosity causes the flow over the upper and lower surfaces to merge smoothly at the trailing edge.3. this circumstance.P a g e | 13 1.2 is a sketch of the streamlines around an airfoil in viscous flow .1. No Viscosity Figure 2: Kutta-Zhukowsi Condition. The Flow around an airfoil at an angle of attack in an inviscid flow develops no circulation and the rear stagnation point occurs on the upper surface as can be seen by Fig. a smooth flow at the trailing edge requires equal velocities on both sides on the edge in the tangential direction. termed the Kytta-Zhukowsi Condition. stream velocity ( ). Experiments have shown that when a body with a sharp trailing edge is set in motion . Fig. Viscosity Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . and circulation (ᴦ ) and acts in a direction perpendicular to the stream velocity. is termed the KuttaZhukowski Condition which may be summarized as follows: A body with a sharp trailing edge in motion through a fluid creates about itself a circulation of sufficient strength to hold the rear stagnation point at the trailing edge of finite angle to make the flow along the trailing edge bisector angle smooth. This theorem states that the force (L’) experienced by a body in a uniform stream is equal to the product of the fluid density (ρ). This Condition has served as the basis for the calculation of forces around an airfoil. indicating the smooth flow past the trailing edge.

P a g e | 14 Based on The Helmholtz laws however, the circulation around an airfoil and its ‘wake’, being zero before the motion began, must remain zero. The establishment of the Kutta Condition, therefore, requires the formation of the so-called starting vortices (see Fig.3) with a combined circulation equal and opposite to that around the airfoil. The induced flow caused by the vorticity of the airfoil, added to that caused by the starting vortices in the wake, will be just enough to accomplish the smooth flow at the trailing edge.

Figure 3: Starting Vortices

The starting vortices are left behind as the airfoil moves farther and farther from its starting point, but during the early stages of the motion, Figure 3 indicates that their induced velocities assist those induced by the surface vortices, to satisfy the Condition. It follows that the surface vortex and as a result, the forces acting on the airfoil, will not be as strong in the early stages, when they are being influenced by the starting vortices, as they are after the flow is fully established when the surface vortices must be strong enough by itself to move the rear stagnation point to the trailing edge. Simultaneously, notice the increase in airspeed around the leading edge, as indicated in Figure 3. The resulting pressure decrease manifests a ‘leading edge suction’ phenomena by which to opposing pressure vectors are located adjacent to each other. A typical pressure distribution of an airfoil is shown in Figure 4, the arrows representing pressure vectors. In a perfect fluid, the total force on the airfoil is the lift , acting normal to . It’s

magnitude can be represented as the resultant of two components, one normal to the chord line of magnitude and , given by the integral over the chord of the pressure difference between points

on the upper and lowers surfaces, and the other parallel to the chord line of magnitude , representing the leading edge suction. In a real fluid, viscous effects alter the pressure

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering

P a g e | 15 distribution and friction drag is generated, though at low angles of attack the theoretical pressure distribution can be taken as a valid approximation.

Figure 4: Airfoil Pressure Distribution

1.3.2 Aerodynamic Characteristics of Airfoils
The history of the development of airfoil shapes is long and involves numerous contributions by scientists from all over the world. By the beginning of the twentieth century the methods of classical hydrodynamics had been successfully applied to airfoils, and it became possible to predict the lifting characteristics of certain airfoils shapes mathematically. In 1929, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) began studying the characteristics of systematic series of airfoil in an effort to determine exact characteristics. The airfoils were composed of a thickness envelope wrapped around a mean chamber line as shown by Fig.5. The mean chamber line lies halfway between the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil and intersects the chord line at the leading and trailing edges.

Figure 5: Airfoil characteristics

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering

P a g e | 16

The various families of airfoils are designed to show the effects of varying the geometrical variables on their aerodynamic characteristics such as lift, drag and moment, as functions of the geometric angle of attack. The geometric angle of attack is defined as the angle between the flight of the

path and the chord line of the airfoil. The geometrical variables include the maximum chamber mean chamber line and its distance distance behind the leading edge, the maximum thickness

and its

behind the leading edge, the radius of curvature

of the surface at the leading edge, and

the trailing edge angle between the upper and lower surfaces at the trailing edge. Theoretical studies and wind tunnel experiments show the effects of these variables in a way to facilitate the choice of shapes for specific applications. The lifting characteristics of an airfoil below stall conditions are negligibly influenced by viscosity and the resultant of the pressure forces on the airfoil is only slightly altered by the thickness envelope provided that the ratio of maximum thickness to chord and the maximum mean chamber

remain small, and the airfoil is operating at a small angle of attack. These conditions are usually met during standard operations of airfoils. In a real fluid, lift is within 10% of theory for inviscid fluids up to an angle of attack of of 12 to 15° depending on the geometric factors of Figure 5. Figure 6

shows that at these low angles the streamlines follow the surface smoothly, although particularly on the upper surface the boundary layer causes some deviation. At angles of attack greater than , called

the stalling angle, the flow separates on the upper surface and the Kutta-Zhukowski Condition no longer holds and large vortices are formed. At these angles, the flow becomes unsteady and there is a dramatic decrease in lift, accompanied by an increase in drag and large changes in the moment exerted on the airfoil by the altered pressure distribution

Figure 6: Flow around an airfoil

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering

This flow. According to the Kutta-Zhukowski Condition a force having magnitude will be exerted onto the vortex in a direction perpendicular to . Figure 7: Vortex Configuration The resulting velocity field is comprised of the uniform flow with a superimposed downward flow within the rectangle ABCD and an upward flow outside it.3 The Finite Wing It has been shown that. since the lift and therefore the circulation. Helmotz Laws however.3. This section is devoted to this addressing these concepts.3. Adjunctively.P a g e | 17 1. 1. additional flow components must be considered. also known as the Kutta-Zhukowski Condition. from resultant force calculations. and the trailing vortices AC and BD are therefore increasing in length at the rate . is zero at the tips of a wing of finite span and varies throughout the wing span. require that the bound vortex cannot end at the wingtips as it must form a complete circuit. from momentum considerations. It follows that a stationary line vortex normal to a moving stream is the equivalent of an infinite span wing. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . an airfoil. however. The Vortex Laws are satisfied by including the trailing vortices BD and AC of strength. be formed. is unsteady as the starting vortex moves downstream with the flow. Figure 7) of strength equal to and opposite to that of the bound vortex. it has been shown that these laws further require that at the beginning of the motion a starting vortex (CD. a vortex which is stationary with respect to a uniform flow experiences a force of magnitude in a direction perpendicular to .4 Flow Fields around Finite Wings Considering a wing of span b in a uniform flow velocity represented by a bound vortex AB of circulation (see Figure 7). or it must extend to infinity or a boundary of the flow. The airfoilvortex analogy forms the basis for calculating the properties of the finite wing however.

that the velocity induced by a given vortex varies with the reciprocal of the distance from the vortex. An infinite number of these elements lead to a continuous distribution of circulation and therefore of the lift as a function of y extending over –b/2 < y < b/2. b << t for steady flight and the configuration becomes essentially an elliptical vortex fixed to the wing and extending to infinity. In practice. In steady flight. Figure 9: Formation of trailing vortices at wing tips Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . the starting vortex recedes from the wing position and. Figure 8: Superposition of elliptical vortices in steady flow Actual finite wings are made up of a superposition of elliptical vortex elements of various strengths (see Figure 8).P a g e | 18 Note first. Therefore. The trailing vortex lines lying on the xy plane form a vortex sheet of width b extending from the trailing edge of the wing to infinity. as time goes on. the vortices will in general be symmetrically placed. soon after the start the velocities it induces at the wing are negligible compared with those induced by portions of the trailing vortices near the wing.

The boundary layer that forms adjacent to the surface is a rotational flow resulting from the viscous shearing action. in conformity with the Vortex Laws.) over the upper surface and an overpressure ( + ) over the lower surface. the trailing vortex sheet will roll up along the edge to form a concentrated vortex which can be clearly seen in Figure 11. Figure 9 can help visualize the formation of trailing vortices. In terms of the Vortex Laws and the Kutta-Zhukowski Condition. The flow field that develops as the consequence of the circulation around the wing is initiated by an under pressure ( . the trailing vortices follow the streamlines of the flow and. Figure 10: Wing tips flow vortices The indicated flow from high to low pressure at the wing tips signifies the formation of the trailing vortices. After leaving the wing tips.P a g e | 19 From a physical standpoint. the formation of the trailing vortices can be expressed as follows: The circulation about the wing is generated as the consequence of the action of viscosity in establishing the Kutta Condition at the trailing edge. the rotating fluid elements spill over the wing tips at the rate required to for trailing vortices with circulation equal to that around the wing. It shows that. the circulation around them remains constant. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . Trailing vortices may become visible in the presence of dust and moisture. because of the influence of the vortex line. Figure 11is a photograph of an airplane emitting insecticide dust from its trailing edge.

with the cross section of each being a vortex pair of zero total circulation. The lift distribution is continuous and the trailing vortices therefore form a vortex sheet of total circulation zero. The trailing line vortices are assumed to lie in the z = 0 plane and to be parallel to the x axis therefore. The analysis is based on the assumption that the trailing vortex sheet (see Figure 11) remains undeformed and that at every point along the span.Figure 11: Formation of trailing vortices at wing tips 1. Notice that the bound vortex with circulation varying along the span represents a wing for which the center of pressure at each spanwise point lies on the y axis. the flow is essentially two dimensional. the effect on the flow at a given point on the bound vortex is therefore a .3.5 Downwash an Induced Drag The main problem of finite-wing theory is the determination of the distribution of airloads on a wing of given geometry flying at a given speed and orientation in space. Figure 12: Downwash velocity w induced by trailing vortices. since the flow field is that of an infinite number of infinitesimally weak elliptic vortices.

that is small angle and the above formulas become . the incoming flow is effectively skewed up by the up wash so that the resultant aerodynamic force will cause a forward thrust instead if a backward drag on the second wing. It follows that is a Notice that the induced drag . that is the plane of flight.Page |2 downwash w. that is is inclined to the z axis at an angle of given by . the force on the bound vortex per unit span has the magnitude and is normal to V. This force has a lift component normal to and a drag component. it also induces an up wash velocity field in the regions beyond the wing tips. When another wing flies in such a region. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . The resultant velocity of attack: at the wing has two components and at each point. This phenomenon can be noticed in our daily lives for flying birds. These define the induced angle By the Kutta-Zhukowski Condition. Flock of birds flying in V-shaped formations take advantage of this effect and studies have shown that in proper configurations. termed the induced drag In most practical applications the downwash is small. whose magnitude at each point is given by the integrated effect of the circulation distribution on the semi-infinite vortex sheet over the range –b/2 < y < b/2 (see Figure 12). savings higher than 50% in the total power required for flight can be achieved as compared to that when birds fly far apart at the same speed. is a component of the Kutta-Zhukowski force in the direction of Although the trailing vortex sheet induces a downwash along the span of a lifting wing.

14) that is Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .3. Notice that the downwash is assumed to be positive outward. we will be referring to Figure 13 which represents the essential features of Figure 11. shown from the top view of the z = 0 plane.6 The Fundamental Equations of Finite-Wing Theory The fundamental equations needed to find the circulation distribution for a finite wing are expressed as the equations connecting three angles: . 1. Thus after integrating and diving by section at the spanwise location : we obtain the induced angle of attack for the wing This equation gives the amount by which the downwash alters the angle of attack of the wing as a function of the coordinate along the span. the absolute angle of attack (see Fig. The entire contribution of the vortex filament at The total downwash at is the sum of the contributions of from all parts of the vortex sheet. Figure 13: Downwash contribution from trailing vortex filament By means of the Biot-Savart Law we can express the increment of downwash at the point induced by the element of the vortex filament of strength extending from to the downwash is to infinity ∞ in the direction.Page |3 In order to calculate the downwash and induced angle of attack at a wing section.

the induced angle of attack .L.L) at a given . and the effective angle of attack . according to thin wing theory. and the flight velocity vector Figure 14: Finite wing Theory parameters These equations are The effective angle of attack sectional lift coefficient is a section property and thus must satisfy the equation for Where in the figure below.Page |4 the angle between the direction of the flow for zero lift (Z. The meaning of for a finite wing is shown Figure 15: Finite wing Theory representation Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

Therefore.13). since the absolute angle of attack is determined by wing geometry. and its solution for all span wise locations solves the airload distribution problem for a given wing. the elliptical lift distribution. which is proportional to . Where c is the chord length of the airfoil (see Figure 5). The absolute angle of attack can therefore be derived by from which. the most important of these. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .Page |5 If the airfoil section were on a wing of infinite span. This equation indicates that the sectional circulation on a finite wing. the sectional lift coefficient of a finite wing can be expressed as where is a function of . The relation between and is given by Notice that first writing for . its solution can only be obtained for only a few special cases. is smaller than that of a wing of infinite span. the sectional lift coefficient there would have a higher value of . Unfortunately. because of the induced caused by the downwash (see Fig. which is proportional to angle of attack is . Then the fundamental equation in its final form The only unknown in the above equation is the circulation.

3. This problem of finding a chord distribution that corresponds to a given circulation distribution simply involves the solution of an algebraic equation.Page |6 1. the elliptical variation of circulation with span is written Then the induced angle of attack then becomes Which indicates that at any point along the lifting line is constant if the distribution is at every spanwise location is the same then the elliptical. the product must vary elliptically for Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . A very important case is the elliptical circulation distribution. Therefore if the absolute angle of attack effective angle of attack is also constant. Thus. for this distribution represents the wing of minimum induced drag.7 The Elliptical Lift Distribution Equation (above) is readily solved if the distribution is assumed to be known and the chord distribution is taken as the unknown. Where is the sectional induced drag coefficient and is the dynamic pressure . Using these conditions. the nondimensional sectional properties will not vary along the span. It is therefore customary to write the properties of wings of arbitrary planforms in terms of the properties of the elliptical wing and a correction factor. Fortunately the properties of wings of arbitrary planforms that do not differ radically from the most common shapes are close to those of the elliptical wing. To summarize for wings with an elliptical distribution and constant lift curve slope and absolute angle of attack. If represents the circulation in the plane of symmetry.

The wing properties are found by integrating the section properties across the span. the wing must be twisted is the equation is to satisfied. Under this condition. This condition could occur only at a specific attitude of the wing. the induced angle of attack for an elliptical distribution becomes. Where is the aspect ratio of the wing and is defined as The wing induced drag coefficient is given by Experiments have shown that the extra power needed to compensate the induced drag is quite significant even at low flight speed.Page |7 Notice that in an elliptical planform only the product hand. for a noon elliptical planform. that is. since is nearly constant. is independent of . The wing lift-coefficient is defined as the total wing lift divided by the product of the dynamic pressure and the wing planform area Notice that the wing lift coefficient and sectional lift coefficient are equal when the sectional lift coefficients are constant along the span. On the other must be a specific function of . Since for a given lift coefficient the induced drag is inversely Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

2010. but with a corresponding increase in the diameter of the core. slender wings of larger aspect ratio are often observed on gliders. level flight the strength of the trailing vortices is proportional to the weight of the airplane and it will remain the same with or without the end plates. At the same time it is also inversely proportional to the wing-span over the velocity squared therefore correct dimensioning of the wing plays a major role in the designing wing shapes. Mounting end plates would not prevent the pressure communication through the wing tips because. Experiments (Minnella. low power light planes. high-payload conditions. it is possible to decrease the induced drag of a given airplane by using properly designed end plates. as well as birds migrating over long distances. 1. as sketched in Figure 7 the circulation of the trailing vortices is the same as that about the wing. the extra power can be made smaller by increasing the aspect ratio of the wing. Flat end plates are not efficient in that Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . which in turn causes an induced drag on the wing. being that lift induces a large amount of drag which is strongly correlated to the strength of the trailing vortices that have origin at the wing tips of an aircraft. Weight is the main contributor as the vortices’ strength is virtually proportional to the operating weight of an aircraft and. indicate that the plates could reduce the maximum circumferential velocity of a rolled-up trailing vortex. Figure 10Figure 11 that the vortices trailing behind a finite wing are formed by the communication of the high and low pressure regions across the lifting surface through the wing tips. It has been shown that the trailing vortices induce a downwash velocity field at the wing. long duration reconnaissance military planes. Rodriguez. it essential to understand that properties of wing-tip vortices change based on the speed. The total circulation of the vortex appeared to be the same as that of the vortex trailing behind wing tips without the plates. weight and shape of the lift-producing surface. as a result.8 Winglets We have seen in Figure 9. See below) with vertical plates mounted on the upper surface of a wing tips. to its lift. induced drag is accountable for up to 40% of the total aerodynamic drag coefficient and. So. Although the total strength of the trailing vortices behind an airplane cannot be changed. any attempt to improve such flight characteristic is highly sought-after and desirable.3.Page |8 proportional to the aspect ratio. Jugas. particular attention needs to be devoted to the development of optimized wing tip configurations. in general. Great detail needs to be given to the effects of the generation of great lift forces. For high-lift. Thus during a steady. For design purposes. to redistribute the strength of the trailing vortex sheet. as a result. For this reason. called winglets.

that is.Winglet parameters A typical winglet is shown above. The geometry of a winglet is primarily by the toe-in (or out) angle. the leading edge of the winglet is placed near the crest of the wing-tip section with its trailing edge near the trailing edge of the wing (see Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . its own normal force would contribute nothing to lift. The best cant angle will be a compromise between induced efficiency and drag caused by mutual interference at the junction of the wing tip and the winglet. its effect would be that of an irregular extension of the span. Flow surveys behind the tip of a wing with and without winglets by Fletcher (1976). cant angle. The gain in induced efficiency for a winglet is greater for a wing that has larger loads near the tip. and the chord and aspect ratio of the winglet. If the winglet was set vertically on the wing tip. and compressibility drag. In practice. which can produce a gain in induced efficiency at a small cost in weight. On the other hand. To be fully effective. Winglet toe-in angle provides design freedom to trade small reductions in induced efficiency increment for larger reductions in the weight penalties caused by the increased bending moment at the wing root. it would behave like an endplate. causing a large increase in the bending moment at the wing root and therefore a weight penalty for the wing structure. It is a carefully designed lifting surface mounted at the wing tip. For high effectiveness of the winglet for cruise conditions. which leads to drag reduction. the winglet generally has an outward cant angle so that its influence is a mixture of both effects.Page |9 they cause viscous drag that is large enough to offset the reduction in induced drag. leading edge sweep angle. Figure 16 . viscous drag. if the winglet lay in the plane of the wing. the vertical surface at the tip must efficiently produce significant side forces that are required to reduce the lift-induced inflow above the wing tip or the outflow below the tip. indicate that the basic effect of the winglets is a vertical diffusion of the tip vortex flow just downstream of the tip.

1982 the first Boeing 757-200 was assembled and on February 19 it did its first successful flight.1 Technical features: One of the most important technical parameters that highlight the 757-200 design are the high bypass ratio engines from the Rolls Royce or from the Pratt & Whitney companies that combined with the sweptback-twisted wing design makes it one of the quietest more fuel efficient airplanes in the world. Although its sales toke about a year to reach high levels this plane has had a versatile adaptation throughout the world. It was originally designed to carry 200 passengers in a regular configuration but it can accommodate up to 228 passengers which brings it capacity into the range of the 757-300 and 737-900. A lower winglet in combination with a larger upper winglet produces relatively small additional reductions in induced drag at cruising speeds. Entering into the Boeing 757-200 specifications we can say it is a midsize airplane with two engines that allows it to operate in a short or medium range flights.3. the addition of winglets reduced the induced drag by about 20% and an increase in the wing liftdrag ratio of approximately 9%. Its takeoff weights varies from 220 000 pounds to 255 000 pounds increasing its payload range. It was designed on the final of the 70’s by the Boeing Company. On December 21. The thrust of the above engines varies from 36 600 to 43 500 pounds.S. a shorter lower winglet may also be mounted below the wing tip. The combined upper and lower winglets mounted on a jet transport wing were investigated in a wind tunnel by Withcomb (1976). The first delivery of this aircraft occurred next day and was made to Eastern Airlines. In front of the upper winglet mounted above the wing tip. Subsequently in January 1983 the British Civil Aviation Authority certified the above aircraft for flight over the United Kingdome. Top technology was used in order to bring down noise pollution. after 1380 hours of flight testing for more than 10 month. same year.3. The most important technical Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . 1.P a g e | 10 Figure 16). FAA certified the 757-200. 1. the U. increase passenger comfort and operating performance. It was shown that at a Mach number of 0.44.9. but may improve overall winglet effectiveness at both high-lift and supercritical conditions.9 Boeing 757-200 Background and Winglet Benefits On January 13. It has been created in several configurations such as freighter or jetliner. These results clearly showed the effectiveness of winglets.78 and wing lift coefficient of 0. Its fuel consumption oscillates around 43 % less per seat than other older trijets aircrafts.

The upper surface is slightly curve than the lower originating a camber wing airfoil and the leading edge is also slightly sharper. a much smaller plane.490 l) Maximum Fuel Capacity Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . The 757 wing has some important changes with respect to Boeings previous designs.670 cu ft (43. Another impressive inclusion in the design of this plane is the use of carbon brakes which add time to the service life with respect to the steel brakes and also reduces about 650 pounds in weight too.1: Technical specifications of Boeing 757-200 aircraft serie 757-200 Passengers Typical 2-class configuration Typical 1-class configuration Cargo Engines maximum thrust 200 228 1. rudder and ailerons.500 lb (193. such as the usage of lightweight materials. These last changes contribute to the lift force and drag reduction producing better aerodynamic performance and burning less fuel.600 lb (162.200 lb (179 kN) Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B 43.4 kN) 11. Therefore it can reach a cruiser speed of Mach 0. engine cowlings and landing gear doors introduced a total weight saving of 1 100 pounds. the 757-200 can flight for about 1740 nautical miles or 5 500 feet more.1. More in deep technical features are also shown in the Appendix 9.P a g e | 11 aspects for our objective are being shown in Table 1. Table 1. For example it is not so swept back but it is thicker at the base allowing a longer wing span.100 lb (178. For example with respect to the 737-200.3 cu m) Rolls-Royce RB211535E4 40.1. Graphite or epoxy composites were used in the control surfaces such as elevators.489 gal (43.5 kN) Pratt & Whitney PW2037 36. Another important contribution of the wing design is that it allows for the engines to use less power during takeoff and landing procedures. Aerodynamics fairings. Aluminum alloys for the wing skins produced a saving of 610 pounds. Other improvement had been included in the design of the Boeing 757 airplane class.82 much faster than others.8 kN) Pratt & Whitney PW2040 40.

The next Figure 17 shows some of the basic parts to perform the assembly of winglets into this plane wings and Figure 18 shows a real life winglet assembly components for the 737-200 airplane.9. created blended winglets that reduced about 5 % fuel consumption.900 nautical miles (7. As an example of this is the fact that the 757-200 can fly 4 500 statute miles with full payload. The Boeing Aviation Partners Inc. They were available for the 757-200 as an addition to the already available 1 030 airplanes.P a g e | 12 Maximum Takeoff Weight Maximum Range Cruise Speed Basic Dimensions Wing span Overall Length Tail Height Interior Cabin Width Body Exterior Width 255. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .222 km) Mach 0.000 lb (115.2 Range Capability In 1990 the Federal Aviation Administration granted 180. 1.3. RB211-535C and the Pratt & Whitney PW2000 series.minutes certification for the 757-200 of extended-range twin (engine) operation or ETOPS.3 Addition of Winglets Few years later with the increments of the oil and gas prices a new way of increasing flight efficiency was the introduction of winglets.680 kg) 3.80 124 ft 10 in (38. This certification was given for both type engines this plane has.9.5 m) 12 ft 4 in (3. The mechanism of incorporating the winglets was called retrofitting.32 m) 44 ft 6 in (13.3. This certification was given as prove of the 757-200s series flight reliability.7 m) 1.05 m) 155 ft 3 in (47. the Rolls Royce Rb211-535E4.6 m) 11 ft 7 in (3.

A list of them is in the patent document and we already summarize them below. The blended winglets were registered by the Boeing Aviation Partners Company at the U.P a g e | 13 Figure 17: Retrofitting mechanism of blended winglets. S. but more importantly they were meant to reduce the induced drag. created by the Aviation Partners Boeing Company Figure 18: Retrofitting mechanism of blended winglets. These winglets brought more benefits to airplanes than the ones already mentioned. created by the Aviation Partners Boeing Company for the 737200 Winglets were made with the purpose of reducing not only the fuel consumption. patent office on September 20 1994 with the patent number 53482531. Benefits of blended winglets for 757  Up to 5% drag reduction Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

At 255.  Of the company's (year-end 2000) unfilled announced orders for 1.P a g e | 14  Built-in fuel hedge  Improved takeoff performance  Reduced engine maintenance costs  Increased payload-range  Lower airport noise and emissions  Improved operational flexibility  Dramatically enhanced appearance  Higher airplane residual value 2Some of the most important facts winglets do in favor of the Boeing series of 757 planes are also being named below2. more than four times the population of the United States and Canada combined.000 pounds (115.     fly the 767. The 757 fleet has produced over 24 million hours of service for its operators. Airlines fly the versatile 757 on a wide variety of routes.281 statute miles (6.612 commercial jets .000 roundtrips between the Earth and the Moon.750 years of continuous service. In 18 years of operation.000 parts in a 757. The 757 Freighter can hold over 6 million golf balls.000 bolts and rivets fasten those parts together. about the The 757 has carried more than 1. equivalent to about 2. There are about 626. The twinjet is used to serve city pairs as far as 4.951 square feet (181 square meters).3 billion passengers. the 757 fleet has flown the equivalent of nearly 25. The common 757/767 cockpit type-rating permits flight crews trained on the 757 to also percent (79) are for 757 twinjets. 4. The length of all wires in the twinjet is about 60 miles (100 kilometers). About 600.S.660 kilograms).      locomotive. the 757 weighs as much as a diesel train same as the floor space of a three-bedroom house in the U.890 kilometers) and as close as 65 statute miles (105 kilometers). Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .9 The surface area of a pair of 757 wings is 1.

10 **********KUBRINSKI******* Surface pressure distribution along the wing is only one of the parameters that go into the design and construction of an optimal wing. Winglets are wing-tip devices designed to:  trailing vortices. such as the Boeing 757-200 series. trailing vortices would not be of particular significance as the wing would successfully redistribute and de-strengthen its wing tip characteristics.  component. empennage and the location of the center of gravity. Good design must take all these factors into account. Also the optimal pressure distribution must be enforced through a range of angle of attack. aerodynamicists are forced to take into account this flight interference and develop optimized wings that administer this behavior. Recently.3.P a g e | 15 Thanks to all of these benefits and the retrofitting mechanism of winglets it is possible that airplanes that are not longer in production can increase their performance. 1.3. the local chord multiplied by the sectional lift coefficient because induced drag depends on this.11 Optimization Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . For a wing having an infinitely large wing span. In modern avionics. For correct design. wing tip modifications such as winglets. these are span wise load distribution. 1.  Improve the strain distribution of a wing by applying lift components at the tip-sections. fuselage. including at conditions of forward slip and side slip. it has been found that rather than drastically altering the wing foil in an attempt to improve aerodynamic efficiency. capably diminish the unwanted trailing disturbances. Increase the payload capabilities of an aircraft by providing and additional lift Reduce the induced drag component of lift by redistributing and de-strengthening the Contribute a positive-traction component to the aircraft thereby reducing loading on the propulsion system. And for those new airplanes some of them already have winglets embedded to their wing as part of their original design. several factors have to be taken into account. however. The design of winglets must also include influence of the wing. due to span-wise restrictions which involve maneuverability at airports. a better wing will be designed. and in turn a winglet. with these methods and a fully developed boundary layer around the whole wing surface.

Dulikravich and Debasis Sahoo. and have been termed. multi-objective functions have now become the norm. now all the variables and constants in a model can be accounted for. These relatively new algorithms use a set of multiple candidate solutions. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . A plot of these best comprised results is termed a Pareto front. These problems mainly used gradient based methods that looked for global minimums and maximums.1 Optimization Overview As explained in the literature review. there are various ways to achieve an optimal result for a problem or experiment. Now with the advent of computer aided design. Pareto front. Due to the need for higher efficiency of systems in a world that is rapidly modernizing. a compromise between the two designs has to be met that will satisfy both objective functions. a multi-objective optimizer that is accurate. In the case of the optimization of winglets. A given problem may have a great number of variables and outputs. To reach this ultimate efficiency the complexity and size of models has increased dramatically. During the last few decades in engineering. efficient and conceptually simple is desired. a completely different design is determined to be the best solution to minimize the most drag and produce the least CD. So a trade-off or compromise has to be reached within the design so as to satisfy these two functions. are the greatest CL and the least possible CD. they base its results by using a step size or a change in the variable to be optimized that determines how to obtain the best results in the least amount of time. A compromised solution is needed because the optimization algorithm may choose one design as its best fit to provide the greatest possible CL. however. Colaco.11. It can be said that optimization algorithms have evolved with time.3. output parameters. optimization was mainly performed with a single objective function. These two objective functions. the time has come for systems and processes to reach 100% efficiency. The algorithm that best suites our needs is a response surface method-based hybrid optimizer that was designed by Marcelo J. With time passing. population. George S. and the complexity of systems growing. Evolutionary Optimization Algorithms. These classical methods of optimization follow a point by point approach seeking of the best solution. Since this will most likely happen. In order to reach our goal of improving aerodynamic efficiency by 2% with respect to current winglet design of winglet. there will be two objective functions and five variables. Since these two objective functions will produce extreme values of these two objective functions. the scenario has changed. and it is an engineers’ duty to retrieve all this information and construct a design that will best perform the given task. and follow an iterative procedure that produce a set of the best compromised results.P a g e | 16 1.

consider the upper and lower bounds limits as the Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . Determine the individual that is more distant from the xbest. 2. the optimization procedure starts with a very coarse grid and over the course of multiple iterations. Any function that satisfies the above condition is termed a radial function. using the entire population Preal as training points.11. 5.2 Optimization Algorithm The optimizer designed by Colaço. Call this function g(x). Dulikravich and Sahoo. RSM was first developed in the field of statistics and has branched off into several disciplines. During the generation of the internal population to be used in the H1 optimizer. Response surface method (RSM) seeks the relationship between explanatory variables and response variables. Even though this method is only an approximation. over the entire population Preal. even if little is known about the process. Generate an initial population. with the methodology in Section 2. Generate a response surface. a sample model is easy to estimate and apply. so that. The response surface the hybrid optimizer uses several radial basis functions and polynomials as interpolants. Utilizing the RBF for interpolation has the advantage of reducing computational time while still maintaining a high level of accuracy. Initially. The RSM is able to interpolate linear as well as highly non-linear functions in multidimensional spaces. 1. A detailed analysis of the hybrid optimizer is provided in Appendix The bullets listed below are the main tasks the hybrid algorithm runs repeatedly over several levels of grid refinement. Optimize the interpolated function g(x) using the hybrid optimizer H1. the mesh is refined.P a g e | 17 1. 3. Radial basis functions (RBF) are real-valued functions whose values depends on their distance from the origin. Determine the individidual that has the minimum value of the objective function over the entire population Preal and call this individual xbest. 4. Call this population Preal. and it is a close approximation to reality. defined above. its accuracy and robustness is close to the best commercial optimizers available. and call the optimum variable of the interpolated function as xint. RSM is mainly used to obtain an optimal response by using a second degree polynomial to interpolate. Due to the uniqueness of this hybrid optimizer code that tethers different algorithms for separate functions. is a hybrid optimizer based on a highly accurate response surface method. Call this individual xfar. using the real function (not the interpolated one) f(x).3. namely multi-objective optimization.

return to step 2. generate a new individual. How is this algorithm implemented? Well. Else. using the sobol pseudo-random generator within the upper and lower bounds of the variables. (2) Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . 7. The driven component for this methodology is the particle swarm method.3 Particle-Swarm The Particle Swarm Optimization method (PSO) was introduced by Kennedy and Eberhart3 and it is based in the intelligent unite behavior of the organisms in a swarm to reach a collective goal. 2. If the optimimum is achieved. and constraint-preserving methods4. when at the same time the behavior of a single organism in the swarm seems completely inefficient but it is intended to find it’s particular best solution to the global problem.P a g e | 18 minimum and maximum values of the population Preal in order to not extrapolate the response surface. 6.3. Particle Swarm method is based on the social behavior of various species and tries to equilibrate the individuality and sociality of individuals to seek the optimal interest. the best particular solution yi of each element is compared to its actual performance and set to a better performance. if a number of constrains are added the problem turns to be more complicated. So if the function to be optimized is defined as we can find yi as the next equation shows. stop the procedure. Else. If the real objective function f(xint) is better than all objective function of the population Preal. This method is very useful when optimizing unconstrained functions but. and replace xfar by this new individual. replace xfar by xint. 3… After each iteration of the PSO algorithm. let say that a particle xi has memory of which one is the best solution yi that has being found and it travels through the search dominium with a velocity vi. 1. repair.11. Therefore several approaches had been introduced such as penalty. If this velocity is continuously adjusted with respect to its particular best and the global best solution found by the rest of the swarm them we define the swarm as: (1) With i = 1.

and randomly initialize swarm S within the Evaluate the performance of each particle. Compare the personal best of each particle to its current performance. Let: . according to equation (7.4 Pareto Front Overview Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .P a g e | 19 The general best solution is updated to the position with the best performance within the swarm with the next formula: (3) Now the particles velocity and position are updated separately for each dimension j. 5. 7. 6. to determine the stochastic nature of the algorithm. according to equation (7. and repeat until convergence. 8.4). 3. search space.2).11. The standard PSO algorithm is summarized below: 1. Set the iteration number t to zero. 1. according to equation (7.3. Go to step 2.3). by the next formula: (4) Where coefficients and and are two random number between 0 and 1scaled by the acceleration . and set to the better performance. according to equation (7. Change the velocity vector for each particle. Set the global best to the position of the particle with the best performance within the swarm. Move each particle to its new position. 2. . 4.5).

it is not necessary that the former two solutions be non-dominated with respect to each other. Solution 1 is said to dominate solution 2 if: 1. taking into account both objectives. The solution 1 is no worse than 2 in all the objectives The solution 1 is strictly better than 2 in at least one objective. The compatibility of tradeoff solutions in multi-objective problems cases shows is demonstrated by non-dominance. therefore solution 3 is dominated by solution 4. The two main sets this population can be divided into during any generation is: Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . 2. including this one. This can be stated as the following. When two solutions are independently non-dominated by a third solution. this dominance elects the better solution. Comparing two different solutions. they are referred to as non-dominated with respect to one another. Solution 1 is better than the other three in objective ‘f2’ but worse in objective ‘f1’. seeking the optimal solution and the range of solutions is driven by dominance. Figure 19: Visualization of Dominance Figure 19 shows that alternative 1 is non-dominating with respect to the other solutions. If either solution 1 or 2 is not better than the other on the basis of the above statements. Figure 19 illustrates the above statements.P a g e | 20 In most multi-objective problems. Solution 2 is dominated by both 3 and 4 because it is the least desirable in both objective ‘f1’ and ‘f2’. Most multi-objective optimization algorithms use a population of decision variable sets that search for optimal sets. Solution 3 is equal to solution 4 for ‘f2’ and worse than solution 4 in objective ‘f1’.

which is composed of solutions that are not dominated by any other solution in the whole population 2. Solutions that are not dominated by any other solution in the whole feasible space are known as globally optimal solutions.12 OpenFOAM Software Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .P a g e | 21 1. 1. The dominated set.3. The non-dominated set. The Pareto front can be visualized as a curve in a 2-D objective problem and as a 3D object in case of a 3 objective problem. Achieving a uniform distribution of solutions over the whole range of the global Pareto front is important. The set of solutions belonging to the non-dominated set during a certain generation for a surface called the Pareto front. To have flexibility in an optimal design it is required to compute a set of solutions that are biased towards one or more objectives. The Pareto front comprised of these solutions is termed the global Pareto front. which is composed of all the solutions excluded from the Figure 20: Pareto Fronts for 2 Objectives Figure 20 illustrates four different kinds of Pareto fronts for a problem with 2 objectives. because it demands the presence among the members of the non-dominated population set. dominated set.

this means that he or she can customize the software to suit their needs. OpenFOAM uses hexahedral polygons for its faces. a large amount of vertices of this grid are needed. open source software called OpenFOAM (Open Field Operation and Manipulation). When performing CFD analysis in the field of aerodynamics. this will generate a mesh fine enough to give an accurate analysis. if 3 million nodes were desired to achieve a fine mesh. For meshes greater than 1 million nodes the mesher should be run on a computer cluster. the mesh becomes too coarse and results will not coincide with experimental values. edges and faces that is unstructured and in the shape of a grid. A mesh is a collection of vertices. Another advantage of OpenFOAM is that it is free. the user specifies how many nodes he or she wants the mesher to use for the object and domain box. this grid defines the shape of an object. In contrast to these other software. OpenFOAM is a software package with applications in the engineering and science fields. to obtain coherent results. turbulence. OpenFOAM has a limit when meshing. The shape of the faces of the grid varies for each mesher. electromagnetics and finance. the number of nodes available is set at 1 million nodes or vertices. when these elements are spread out over a large domain box. In theory. However since the limit is set at 1 million nodes. OpenFOAM has no limit on the number of nodes when meshing. While student versions of modeling software that perform CFD analysis are available. It’s diverse uses across many disciplines and it being open source makes OpenFOAM a very important tool for an engineer. Linux software gives the user an advantage that is not present in standard programs like ANSYS and SolidWorks. the meshers for these have a limit on the number of vertices that can be applied on the domain.P a g e | 22 All CFD studies performed throughout were done using a Linux based. no more than a million nodes per processor. To someone who is well versed in programming and CFD this is critical. this being that the user can freely modify any aspect of the software that he or she deems necessary. OpenFOAM would be run on 3 processors that are connected with a parallel computer network. Figure 21: OpenFOAM logo Open source. Using student versions of ANSYS or SolidWorks. if one has a computer cluster at their disposal. So. there are no limits to the number of nodes used to define a surface and domain. For small domains. For this reason. a large domain box is desirable. When setting up the case experiment. solid dynamics. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . It is capable of solving for chemical reactions.

also the surface being analyzed. constant and system folders. level of desired refinement and mesh layering. OpenFOAM has stored functions that are called up by the user writing different files written in C++ programming language. So depending on what analysis the user wants to run. one of these being that it is not user friendly. one folder for the mesher and one for the solver. Each specific function for OpenFOAM has a different dict. Most CFD software has a GUI based program that is user-friendly and is designed for ease of use. he or she writes and modifies those specific dicts. Figure 22: Sample Dict file for OpenFOAM Figure 23 shows the structure for a sample CFD case.P a g e | 23 While OpenFOAM is very advantageous in terms of the quality of CFD you can perform. Within the case directory there will be two main folders. it does have its disadvantages. as is seen the file is written entirely in C++ so a strong background in programming is a prerequisite. these files are called dicts. Figure 22 shows a sample dict for snappyHexMesh. OpenFOAM’s mesher. Within this dict file is where the options for snappyHexMesh are modified: refinement region. The mesher folder contains the dicts for blockMesh and for snappyHexMesh. which can be entirely modified. The 0 directory contains all the initial conditions for the case. OpenFOAM lacks this. it is comprised of C++ files that are created and modified by the user to suit his or her needs. The solver directory is split up into three subparts. the 0. initial conditions include Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . this structure will vary slightly for a different discipline.

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . this is illustrated in Figure 24. On OpenFOAM this domain is created using blockMesh.P a g e | 24 the pressure. blockMesh is simply a mesher that splits the prescribed domain into blocks of eight vertices. and give a general idea as to which of OpenFOAM’s functions will have to be used so that those dicts can be written and modified. these are changed accordingly. The control dict is the file that dictates the time step. blockMesh and snappyHexMesh. max courant number. there are very instructive tutorials and online guides that go in depth and help users set up sample cases. Depending on what conditions want to be studied. There are sample cases are for different disciplines that guide the user.12. To run CFD on any object a domain box has to be created to house this object.3. Case Directory Mesher Solver Constant System 0 Constant System blockMesh snappyHexMesh Initial Conditions rhoCentralFoam controlDIct Figure 23: OpenFOAM Case Directory Chart To help users become acquainted with the software. start time and end time for the analysis.1 Case Setup: Mesher OpenFOAM utilizes two different meshers. temperature and velocity fields. 1. The constant directory holds the dict file for the solver and within the System branch goes the controlDict.

a point inside the domain. STL is a format from stereolithography CAD software. If a certain area inside the domain requires more extensive analysis a refinement box can be specified. y. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . the next step is to mesh the object and the domain box. As stated in the literature review. z). For snappyHexMesh to start. This extension is commonly used for computer-aided manufacturing and rapid prototyping. With this location. Everywhere inside this box the mesh will be finer allowing for a more detailed examination. the darker grey area is the refinement box. z) to max (x. The reason for this being that the effects of induced drag are only noticed very far behind the wing and any reduction from the curtain effect will only be noticed from this distance. a location (x. the effect of winglets are noticed very far downstream. so it is desirable to specify a refinement box around this region. and this file is provided in appendix. z) anywhere inside the domain but outside the triSurface has to be specified. For research on winglets.P a g e | 25 Figure 24: blockMesh The size of this domain is determined by what needs to be studied. min (x. for more accurate results. y. to study the effects of wing-tip vortices and curtain effect. for the flow to fully develop and to properly analyze the stagnation point. This file is simply a dictionary written in C++ that controls blockMesh. OpenFOAM reads the object being analyzed as a STL file and refers to it as a triSurface. snappyHexMesh can find the triSurface. The domain box should start at least two chord lengths in front of the wing. After constructing the domain box. Figure 25 shows how the mesh conforms around the triSurface. A good rule of thumb for choosing the height of the domain box would be forty times the height of the wing. the domain box should extend at least seven chord lengths behind the wing. The values of the domain. A domain box of these parameters is sufficient to perform a correct analysis of the wake left by the wing. SnappyHexMesh is a mesher that uses hexahedra and splithexahedra elements to mesh iteratively around a given surface. y. mesh around it and run successive iterations around the surface until the level of specified refinement has been fulfilled. are input into the blockMeshDict.

This final stage. For the CFD analysis performed in this research.P a g e | 26 Figure 25: Mesh and Refinement Box for snappyHexMesh Observing Figure 25. Another advantage of this software that isn’t present elsewhere is that there is no limit to the number of nodes that OpenFOAM uses to mesh. The way snappyHexMesh operates is that the surface is meshed iteratively with hexahedral elements that penetrate the surface. Other software programs such as ANSYS and SolidWorks have a limit to the number of nodes the mesher uses. Figure 26. allows for a more detailed and finer mesh that isn’t equipped in other CFD software. for this reason if only a small amount of nodes are used. a large domain box is needed to study the resulting vortices far downstream of the plane. Figure 26: Final Stage of snappyHexMesh Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . the results obtained using SolidWorks or ANSYS will not be accurate. and in the final stage of meshing these elements are snapped to the surface of the object. it is noticeable that the inside of the triSurface is actually meshed on the inside.

P a g e | 27 1. this is obviously the objective of a winglet. since these winglets are being optimized for commercial aircraft which fly solely in high lift. CD and CM (coefficient of lift. these planes are designed to be unstable so as to be optimal for dogfighting and sudden maneuvers. drag and moment. OpenFOAM has built in equations that output the coefficients of lift. the best winglet configuration is the one that outputs the highest CL/CD ratio. because the more stable the plane is the better. Winglets that reduce the coefficient of moment act like a dihedral. therefore significantly reducing computational time from five days to two days. it is a compressible flow solver that is built in with the Navier-Stokes Equations and takes viscosity into account. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . Using these values one can assign a score to the performance of the winglet. this means that the winglet is decreasing the most drag while maximizing lift. v is true airspeed and A is the planform area.2 Case Setup: Solver OpenFOAM utilizes various solvers. incompressible flows and Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids to name a few. Running a case until convergence with this solver takes between five – six days using ten nodes of a parallel computer. For the flight regime of commercial aircraft this dihedral effect is very desirable. drag and moment). However the opposite is true for military aircraft. A reduction in the coefficient of moment is also an objective.12.3. the upward angle from horizontal of the wings that reduces the rolling moment. Another advantage of neglecting viscosity is that by the solver will now only focus on induced drag and no other undesirable factors which may skew results. compressible. ρ is the density of air. To better visualize the planform area it can be thought of as the area of the wing as viewed from above the plane. A subroutine was written for OpenFOAM to output CL. cases can be set up for inviscid. the fuselage. The solver used throughout is rhoCentralFOAM. To cut down on excess run time the viscosity of air was neglected and set equal to zero. Ideally. so the wing is the only structure to consider when calculating for planform area. For coefficient of lift: (5) Where L is the lift force. low speed conditions. horizontal stabilizers and winglets are not taken into account since they produce little to no lift. Planform area can be calculated as half of the surface area of the wing. In the case of fixed-wing aircraft the wing is the only lifting surface and lift is perpendicular to the flight direction.

P a g e | 28 For coefficient of drag:
(6)

Where FD is drag force, ρ is the density of air, v is the true airspeed and l is the mean average chord length. For a rectangular wing, the mean average chord length is simply the chord length because there will not be a variation in the length of the chord. However, for a wing where the chord length varies this value can be calculated as the planform area divided by the wingspan.

For coefficient of moment:
(7)

Where M is the pitching moment force, q is the dynamic pressure and l is the mean average chord length. To calculate the coefficient of moment, OpenFOAM also requires that the center of rotation, or center of pressure, be inputted. For a rectangular wing the center of pressure can be estimated to be the center of gravity of the wing; since there is no change of the chord length along the span of the wing, pressure will be acting at this point. For a wing with a varying chord length, swept forward or back wings, the center of pressure is calculated to be 25%-30% of the chord length from the leading edge. Another value that OpenFOAM requires is the vector value of the pitch axis. Pitch axis is the axis about which the wing will pitch and can also be visualized as the axis that goes through the center of rotation and is perpendicular to the long axis of the plane.

1.3.12.3 Case Setup: Parallel Computing
Once the case is completely set up, it is now ready to run on a computer cluster. Running a case on a cluster has several advantages; many cases can be run simultaneously and cases converge much quicker because computing power has significantly increased. For a detailed, extensive study in aerodynamics numerous case studies have to be conducted. A personal computer has the computing power to run one case and reach convergence in a desirable time; but running over a 100 cases on a single computer is unfathomable. To save on computing time and power, cases are run on parallel computers to yield a lower computing time. The Tesla-128 Parallel Computer Lab has two different workstations; one is the MAIDROC, this is the workstation that grants access to users. This workstation is the security station that can be can accessed remotely by secure shell ('ssh') and secure FTP ('sftp'). The advantage of this system is that, to Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering

P a g e | 29 access the MAIDROC one only needs to be connected to the internet, so one does not have to be onsite. Once access is granted to the MAIDROC the user can then patch into the Tesla Computing Lab. Using a secure shell, the user can upload their zipped case file directly into the Telsa, of course to do this, a user account at the MAIDROC is needed, the command to upload a sample case into the Tesla, i.e. ‘scp solver_Optimizer_13.tgz winglets@maidroc.fiu.edu:/home/winglets/case_studies’ ‘scp’, is a command for secure copy and is a Linux function. Solver_Optimizer_13.tgz is the zipped case directory that is being uploaded into the case_studies directory for the user winglets.

Figure 27: MAIDROC Station

Figure 28: Tesla-128 Parallel Computing Lab

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering

P a g e | 30 Figure 29 shows a diagram of the Tesla Computing Lab at FIU. The front-end workstation, Figure 27 acts as the security checkpoint for the Tesla that queries the user name and password for anyone trying to access the lab. The queue master is the head node that distributes the cases between the nodes, it acts as the supervisor of the cluster telling individual nodes which cases to run. Each node pictured below has 2 processors, there are 64 nodes, and therefore the Tesla has 128 processors.

Figure 29: Tesla-128 Cluster Diagram

OpenFOAM has a function that decomposes one domain into several subdomains, this way it can be run in parallel. Figure 30 gives a good visualization as to how a domain is decomposed. It helps to visualize the domain of the case as a cube. Now depending on how many nodes are desired to be used, the domain is split evenly. In Figure 30, the domain is split into 27 cubes, it is split 3 times in the x, y and z direction, so for this example 27 nodes will be used to analyze each subdomain. Since each node now has a very small domain to analyze, convergence of the case will be reached very rapidly. The number of subdomains to split the job into depends on how refined the mesh of the body is and the computing time desired. For a faster computing time the more subdomains the domain is divided into the faster the case reaches convergence. Along the faces where each domain touches another, processors will communicate with each other to analyze sections of the mesh that are at these intersections. This type of parallel computing, where nodes of the cluster communicate with each other many times each second is referred to as fine grain parallelism and is the hardest to program for.

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering

P a g e | 31 There are three main types of parallel computing, these are: fine grain, coarse grain and embarrassing parallelism. A computer task is fine grain parallelism if subtasks, communicate between each other many times per second. If the subdomains communicate very few times between each other each second, it is referred to as coarse grained parallelism. Embarrassingly parallel computing are the easiest to parallelize, because subtasks never communicate with each other.

Figure 30: Subdomains Visualization

After the job has been decomposed the final stage is to submit the job to the task manager. This is accomplished by using the ‘qsub’ command. The most common form to do this is by writing a shell script that is called up by the ‘qsub’. Figure 31 shows a sample shell script written in C++. The task manager is a feature of the Tesla-128 that comes with its operating system of Rocks 5.1. The task manager keeps track of jobs submitted and keeps job in queue when all the nodes are already running previous cases.

Figure 31: Shell Script

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering

of course. cost. Final commitment to production of a certain design is usually dependent upon the prototype full scale vehicle’s demonstration that it can in fact perform as required.13 Experimental Aerodynamics and Wind Tunnel Testing Discussions of aerodynamics principles almost always revolve around an understanding of the term relative velocity and relative wind. and almost always is. a complementary mixture of wind tunnel testing and flight testing. Recall that relative wind refers to a body of some sort immersed in a fluid (air) which is in motion relative to the body. The same sort of uncertainty exists concerning calculated performance. The final factor. Wind tunnel instrumentation is stationary outside the tunnel so size. There is always an element of uncertainty in the accuracy of the data recorded for a subscale model. weight. Flight test data involves its own difficulties and inaccuracies and is not infallible.P a g e | 32 1. the relative wind condition which exists in a wind tunnel. safety and data accuracy to the project being tested. Which method of testing is preferable depends upon the importance of time. The case of a stationary model exposed to a moving air stream is.3. Just the opposite is true for flight testing. the aerodynamic forces will be the same. The model moving through air that is stationary. which usually falls in favor of flight testing. The safety consideration is that of danger to a fight crew and also damage to people and buildings on the ground in the event of a crash. This is due to the fact that a wind tunnel model can be built far more quickly and less expensively than a flyable prototype aircraft. the huge computer programs sometimes referred to as the “numerical wind tunnel” or more generally as CFD. and power needed rarely pose an issue. is the relative wind case provided by flight testing. Either is equally valid. but it will probably always serve as the final proof. Computational Fluid Dynamics. is the quality of the data gathered. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . Another aspect of possible cost and time savings is the instrumentation necessary to measure and record the aerodynamic data being sought. presuming no surface wind in the atmosphere. This physical fact explains why the testing done in the development of a flight vehicle can be. Picture the savings possible if several different configurations generated by the preliminary design group must be evaluated before selecting a final design. The key point is that the pressure on the surface of the body and the forces which result from those pressures are the same regardless of whether the body is stationary and the air is moving or the air is stationary and the body is moving through it. The wind tunnel clearly avoids this concern. Wind tunnel testing is frequently the quickest and cheapest way to evaluate the performance of a new design. As long as the relative motion is identical.

fairly easy Wind tunnel test Months 1. telemetry required Stationary. This generally occurs at a velocity of about 300 mph or Mach number of about 0. moving air Type of testing Flight test Time span required Years Project cost ($) Safety Instrumentation Data accuracy Best available Good Dange rous Safety Packaging difficult. Most of the testing equipment is low speed and compressibility factors are not to be accounted for. Therefore. of course. Low speed means velocities at which the compressible nature of the moving air is not noticeable in the aerodynamics phenomena observed. two numbers may be equal. The theorem states that any physical equation can be expressed in terms of dimensionless combinations of the variables. actually compressible and compressibility effects always exist. Air is. stationary air Stationary model.1 Test Parameters We will concern ourselves almost entirely with low speed aerodynamics. it can have meaning only if the terms involved are alike dimensionally. and function of N variables May be expressed in terms of (N – K) products Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .3.4.2: Source of relative velocity Moving model.P a g e | 33 Table 1. Thus. If an algebraic expression expresses a relation among physical quantities. but if they represent unlike physical quantities they may not be compared. For example.13. The traditional upper limit for incompressible flow is the velocity at which the compressibility effects produce results 1% different from data calculations made assuming incompressibility. low speed flow is synonymous with incompressible flow. This requirement of dimensional homogeneity in physical equations is useful in determining the combinations in which the variables occur and to establish direct meaningfulness when scaled testing is required.

If the problem is one in mechanics. time. the system can be represented by There are six variables and three fundamental dimensions therefore by choosing the K set. whereas K is equal to the number of fundamental dimensions required to describe the variables P. all quantities P may be expressed in terms of mass. length. and K = 4. and temperature. time. all quantities may be expressed terms of mass. the product become . The arbitrarily selected set of K variables may contain any of the quantities of . When considering the force experienced by a body that is in motion through an idealized fluid. upon applying this condition we obtain Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . with the restriction that the K set itself may not form a dimensionless combination. In thermodynamics.P a g e | 34 Where each product is a combination of an arbitrary selected set of K independent variables and one other. and as The theorem guarantees that the products above can be made dimensionless and. length. assume that the force will depend on the following parameters: Where the parameters are given below Symb ol F ρ V l μ a Name Force Density Velocity Size of the body (chord length) Coefficient of viscosity Speed of Sound Dimensi on Therefore following the analogy. and K = 3.

P a g e | 35 The above equations represent similarity parameters used in aerodynamic testing. as a function of air Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . if aerodynamic forces are present. Mach number is not significant in low speed testing because. Aerodynamic forces are inertia forces. The value at sea level standard atmosphere conditions is . Reynolds number is the key factor for wind tunnel testing. Figure 32 gives values for pressure and temperature. by definition. In summary. we must insure that the tests were run at or near the same Reynolds number. The model changes the velocity or direction of the airflow. or both. Froude number involves gravity and is important in testing free flight models. meaning that they result from the model changing the momentum of the moving air. To reasonably expect two tests to produce comparable data. for which we do not currently have equipment. compressibility does not have a noticeable effect on the obtained data. in low speed testing we desire to accomplish tests at An expedient for calculating Reynolds number.

This proved to be inconvenient. This type of tunnel is known as Eiffel tunnel. the builder of the famed Eiffel tower in Paris. This will occur if the test conditions are such that the similarity parameters are the same for all model tests being compared. he built a simple wind-tunnel as an expedient to conducting an experiment. 1. named after Gustav Eiffel. at best. and pressure should produce the same force coefficients if the flow patterns around the models are geometrically similar.3. He was interested in experimenting with aerodynamics phenomena and generated his relative velocity by dropping models from the tower.2 Types of Wind Tunnels There are a variety of sizes and types of wind tunnels. but they are generally classified as belonging to two major categories. as you can easily imagine.13.P a g e | 36 Figure 32: vs. In this case and in the case of tunnels specifically built for engine testing. temperature. opened circuit or closed circuit. Open circuit refers to a tunnel in which the air passes through a basically straight duct and does not recirculate. air pressure and temperature Models of different sizes tested at different conditions of velocity. Still. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . contaminants are put into the airflow during the test which we do not want recirculating through the experiment. A schematic diagram of an open circuit tunnel is shown in Figure 33. The air is simply exhausted into the atmosphere.

The test section may be open or closed. resulting in air continually recirculating through the test section. and helicopters fall into this category.Open Section Wind Tunnel A closed circuit tunnel employs a duct which guides the air around a closed path. entrance cone or extraction cone – the converging passage immediately upstream of the test section. Tilt engines. A diagram of a closed circuit tunnel is shown in Figure 34 below. but specifically the one immediately downstream of the test section. Figure 34 . prevents realistic deflection of the moving air for tests of models which deflect the air by a large amount. For this class of Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . however. It is also called a Prandtl tunnel. meaning the test section is enclosed by walls. after pioneer aerodynamicist Ludwig Prandtl.P a g e | 37 Figure 33 . Bellmouth. Fan – the propeller which moves the air through the tunnel. The presence of walls.Closed Circuit Wind Tunnel A few parameters must be defined:     Test section or jet – area in which the model is normally mounted for testing. There are some other classifications of for wind tunnel types which are used frequently. Diffuser – any diverging passage. very high lift wings.

As a result. as it is usually oil vapor created by electrically heating thin oil until it boils. facilitating high Reynolds number testing. square. They can be pressurized and/or cooled to produce higher air density. it is necessary to have steady laminar flow. rectangular. and octagonal. smoke tunnels are frequently very low speed with a large entrance cone and many turbulence. Burning of materials which produce real smoke is messy and hazardous. elliptical. Rectangular is probably the most common. which allows high Mach number testing with less power. The frequently have very narrow test section. NASA Langley complete construction in 1982 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . used only for visualization of flow around a short span segment of airfoils. Both open circuit and closed circuit tunnels may be open test section. A height to width ratio of 7x10 is very common for rectangular sections. Tunnels are sometimes classified by the cross-sectional shape of the test section. In order to keep the smoke streams clearly defined. Or. test section walls are not used. A typical one is shown in Figure 35. The tunnel used was built with a 18x24 inch test section allowing visualization of three-dimensional flow fields. some can be evacuated to lower pressure. The smoke is generally not smoke at all. There are several types of special purpose tunnels which deserve to be mentioned. Common shapes are round.damping screens and/or honeycombs. particularly tip vortex patterns. Probably the most common special purpose tunnel is a smoke tunnel. Smoke is injected into the airstream from a row of parallel tubes. though in many cases a “rectangular” test section has fillets in the corners which render the section actually octagonal. The tunnel used seemed to operate best at an airspeed of about 5 feet per second and its maximum speed is about 30 feet per second.Smoke Wind Tunnel Variable density tunnels are constructed so that the entire circuit is a pressure vessel. Figure 35 . The result is an open jet or open test section tunnel. These are obviously very complex and expensive facilities.P a g e | 38 testing.

The Ames tunnel is the world’s largest and has completed construction. It has an 8. We also need to distinguish between these free stream properties Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . we must make a habit of distinguishing between various types of pressures. and thus cheaper to build. There are two very large tunnels called full scale tunnels in the United States. There are a few tunnels with vertical test sections called spin tunnels. square test section. The additional power required. They are used for testing spin characteristics of free flight models. Open circuit tunnels are simpler.2 ft. NASA Langley has one with a 30 x 60 foot section. Many automakers are presently doing wind tunnel work in Lockheed’s large wind tunnel in Marietta.P a g e | 39 of one which they call the National Transonic Facility (NTF). Industry and government tunnel are generally much larger than privately owned ones.13. 1. humidity. We refer to it as Bernoulli’s equation: Total pressure = Static Pressure + dynamic pressure It is clear that for this expression to make sense. Closed circuit tunnels are more prevalent than open circuit. Consider the equation expressing conservation of energy of energy in incompressible flow without transfer of heat or external work in or out of the flowing air.3 Measurement of Airflow Pressure The term pressure without a descriptive adjective is nearly useless in aerodynamic work. It can be pressurized to nine atmospheres and uses liquid nitrogen to cool the air to . for an open circuit usually does not justify the cost and space required to build the rest of a closed circuit. insects. dust. With the emphasis on reduction of fuel consumption in the automotive industry. It is control of the quality of the air going through the test section that throws the decision in favor of a closed circuit. Most airfoil data in standard texts and reference books is acquired in this type tunnel. and sometimes for parachute testing.3. there is currently much research being done on aerodynamic reduction. while open circuit tunnels just dump the moving air into the surrounding atmosphere. Tunnels specifically built for testing airfoil models which span the entire test section from wall to wall are called two-dimensional tunnels. and NASA Ames has a 40 x 80 foot test section. This means that the air being drawn into the tunnel is subject to weather: wind gusts. temperature. rain. typically 10-15%. to add a new 80 x 120 test section. The problem with them is that due to large size. though a couple have their own tunnels. also in 1982. Closed circuit tunnels get to capture and recycle some of the kinetic energy of the air. It is also easy to picture that open circuit tunnels require more power than closed circuit. but sill they are not large enough for full scale models. the inlet must usually be outside the building which encloses the test section. Georgia.

A simple static pressure probe could be made by drilling a hole in the side of a tube with the leading edge plugged. the static pressure reading will be in error.Pitot Static Probe The second problem is that of insuring that the local velocity is equal to the free stream velocity. The same two problems mentioned above must be dealt with. The fore-and-aft position of the static holes takes care of this requirement. Dynamic pressure is analogous to kinetic energy. which almost cancels out the misalignment errors on the opposite sides. Once again. The problem is corrected fairly well by using eight holes equally spaced around the circumference of the probe body. The local velocity is high. This can be easily accomplished in wind tunnel by simply drilling a hole in the wall of the tunnel. These all feed into a common manifold. and Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . Figure 36 . this is fairly easy to determine in a wind tunnel. The second consideration is that the local velocity at the pressure measurement location must be the same as the free stream velocity.4 Static pressure Static pressure is analogous to potential energy when we look at Bernoulli’s equation as an energy conservation equation. The air has no choice but to flow parallel to the wall. So. A typical pitot-static probe is shown below. And. It will be high if the hole is on the upwind side and low on the downwind side.3. Different instruments are used these types of pressures.13. As long as no rapid changes in wall shape occur near the static pressure hole. Use of a probe for measuring static pressure is not quite so easy. we must be careful to prevent any accidental inclusion of the part of the dynamic pressure. If the probe is not perfectly aligned with the flow. We do this by making sure that the static pressure hole is in a surface parallel to the velocity direction. 1. and particular care must be given when choosing the proper one. the local velocity will be the same as the free stream (outside the wall boundary layer. of course).P a g e | 40 and surface pressure on any model we might be testing. to measure static pressure accurately. the static pressure at the wall is the same as at any point in that cross-sectional plane. though.

13. is frequently used. As.7 Pressure rakes Measurement of a distribution of pressures across a section of flowing air can be accomplished by moving a single probe in steps across the area. as long as the probe is aligned correctly. the squeezing phenomena of the streamlines between individual tubes causes significant static pressure errors. or traversing mechanics are available commercially which are driven by electric motors or hand cranks. its accuracy must be checked accurately. affecting both the total and static pressure readings. called a probe traverse. previously addressed.5 Total pressure Total pressure is more easily measured. or static. Static pressure is much more sensitive and 5 diameters seems like a minimum safe distance producing about 1% error. spacing between tubes is not a problem either. 1.6 Proximity to walls or model surfaces Care must be taken in not allowing a probe to get close enough to a wall to change the streamlines around the probe. The most common Pitot tube is simply a tube cut off flat on the end and pointed into the oncoming flow.3.13. 1.13. If a static rake is used.3. rakes are seldom used. Pitot-static. Length is not critical. Crowding of streamlines raises the local velocity between the probe and the wall. near the tip of the probe due to crowding together of the streamlines as they flow past the tip. 1. This simple tube is accurate for misalignments up to about 10°. Probes are commercially available in many diameters. Most rakes are total pressure tubes. Total pressure readings are less sensitive than static. Almost any opening located at a stagnation point will work. with inch being the most common. and the tubes simply need to be cut off square on the end. Also. 1. The probe can be nearly touching a surface ( ) before 1% error occurs in the total pressure. in order to make measurements simultaneously at all locations a multiple probe. It can be done manually.13. Experiments will be performed using a 12-tube rake to measure velocity distribution in the tunnel test section. However.P a g e | 41 static pressure low. However. called a rake. the holes cannot be too close to the stem because the local stagnation of air against the stem reduces local velocity and raises static pressure.3.8 Pressure Measurement Devices Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . The static holes are a safe distance downstream of the tip to avoid locally high velocity.3. and a 20-tube rake to measure momentum loss in the wake of an airfoil.

In very low speed flow.P a g e | 42 We use manometers for most of our pressure measurements because of the fact that manometers are primary standards. and photographs are an incredibly important tool for further studies. They are particularly useful in finding regions of separated flow. different methods exist which are as helpful in clarifying the nature of the particular airflow pattern. These devices can be read and are frequently wired directly into analog-to-digital signal converters which in turn send the digital signals directly into the data reduction computer. First-hand observation of flow visualization tests is very instructive.3. A variety of flow visualization techniques exist. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . Tufts and Smoke Flow being the most widely used. The importance of being able to see the moving air cannot be overestimated whether the problem is as simple as understanding flow around an airfoil or as complex as finding and eliminating an aircraft vibration problem. Few.13. Tufts can be almost any light and flexible threads or yarns that are usually taped to the surface of the model.10 Tufts Tufts are the easiest to use and are probably the most common. 1. if any. tufts clearly show local flow direction when the boundary layer is not separated. For high speed flow. Thus.13.3. and because most of the performed experiments require measurement of relatively few pressures. 1.9 Flow Visualization Flow visualization techniques represent the response of the experimental aerodynamics world to the proverbial statement that a picture is worth a thousand words. It is more typical of industry testing to use electrical sensing devices called transducers to measure pressure. spanwise strips of tape are suitable and the tufts must be very flexible so that the drag of the tufts will pull them with enough force to make them trail in the local flow direction. Calibration and maintenance of this equipment is a demanding task. the strips of tape are less likely to blow loose if they are aligned chordwise and must be made out of stronger material in order to avoid breakage.

the smoke streams will closely approximate streamlines in the flow pattern. Tufts can be further implemented with the use of whisker pole which is comprised of one or two tufts on the end of a long pole allowing the tuft to be held briefly in whatever position is desired. 1.13. Figure 38: Smoke Flow Photography is again a beneficial addition to this flow visualization method. Thus. the inside of the test section must be painted flat black for contrast.P a g e | 43 Figure 37: Tufts Visualization Tufts are usually a contrasting color with the surface for improved visibility. Separated flow will cause the tufts to wave around. Still photos at a relatively slow shutter speed (about 1/50 second) will show clearly defined tufts where attached flow has blown the tufts tightly back along the model surface. If the smoke density is adjusted so that it has no tendency to either sink or drift upward.11 Smoke Flow Most smoke generators for low flow speed heat up oil until it vaporizes. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . then inject the vapor into the air flow in several parallel streams. and they appear blurred in the photos.3.

proper positioning of the total pressure rake of at least 0. the most accurate and convenient measurement device is a total pressure rake with a static pressure tap in the wall at the same cross-sectional plane as the tips of the total pressure probes.13. making the tip likely to stall at a lower angle of Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . several key differences must be accounted for:  The spanwise lift distribution must fall to zero at the tips of the wing.P a g e | 44 1.  A finite wing span.5 – 4 times their width.14 Finite Span Wings Upon specializing an airfoil section data to use on a particular finite span wing shape.7c downstream of the trailing edge to give the wake static pressure a chance to equalize to free stream static pressure.12 Airfoil Testing The term airfoil data refers to the results of tests on a constant chord model which spans the test section from wall to wall. For low angle of attack data.3.3. a finite span of wing will have a maximum lift coefficient only about 90% of that of a twp-dimensional wing. 1. 1. even though they use exactly the same airfoil shape. or finite aspect ratio wing has tip vortices and an accompanying increase in downwash. When measuring velocity profiles in the wake of an airfoil to determine momentum loss. Aerodynamic force coefficients measured in this manner are denoted by lower case subscripts. For high angle of attack tests. Therefore. It can be calculated by  The shorter chord at the tip of a tapered planform produces a lower Reynolds number at the tip compared to at the root.13.3.13 General Testing Considerations Test sections made especially for airfoil testing are rectangular in cross section. It is synonymous with two-dimensional data and also with the airfoil section data. The velocity distribution in the tip vortex also causes an angle of attack variation across the span. . a chord less than 70% of the height is sufficient to avoid unduly large wall interference effects on the measured data. Because the static pressure in the airfoil wake may not be the same as free stream static pressure right at the trailing edge of the airfoil.13. with height about 2. the airfoil should have a chord less than 40% of the test section height. The result is a sharply reduced lift curve slope.

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .P a g e | 45 attack.3. This method works particularly well in the case of drag on streamlined bodies like airfoils. Newton’s second law states that force equals the tie derivative of momentum. subscripts on aerodynamic coefficients 1.13. Considering linear momentum only. This results in roll control problems unless the wing is somehow adjusted to correct it – usually twisted about 2 degrees. Forces on the model can be retrieved by using an instrumented model mounting system called a balance as shown in the picture below.16 Profile Drag by Momentum Loss Measurement Aerodynamic forces on an airfoil are accompanied by a change in momentum of the air flowing over the model.  Finite span or 3-dimensional wing data is denoted by using upper case . In the case of streamwise component of the momentum. It is possible to measure the change in momentum of the moving air and calculate the force which must have existed to produce the change in momentum.3. as long as no large separation regions exist. which brings exchange of angular momentum into the problem.13. Figure 39: Force Balance support 1.15 Force Measurements Using a Balance System There are three ways to measure forces on a model in a wind tunnel. Separation includes recirculating flow.

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . V is volume and . allows to think in terms of drag coefficient: . if dynamic pressure is measure as a function of vertical position within the airfoil wake.P a g e | 46 Where . Outside the wake. Thus. Dividing by . specialization of the obtained drag equation. Substituting. and is the same as results in a modified version of the coefficient of drag where y is the vertical position and c is chord length. Therefore adopting is unaffected by the model and . we can calculate fairly easily. q. Notice that the model. is different from allows for further only within the wake of . yields . terminology by which equation: . . Figure 40: Drag by Momentum Loss Substituting the definitions of dynamic pressure.

improve the aerodynamic efficiency of a Boeing 757-200 commercial aircraft by the implementation of wing tip devices called Winglets. aerodynamic efficiency has been a hot topic for quite some time. and the first commercial applications of efficiency-inducing aerodynamic components have been steadily appearing on the market. Soaring fuel prices combined with technological advances in the field of computational fluid dynamics have obligated aerospace and aeronautical engineers to develop and test innovative design methodologies capable of delivering aerodynamically-efficient and cost-effective designs.2 Project Objectives The design and implementation of elliptic winglets to an existing Boeing 757-200 airplane. This project has been formulated with the intent of exploring the field of aerodynamics. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . In order to fulfill the above main objective the elliptical winglet optimization procedure will be implemented first into a NACA 2412 airfoil with the same planform area as the 757-200 wings and with the same average chord length. however. The intent being.P a g e | 47 Chapter 2 Project Formulation and Management This chapter covers the division of responsibilities by team member along with the time management guidelines set up in order to successfully reach the project main and partial objectives. 2. and by 2% with respect to the standard configuration with Winglets. in an attempt to increase the aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft by 8% with respect to the standard configuration without Winglets. This partial objective is necessary to be carried out first to save computational time in the validation of the optimization algorithm we decided to use. significant improvements have been brought about by the worldwide scientific community in the field of aerodynamics. Particularly. this project concentrated on airplane applications. aeronautical. A more detailed explanation of each objective will be carried out in the upcoming sections of this project.1 Overview Within recent times. and automotive would gladly welcome initiatives such as our own. 2. Different fields such as the aerospace. and to develop knowledge and skills necessary to design an aerodynamic component capable of improving aerodynamic efficiency. in an attempt to link the pursued mechanical engineering bachelor’s degree to a specialization in aerospace engineering.

P a g e | 48

2.3

Design Specifications
Elliptical Winglets are parameterized according to the Lame equation shown next and the

parameters shown on next figure.

Where a, is the winglet total addition to the wing span and b is the total height of the winglet. The exponent n will define de radio of curvature of the winglet. A total of 5 variables or parameters are necessary to define and design an elliptical winglet. The other 2 parameters are the tilt back angle (β) of the winglet and the chord length of the winglet tip airfoil (cw). All of these parameters are being shown in the next figure for better understanding.

Figure 41: Elliptic winglet Design parameters.

Multi-objective optimization is performed on 100 randomized-parameter configurations within prescribed limits (see optimization results). CFD is performed and compared to wind tunnel testing on the 3 optimal Winglet configurations. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering

P a g e | 49

2.4

Constraints and Other Specifications
Aircraft is undergoing approach/takeoff phases of flight. Free stream velocity Mach 0.3 at 8

degrees angle of attack at an altitude of 6000ft. (air properties are based on altitude). Payload is *****

Table 2.1: Project cost analysis

Part No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Part Winglet Camber In Winglet Camber Out Winglet Symmetrical Airfoil NACA 2412 Wing 18'' NACA 2412 Wing 12'' Original Boeing 757 Winglet Optimal Boeing 757 Winglet Optimal Winglet #1 Optimal Winglet #2 Optimal Winglet #5 Boeing 757 Wing West System Marine Epoxy Slow Hardener Embry-Riddle Wind Tunnel Testing

Quantity (Ea.) 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 qt. 1 pt. 5hrs.

Application NACA 2412 Wing 18''/12'' NACA 2412 Wing 18''/12'' NACA 2412 Wing 18''/12'' Wind Tunnel Smoke Tunnel Boeing 757 Wing 19'' Boeing 757 Wing 19'' NACA 2412 Wing 18''/12'' NACA 2412 Wing 18''/12'' NACA 2412 Wing 18''/12'' Wind Tunnel Manufacturing Manufacturing Testing Total=

Totat Price $ 23.3 23.3 23.3 140 70 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 218.36 81.29 42.77 875 1613.82

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering

P a g e | 50

Chapter 3

Design Parameters

The elliptical winglet approach we will take in order to create the optimal winglet configuration for the Boeing 757-200 aircraft will be based in the Lame equation presented in chapter

3.1

Overview of Conceptual Designs Developed
As mentioned earlier, the purpose of winglets is to minimize wingtip vortices that cause induced

drag. The best method for reducing these vortices is attaching endplates at the wingtip, so as to dissipate the flow of high to low pressure. After knowing this, a preliminary study must be done to determine which basic configuration of endplates will provide the best CL/CD ratio. Based on an extensive literature review, three main parameters for the design of a winglet were determined. These three parameters were: the transition from the wing-tip to the winglet, whether the winglet goes straight up or down and finally the camber of the airfoil of the winglet. Each of these key parameters has several alternatives and to determine the best configuration of all three parameters, CFD cases have to be setup and analyzed to determine the best combination. The alternatives for the transition of the winglet were whether it will be a blended, ellipitical or wing-tip fence. The second design parameter is to determine whether the best performing winglet is one that points up or down. Finally, the last parameter also has two alternatives. The alternatives are whether the camber in the airfoil of the winglet point towards the fuselage, camber is in, or away from the fuselage, camber is out.

3.2

Design Parameter 1
For the design of the optimal winglet, three different existing winglets were analyzed and rated

to see which one is the best all-around design so that it could be improved upon. The winglets that to be considered were, wing-tip fence, blended and blended elliptical winglets.

Figure 42: Blended, Elliptical and Wing-Tip Fence Winglets

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering

housing capabilities. both winglets constructed for these cases have the same airfoil and no transition from wing-tip to winglets. they are payload contribution. manufacturing. retrofitting capabilities. While it causes some wing flutter. positive traction component. The setup for analysis consists of three cases: a simple sweptback wing.3 Design Parameter 2 The second design parameter is whether t the winglets will be vertically up and vertically down. To avoid bias of any kind.1 is a chart comparing all the winglets to the standards we chose as the most vital for a desired winglet. These were the characteristics to look for in a desirable winglet and the scale for the comparison ranges from -5 to 5. 3. Table 3. de-strengthening of vortices. So they can be thought of as end-plates attached to each wing-tip. and de-strengthens wingtip vortices in turn reducing induced drag. this test is performed to better understand the concept of induced drag and how winglets destroy these vortices.1: Winglet Comparison In this comparison. but it is advantageous to know how winglets that are vertically down will perform.P a g e | 51 Table 3. wing flutter. it is the winglet that most contributes to adding a positive traction component. the most efficient and desirable winglet is a blended elliptical winglet. the same wing with vertical upward winglets and lastly the same wing with vertical downwards winglets. This is done to Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . Modern planes all have winglets that are vertically pointed up. no winglets.

000 ft. Table 3. leading or trailing edge devise and no flaps.2: Parameters for Winglets Up/Down Parameter Mach Number (M) Angle of Attack (α) Pressure (p) Height (h) Temperature (T) Density of Air (ρ) Kinematic Viscosity (ν) Free Stream Velocity (U) Planform Area (Aref) Mean Aerodynamic Chord (Lref) Wing Span 0.1. These three cases all have the same initial conditions. Speed was calculated to be 99.22 KPa 1830 m (6000 ft) 276.26 K 1. 0.96 m/s 151. It is just a plain wing with a varying chord length along the span.3 m Center of Rotation (Center of Pressure) (5. 0) (1. 2.336) Lift Direction (Vector Value) Drag Direction (Vector Value) Pitch Axis (Vector Value) # of Nodes on Cluster (0. 0) (0. a vertical plate that goes above or beneath the wing and if so which is the most effective. Since wingtip vortices are more prevalent at take-off conditions for low speed and high lift conditions.96 m/s for a commercial airplane at this height.26 K respectively.3.1. 0. 3.1 Analysis of a Simple Swept-Back Wing A simple swept-back wing refers to the fact that this wing has no attachments like winglets.P a g e | 52 just focus on the fact of which end-plate is more effective.22 kpa and 276. The pressure and temperature of air at this height is 81.367 m 28.14. 14. the wings will be run at a Mach number of 0.9 m2 5.0 Value 81.2798 kg/m3 0 m2/s 99.3 and at 6.3 5.856. 1) 10 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . 1.

Figure 43: Isometric View of Domain of Simple Sweptback Wing Using rhoCentralFoam.P a g e | 53 Table 2 shows all the parameters that were input into OpenFOAM so it can solve for coefficients of lift. Figure 9 shows the domain box for the case of a simple sweptback wing. drag and moment. this can be proved by plotting the residuals from the solver with respect to time. winglets up and down. These parameters were kept constant for all three cases of simple wing. the compressible flow solver for OpenFOAM.3: Domain for Winglets Up/Down Axis Minimum Maximum X Y Z -20 -24 -26 60 30 55 Table 3 contains the values of the domain box that was constructed for the simple swept-back wing. the domain box was kept constant for all three cases. this case ran until convergence. Table 3. This will be the control case to compare with the experimental cases. Since winglets up and down were constructed at the wing-tip of this same wing. winglets up and winglets down. If the lift over drag ratio improves with the winglets attached at the wing-tip then it is proves that these do indeed serve a purpose. Once it is determined that winglets improve the flight characteristics of a plane the best configuration of a winglet will be determined. Residuals Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

this means that the solution is no longer in a transient state and has reached steady-state. the residuals have reached an order greater than 10 and the plots of both Uz and Uy have plateaued. A Trefftz plane is a plane that is downstream of an aircraft and is perpendicular to the wake. Figure 44: Residuals vs. Observing figure 11. the wing-tip vortices are clearly shown in the Trefftz plane. As shown in figure 10.P a g e | 54 are simply the error from a result and when the residuals become higher in order. Figure 45: Isometric View of Trefftz Plane Behind the Wing Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . Time for Plain Swept-Back Wing Figure 45 shows the Trefftz plane of the pressure field ten meters behind the wing.

3.1.P a g e | 55 Table 3. Comparing Figure 45 and Figure 47. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . this will obviously translate to a stronger lift/drag ratio for this wing. Observing Figure 46 the streamlines are shown as round concentric circles. winglets up and down. This figure is important because when winglets are attached to each wing-tip the change in the streamlines will quickly become apparent.382751 0. Figure 47. which is why a wing-tip down assembly was constructed.41 Coefficient of Moment (CM) -0.0329124 Figure 46: Streamlines for Plain Swept-Back Wing Streamlines were applied to each wingtip to study the vortices at these locations. If the lift/drag ratio increases. shows an isometric view of the Trefftz plane of the pressure field that is 10 meters behind the wing. makes an aircraft more aerodynamic which can be translated directly to fuel savings. 3. every possibility has to be explored to determine the best winglet configuration.0597286 6.2 Analysis of a Wing with Winglets that are Vertically Downwards Now that the control case has been solved those results can be used to compare with the experimental cases. When designing optimal winglets.1.4: Forces for Simple Swept-Back Wing Force Functions Coefficient of Lift (CL) Coefficient of Drag (CD) Lift/Drag ratio (CL/CD) Value 0. which it should. already a reduction in wing-tip vortices is apparent. then we have proven the fact that winglets decrease wing-tip vortices.

11 Coefficient of Moment (CM) -0.0429454 7.020751 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .P a g e | 56 Figure 47: Isometric View of Trefftz Plane with Winglets Down Table 3.30548 0.5: Forces for Winglets Down Force Functions Coefficient of Lift (CL) Coefficient of Drag (CD) Lift/Drag ratio (CL/CD) Value 0.

Figure 49: Streamlines at Wing-Tip with Winglets Down Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .P a g e | 57 Figure 48: Residuals vs. illustrates the fact that the solution for winglets down has converged due to the fact that the residuals have plateaued and have reached a high order. Time for Winglets Down Figure 48.

Figure 50: Isometric View of Trefftz Plane for Winglets Up Figure 50 shows a Trefftz plane of the pressure field 10 meters behind the wing. the aircraft will be more stable. Like Figure 47. The streamlines are now stretched toward the tip of the winglets. giving the commercial aircraft more stability. Comparing Figure 46 and Figure 47 it is apparent to see how winglets affect wing-tip vortices. Instead of the nice concentric circles that were prevalent in the simple wing. So one can hypothesize that winglets up winglets up will provide the best ratio of the three. since the flow from high-low pressure now has to travel a further distance.P a g e | 58 Figure 49 shows the streamlines at each wing-tip. now with winglets attached a more elliptical streamline is noticeable.3 Analysis of a Wing with Winglets that are vertically Upwards Now a winglets up configuration will be compared to previous results to determine whether a winglet that is vertically up is more aerodynamic and more stable than winglets that are down. the ratio of lift/drag is considerably stronger and even the coefficient of moment is more desirable. With a coefficient of moment closer to zero. lift and moment. This visual representation is backed by the values of the coefficients of drag. However. 3. It was previously shown that winglets that are pointed down decrease drag and increase lift on a wing. This effect of the high pressure going up all the way to Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . now it is also easy to see that an area of high pressure goes up and around the winglet.3. since winglets up is currently the configuration used on all modern planes. Now that these vortices have been weakened by the endplates. a reduction in vortices at the wing-tip is clear to see.1. this means that vortex will now be somewhat more dissipated.1.

Before regarding any numbers or values. Table 3. one can hypothesize that winglets up will yield the best lift/drag ratio and provide the most stability. the area of high pressure wasn’t able to get around the winglet. In the previous case of winglets down. thus not providing the stability as shown here. the high pressure generated by lift is unable to go around the winglet and push against the outside of the winglet.0156387 Figure 51: Residuals vs.461229 7.28 Coefficient of Moment (CM) -0. Time for Winglets Up Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .0633643 0. Since the winglet is pointing down.6: Forces for Winglets Up Force Functions Coefficient of Drag (CD) Coefficient of Lift (CL) Lift/Drag ratio (CL/CD) Value 0.P a g e | 59 the wing-tip of the winglet creates even more stability for the commercial aircraft.

winglets up was a clear winner. leading to a more stable winglet. it provided the best lift to drag ratio and the most stability. Figure 52. therefore commercial aircraft have cambered airfoils that will provide extra lift and therefore create an Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . As predicted. 3. Due to all these factors. instead of concentric circles that is evident from Figure 46. For one. Also winglets up increase the lift and decrease drag more efficiently than both winglets down and the plain wing. or the camber will point outwards. This fact is proven by the coefficient of moment which is close to 0. both streamlines are elliptical in nature and in both the streamlines tend to go towards the wing-tip of the winglet. In conclusion. Comparing Figure 49 and Figure 52 various similarities are apparent. The coefficient of moment is very close to zero. also better illustrates the area of high pressure that covers the outside of the winglet. therefore the forces in Table 3.4 Design Alternate 3 The next key parameter in the design of a winglet is whether the camber in the airfoil will be pointed in.P a g e | 60 Figure 52: Streamlines for Winglets Up Figure 52 proves that the solution has converged. away from the fuselage.6 can be used for comparison against the other cases. towards the fuselage. winglets up or winglets down. between the alternatives of no winglets. As discussed in the literature review. because of the analysis that was discussed previously. the curtain effect prevalent very downstream of the aircraft will be significantly reduced. a symmetrical airfoil provides no lift at a zero degree angle of attack. the obvious winner is a winglet vertically up.

In all experiments a datum is needed to give the results obtained a point of reference. Table 3.P a g e | 61 area of higher pressure at the bottom of the wing. The coefficients of moment.22 KPa 1830 m (6000 ft) 276. This rectangular wing has no change in chord length along the span. -0. This negative lift is obviously going to be a function of where the camber in the airfoil is.7: Parameters for Winglets Camber In/Out Parameter Mach Number (M) Angle of Attack (α) Pressure (p) Height (h) Temperature (T) Density of Air (ρ) Kinematic Viscosity (ν) Free Stream Velocity (U) Planform Area (Aref) Mean Aerodynamic Chord (Lref) Wing Span 0.1 Analysis of a Simple Rectangular Wing This case will be used as the control to compare these results with those of the experimental cases. 0) Lift Direction (Vector Value) (0. 3. Now that it is known that winglets up are the best performing. camber in/out.38 m2 5.2798 kg/m3 0 m2/s 99. it makes sense to say that winglets destroy these vortices by creating negative lift.0˚ Value 81.3 8. Since lift creates wing-tip vortices and drag is a function of lift.4. So now a study will be conducted on various winglets to determine the placement of the camber in an airfoil of a winglet. 1.2 m Center of Rotation (Center of Pressure) (2. all the analyses from now on will be done on winglets that are vertically up.23. 0) Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .34 m 34.26 K 1.96 m/s 181.1. lift and drag will be analyzed to determine the best winglet.23.1.

drag and moment. 1) 10 Table 3.8 gives the dimensions that were used to construct the domain box for the next three cases. 0.8: Domain Box for Winglets Camber In/Out Axis Minimum Maximum X Y Z -20 -24 -26 60 30 55 Table 3. The airfoil used for the wing and winglet is a NACA 2412. The conditions here are the same as in the previous cases except that now the wing is given an 8˚ angle of attack. only the winglet varied for each case. 0) (0. Table 3. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . The same domain box was used because the wing was used in all three cases.7 gives the values that were input into OpenFOAM to solve for the coefficients of lift. and using a higher angle of attack will generate more lift thus producing more induced drag. So if more wing-tip vortices are present it will be clearer when looking at the solution which winglet is more effective and is dissipating vortices at the wing-tips. 0.P a g e | 62 Drag Direction (Vector Value) Pitch Axis (Vector Value) # of Nodes on Cluster (1.

drag and moment. Table 3. therefore drag will be high. Figure 45.622182 5. wing-tip vortices are very much present and visible and is contributing to the drag. there is nothing to dissipate these vortices.0329155 Table 3. the fact that the solution has converged gives validity to the results obtained. Even though the wing here varies from the winglets up/down study. time. when applying streamlines at the wing-tip.42 Coefficient of Moment (CM) -0. the vortices can be seen as round concentric circles. To begin with. there are various similarities in the solution.9 gives the coefficients of lift. Also. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . Figure 54 shows a plot of the residuals of Uy and Uz vs. These values will be used to compare to the experimental cases of winglets camber in/out.9: Forces of Simple Rectangular Wing Force Functions Coefficient of Drag (CD) Coefficient of Lift (CL) Lift/Drag ratio (CL/CD) Value 0.114784 0.P a g e | 63 Figure 53: Plain Wing NACA 2412 Trefftz Plane Figure 53 is a Trefftz plane of the pressure field 10 meters behind the wing. when there is no winglet attached at the end of the wing. especially at a high angle of attack.

The transition for both of these winglets is elliptically blended.4. Figure 55 is magnified and is a top view of the winglet to better visualize this.P a g e | 64 Figure 54: Residuals vs. the winglet is basically a continuation of the wing. As can be seen. Time for Plain Rectangular Wing 3.1. from the wing-tip to the top of the winglet. the airfoil of the wing is reversed. just turned up vertically.2 Analysis of Winglets with Camber Pointing Inwards The best way to visualize a winglet with the camber pointing in is to imagine that the ends of a cambered wing are simply lifted up vertically to form a winglet. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . Camber out is the opposite of this.1.

P a g e | 65 Figure 55: Top View of a Cambered In Winglet Figure 56: Front View of Trefftz Plane for Camber In Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

This elliptical shape extending towards the tip of winglet is what dissipates the energy from the wing-tip Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .9 and Table 3.10 it shows that indeed this observation is true because there is a decrease in drag. Surrounding the winglet. The increase in lift can be attributed to the positive traction component of the winglet. This area of high pressure extends all the way to the tip of the winglet and provides stability to the wing.0610928 Figure 56 shows the Trefftz plane of the pressure field 10 meters behind the wing. Comparing Table 3.10: Forces for Winglet Camber In Force Functions Coefficient of Drag (CD) Coefficient of Lift (CL) Lift/Drag ratio (CL/CD) Value 0. Time for Winglet Camber In Table 3.106857 0. an area of high pressure is clearly seen. This figure shows how the streamlines have transformed and have become more elliptical in nature. this is exactly what is needed for a commercial airplane.69013 6.46 Coefficient of Moment (CM) -0. As shown in the figure the wing-tip vortices have been significantly reduced. the elliptical translation of this winglet is what provides this effect. One can tell that the coefficient of drag has decreased in this case study just by looking at the streamlines in Figure 56.P a g e | 66 Figure 57: Residuals vs.

As stated before it is the opposite of camber in and because the cambered part of the airfoil points away from the fuselage.4. With end plates flow is forced to travel up and around the winglet. Figure 58: Top View of a Winglet with Camber Out Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .1. thus leading to a decrease in drag.1.P a g e | 67 vortex. without any end-plates flow is free to travel from high to low pressure and creating tremendous drag.3 Analysis of a Winglet with Camber Pointing Outwards Figure 58 helps visualize what camber out what really means. 3. thus weakening the flow considerably and lowering drag. As illustrated in Figure 53.

676833 6. Comparing Table 3. in it is clear that the area outside the winglet does not have the high pressure as shown in the previous case.P a g e | 68 Figure 59: Trefftz Plane of Winglets with Camber Out Figure 60: Residuals vs.11: Forces for Winglet Camber Out Force Functions Coefficient of Drag (CD) Coefficient of Lift (CL) Lift/Drag ratio (CL/CD) Value 0. This fact leads to the wing having less stability.0641388 Evaluating the values for the force functions. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .107395 0.30 Coefficient of Moment (CM) -0. it is clear that a winglet with a camber in the airfoil pointing outwards does not provide optimal results. toward the fuselage. This last part can be explained by referring to Figure 59. Also the coefficient of moment was closer to zero with camber in winglets than with winglets cambered out. Time for Winglet Camber Out Table 3. Even though this case provided a better lift/drag ratio than the control case.10 and Table 3. the best performing winglet without a doubt is a winglet with camber pointing inwards.11 shows that the winglets with the camber pointing towards the fuselage reduced more drag and provided extra lift.

2 Objectives An objective is a numerical value that is to be maximized or minimized. When determining objectives for a problem. optimization of the system can begin. The logic behind this is that the shape generator performs CFD analysis on an initial geometry. These design variables need to have a range. parameters and ranges for these parameters are chosen. two objectives are deemed essential. The values of lift.P a g e | 69 3. Chapter 4 Optimization 4. 4.5 Proposed Design After extensive CFD analysis to determine the best configuration of 3 key parameters it is safe to say that the best winglet to optimize is the one has that has an elliptically blended transition. These are that the winglets maximize lift and minimize drag. 4. For example. drag and moment would be input to the optimizer. The ideal setup for optimization would be to tether a shape generator to an optimization algorithm. For the optimization of winglets. it can be multidisciplinary. points completely upwards and the camber in the airfoil points inwards. the Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . towards the fuselage. The design variable is a parameter that the engineer or designer is able to modify that changes a system. and this proposed configuration will be the best performing winglet.1 Design Variables The first step in optimization is to determine the design variables. increase its structural integrity while keeping the design under a budget. a designer or engineer may want to reduce weight of a fuselage.3 Optimization Algorithm Once the objective functions. All possible alternatives for the three parameters have been proposed and tested.

This involves creating 100 different winglets in SolidWorks and performing CFD analysis on them.34 45 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . 4. A total of 6 variables were defined to fully characterize the elliptic profile of the winglets. So a more robust optimization will be performed. a population of winglets will be created and a non-gradient based algorithm will determine the most suitable winglet. lame equation exponent) Cw (winglet chord length) [m] β (winglet tilt back angle) [°] Upper limit 4.1: Variables that define elliptical winglets Lower limit 0 1. this is done to avoid bias when picking the values.602 0 Variables a (addition to span) [m] b (height) [m] n (curvature ratio. Each winglet will be completely different from the one before. Once these 100 winglets have reached convergence on OpenFOAM and their respective coefficient of lift.34 19 5. to better suit the objective functions. However. the TESLA parallel-computing lab at FIU has a Linux server. and there is no shape generator available that runs in a LINUX based environment.335 1. These 100 cases will be created by using a random number generator to pick values for each of the five design variables. moment and drag are obtained. since the parameters that define it will be completely random.005 5. This process would repeat in a loop until the optimum winglet whose criterion meets those of the objective functions. their names and meanings can be found in Table 4.P a g e | 70 optimizer would then command the shape generator how to modify the geometry. Based on these values that have been inputted. these values will be input to the optimizer.5 1.4 Parameters and Ranges for Optimization In order to be able to create several models of winglets to analyze in the Tesla it was necessary to parameterize the winglet configuration.

winglet chord length (Cw) and winglet high or ellipse vertical length (b). Figure 62: Graphic definition of optimization parameters Tilt back angle of the winglet trailing edge curve (α). The coordinate reference system was chosen to match the one from the design software SolidWorks. tilt back angle of the winglet leading edge curve (β). From the above figure we can define all the variables we need to design a winglet in SolidWorks by the following trigonometric relations: Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . Some of the limit of these parameters will vary with respect to the parameters of table 1.P a g e | 71 Figure 61: Graphical representation of optimization limits Figure 61 shows the side view of the 4 extreme of the winglet configurations we chose in order to optimize the best elliptical winglet configuration that outputs the higher CL/CD ratio for the given rectangular wing. Therefore their relations are expressed in the next figure considering an arbitrary elliptical configuration.

P a g e | 72 Using the above relations we created an excel sheet that outputs random elliptical profiles. These profiles are then converted into a leading curve and a trailing curve and loaded to the SolidWorks model to create the winglet. The ellipse profile is being generated randomly between the limits we chose for our optimization parameters which are presented in the table 1. the blue and green curves represent the leading edge of two different winglet configurations. This definition makes the blue and red curve one elliptical winglet profile and the Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . The red and yellow curves are the trailing edge of the respective winglet configuration. 6 5 4 b 3 2 1 0 0 1 Δb1L 2 Δb1T 3 a 4 Δb2L 5 Δb2T 6 Figure 63: Front View (b vs a) of Elliptic Profile For Figure 63 and Figure 64. The initial point for the leading curve is the initial point of the leading edge and for the trailing curve this point coincides with the initial point of the trailing edge.

Table 4. The optimal shape will be the one that gives the higher ratio between the lift coefficient and the drag coefficient (CL/CD).2: Range of Optimization Parameters Lower limit 0 0.2 will define the parameters represented in Figure 62 depending on the wing thickness and chord length ratio. The result of this optimization will be tested in a wind tunnel with a scaled model to validate computational work. This will assure to optimize a customized elliptic winglet for a specific wing airfoil.25 1. 6 5 4 b 3 2 1 0 0 1 Δc1L 2 Δc1T 3 c 4 Δc2L 5 Δc2T 6 Figure 64: Side View (b vs c) of Elliptic Profile From Figure 64 the changes between the tilt back angle β (for the leading edge) and α (for the trailing edge) that occurs for the different elliptical profiles are possible to see.3 0 Parameter a (ellipse horizontal length) b (ellipse vertical length) n (ellipse equation exponent) Cw (winglet chord length) β (tilt back angle of winglet leading curve) Upper limit 0.75 C C (wing chord length) 19 C 45° The parameters from Table 4.P a g e | 73 green and yellow curve another winglet profile. Considering the range of the above parameters a total of 100 elliptical profiles were created to be optimized.5 0. Figure 63 is the front view of these profiles and Figure 64 is the side view of the same winglet profiles. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

Also to determine which of these results will be the best for our target wing.3 contains the coefficient values for the NACA2412 without any winglets.606192 Cm -0.0298 45.06 Table 4.0298 a 0.70439 Cl/Cd 12.45% .4.5 Optimization of 100 Winglets Configurations In order to determine the best winglet configuration a response surface method-based hybrid optimizer was used to create a Pareto front for the optimal results.P a g e | 74 4.05833 0. From the Figure 65 to the Figure 70 the results for all the possible combinations of our project target can be seen.05833 Winglet Optimized Coefficients Cl Cm Min Cd -0.38532 5. Therefore we created 6 graphs in order to better analyze these results.38532 cw 1.0664281 Cl/Cd 11.3: Aerodynamic coefficientes for the NACA2412 without winlgets Naked wing Cd 0. drag.91% 15. Therefore configuration 1 from the same table was determined. NACA2412.0189 12.91% Cl/Cd 8.63492 1. These results help us to determine the winglet configurations that accomplished these parameters which are shown on Table 4.07699 0.52262 1. Maximum Cl and Minimum Cd.38709 b 5. Table 4.20% 0. moment.38709 0.63349 n 1.This optimizer only outputs results for a combination of two parameters for example.20% Cm 15.4: Corresponding winglets configurations for maximum Cl and Cl/Cd and minimum Cd and Cm Objective Result Name Optimized winglets variables β 45. Then we place these points (A to D) also in the Figure 65 through Figure 70 to see their position with respect to the Pareto front. This optimizer was developed by Marcelo Colaҫo .67% 2 A 1 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering 16.0547969 Cl 0.67% 8.7044 -0.52262 Cd 0. and lift/drag of the naked wing shown on table 1. we divided each of them by the coefficients of lift.45% Cl 16. Table 4.0187 Change with respect to wing Cd 6.077 6. However in order to determine the best winglet configuration is necessary to consider the simultaneous effect of all the coefficients and not chose a configuration base on only the limit value of one coefficient.

7976 -0.04182 5.P a g e | 75 Max Cl -0.04% 1 B 4 11.06478 28.68173 2.53966 4.65% 80.11988 -0.47% 80.6119 -0.52262 0. Configurations C and D are the best fit options for minimum Cm and maximum aerodynamic efficiency.5575 12.72% 75.37% 11.65668 44.16336 8.03% -2.4% 7.38532 2.0711 C 4 8.389567 4.07867 0.65% .08643 1.40916 1.47% 70.11988 4.56522 2.42096 -0.08643 0.3% 14.1134 3.06158 0. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering 12.646773 1. Configuration 1 is the optimal winglet configuration resulting from analyzing the combined effect of all the four coefficients we target in this project.3127 57.60927 1 From the above table we can see that for configurations A and B we obtained duplicated winglets configurations from different optimization objectives with the same minimum Cd coefficient.38709 2.0298 D 3 12.06478 1.99582 45.56% 17.52262 75.4% 64.9% Min Cm 0. The process of choosing this configuration is completely up to the authors’ decision and analysis of the optimization results.5575 28.33% 32.37% 43.38532 5.932981 0.3416 10.56522 8.04182 4.16336 0.064629 0.33% 12.07931 1.33789 1.3127 12.71% 19. This process will be described below with the help of 3D graphs represented from Figure 71 to Figure 86.94743 3.802758 44.72% 12.27% Max Cl/Cd 3.33% 57.87428 0.

minimum Cd and maximum Cl Figure 65 shows the results for maximum Cl and minimum Cd. objective 1.09 1 Pareto front Objective 1 Raw data Wing Figure 65: Discontinuous Pareto Front for Objective 1. The values given for the naked wing are shown in these graphs to see the improvement of the winglet configurations.P a g e | 76 4.07 B Cd C 0. B is for maximum Cl. Where A represents the winglet configuration that correspond to Minimum Cd. C is for minimum Cm and D is for maximum Cl/Cd.80 0.50 0.05 0.08 0.10 1.07 D 0.06 A 0.70 0.6 Discontinuous Pareto Front Graphs 1.00 0.90 Cl 0.60 0.06 0.08 0. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . As we can see from Figure 65 through Figure 66 the Pareto front for all the objectives is discontinued.

06 0.09 1 Pareto front Objective 2 Raw data Wing Figure 66: Discontinuous Pareto Front for Objective 2.06 A 0.09 Figure 67: Discontinuous Pareto Front for Objective 3.07 Cd A B C D Pareto front Objective 3 Raw data Wing 1 0.P a g e | 77 -0.06 0.07 D 0.00 12.08 Cm -0.13 -0.11 -0.06 -0. minimum Cd minimum Cm 13.12 -0.07 -0.08 0.00 Cl/Cd 11.08 0.50 0.10 -0.08 0.05 -0.09 -0.08 0.50 12.05 0. maximum Cl/Cd minimum Cd Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .07 0.07 B Cd C 0.05 0.50 11.06 0.14 0.00 10.

06 Wing 1.66 D 0.07 -0. Maximum Cl minimum Cm 13.96 Raw data 1.86 D 0.10 -0.50 12.16 1 Cl Pareto front Objective 5 Figure 69: Discontinuous Pareto Front for Objective 5.50 0.76 B Cl C 0.56 A B C 0.06 Wing 1 Pareto front Objective 4 Figure 68: Discontinuous Pareto Front for Objective 4.11 -0.56 0.00 10.86 0.06 -0.09 -0.13 0.76 0.66 A 0.08 Cm -0.50 11.00 Cl/Cd 11.12 -0. Maximum Cl/Cd maximum Cl Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .96 Raw data 1.P a g e | 78 -0.00 12.

00 10.06 Wing Cm Pareto front Objective 6 Raw data Figure 70: Discontinuous Pareto Front for Objective 6.092 High CL High CD High Cm Figure 71: Cl.11 D -0.07 -0.01<CM<-0.09 -0.00 Cl/Cd 1 11.08 -0.00 -0.10 -0.12 C -0.P a g e | 79 13. Cm Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .00 12.50 10.50 12. Cd.08 -0.13 A B -0.50 11.95 0. maximum Cl/Cd minimum Cm Low CD Low CM Low CL Desirable Area 1>CL>0.078<CD<0.

Cd Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .P a g e | 80 High CL High CD Low CL Low CD Figure 72: Cl vs.

1<CM<-0.08 -0.95 -0.1<CM<-0.092 High CD High Cm Figure 73: Cm vs Cd Low CL Low Cm Desirable Area 1>CL>0.078<CD<0.092 High CL High Cm Figure 74: Cm vs Cl Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .P a g e | 81 Low CD Low Cm Desirable Area 0.

092 Low CL/CD Low CL Low Cm Figure 75: Cl.95 -0. Cm.1<CM<-0.5 -0. Cl/Cd Desirable Area 1>CL>0. Cl High CL High Cm Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .1<CM<-0.P a g e | 82 High CL/CD High CL High Cm Desirable Area 1>CL>0.95 12.4<CL/CD<12.092 Low CL Low Cm Figure 76: Cm vs.

Cm Low CL/CD Low CL High CL/CD High CL Desirable Area 1>CL>0.P a g e | 83 High CL/CD High Cm Low CL/CD Low Cm Figure 77: Cl/Cd vs . Cl Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .95 12.4<CL/CD<12.5 Figure 78: Cl/Cd vs.

5 0.08 Figure 79: Isometric View of Cl/Cd.P a g e | 84 Low CL/CD Low CL Low CD High CL/CD Low CL Low CD Desirable Area 1>CL>0. Cl.4<CL/CD<12.95 12.5 Low CL Low CL/CD Low CL High CL/CD Figure 80: Cl vs. Cl/Cd Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .95 12. Cd Desirable Area 1>CL>0.4<CL/CD<12.078<CD<0.

Cl Desirable Area 0.5 Low CD Low CL/CD Figure 82: Cd vs.4<CL/CD<12.08 12. Cl/Cd High CL/CD Low CD Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .078<CD<0.P a g e | 85 High CD High CL Low CL Low CD Figure 81: Cd vs.

95 12.95 0.078<CD<0. Cm Low CD Low CM Desirable Area -0.1<CM<0. Cm Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .1<CM<0. 5 0.P a g e | 86 Desirable Area -0.078<CD<0.08 High CD High CM Figure 84: Cd vs. Cd.08 High CL/CD Low CD Low CM High CL/CD High CD High CM Low CL/CD Low CD Low CM Figure 83: Isometric View of Cl/Cd.4<CL/CD<12.

1<CM<0.4<CL/CD<12. Cm High CD High CL/CD Low CD High CL/CD Desirable Area 0.95 12. 5 Low CM High CL/CD High CM High CL/CD Low CM Low CL/CD Figure 85: Cl/Cd vs.5 Low CD Low CL/CD Figure 86: Cl/Cd vs.4<CL/CD<12.08 12.P a g e | 87 Desirable Area -0. Cd Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .078<CD<0.

1) 10 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .26 K 1.86) (0.1377. 0) (0.2798 kg/m3 0 m2/s 99. 0) (1.22 KPa 1830 m (6000 ft) 276.3 8. 1.P a g e | 88 4. -0.7 Optimal Winglet Configurations Table 4. -6.0 81.367 m 17.285.1 m (2. 0. 0.85 m2 5.5: Parameters for Optimal Winglets CFD Analysis Parameter Mach Number (M) Angle of Attack (α) Pressure (p) Height (h) Temperature (T) Density of Air (ρ) Kinematic Viscosity (ν) Free Stream Velocity (U) Planform Area (Aref) Mean Aerodynamic Chord (Lref) Wing Span Center of Rotation (Center of Pressure) Lift Direction (Vector Value) Drag Direction (Vector Value) Pitch Axis (Vector Value) # of Nodes on Cluster Value 0.96 m/s 95.

6: Values of Forces for Simple NACA 2412 Wing Force Functions Coefficient of Lift (CL) Coefficient of Drag (CD) Coefficient of Moment (CM) Lift/Drag ratio (CL/CD) Value 0.1.1 Simple NACA 2412 Table 4.P a g e | 89 4.606192 0.1.7.0664281 11.06 Figure 87: Domain of Simple NACA 2412 with a Symmetry Plane Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .0547969 -0.

P a g e | 90 Figure 88: Front View of Trefftz Plane for Simple NACA 2412 Wing Figure 89: Streamlines at Wing-Tip for Simple NACA 2412 Wing Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

0638685 -0.7.2 Optimal Winglet Configuration #1 Table 4.P a g e | 91 Figure 90: Pressure Field of Simple NACA 2412 Wing Figure 91: Plot of Residuals vs.1.0787166 12.1.788834 0.35 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . Time for Simple NACA 2412 Wing 4.7: Values of Forces for Optimal Winglet #1 Force Functions Coefficient of Lift (CL) Coefficient of Drag (CD) Coefficient of Moment (CM) Lift/Drag ratio (CL/CD) Value 0.

P a g e | 92 Figure 92: Front View of Optimal Winglet #1 Figure 93: Side View of Optimal Winglet #1 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

P a g e | 93 Figure 94: Top View of Optimal Winglet #1 Figure 95: Front View of Trefftz Plane for Optimal Winglet #1 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

P a g e | 94 Figure 96: Side View of Pressure Field of Optimal Winglet #1 Figure 97: Streamlines at Wing-Tip for Optimal Winglet #1 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

802758 0.8: Values of Forces for Optimal Winglet #2 Force Functions Coefficient of Lift (CL) Coefficient of Drag (CD) Coefficient of Moment (CM) Lift/Drag ratio (CL/CD) Value 0.0646293 -0.7.2 Optimal Winglet Configuration # 2 Table 4.1.P a g e | 95 Figure 98: Plot of Residuals vs Time for Optimal Winglet #1 4.3 5.0793139 12.1.42 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .5.

P a g e | 96 Figure 99: Top View of Optimal Winglet #2 Figure 100: Front View of Optimal Winglet # 2 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

P a g e | 97 Figure 101: Side View of Optimal Winglet #2 Figure 102: Front View of Trefftz Plane for Optimal Winglet #2 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

P a g e | 98 Figure 103: Pressure Field for Optimal Winglet #2 Figure 104: Streamlines Around Wing-Tip For Optimal Winglet #2 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

T Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .P a g e | 99 Figure 105: Plot of Residuals vs.

4.26 K 1. 1) 10 5.0 81.1 6.1 Boeing 757 Simple Wing Table 10: Values of Forces for 757 Simple Wing Force Functions Coefficient of Lift (CL) Coefficient of Drag (CD) Coefficient of Moment (CM) Lift/Drag ratio (CL/CD) Value 0.97.34. 0.62) (0. 0.22 KPa 1830 m (6000 ft) 276.227 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .095009 0.3 8.2798 kg/m3 0 m2/s 99. 0) (1.96 m/s 5.367 m 79. 1.1 m (5.68 m2 17.0488408 5.496619 0.P a g e | 100 Chapter 5 Aerodynamic Analysis Table 9: Parameters for Boeing 757 CFD Analysis Parameter Mach Number (M) Angle of Attack (α) Pressure (p) Height (h) Temperature (T) Density of Air (ρ) Kinematic Viscosity (ν) Free Stream Velocity (U) Mean Aerodynamic Chord (Lref) Planform Area (Aref) Wing Span Center of Rotation (Center of Pressure) Lift Direction (Vector Value) Drag Direction (Vector Value) Pitch Axis (Vector Value) # of Nodes on Cluster Value 0. -0. 0) (0.

Half 757 Wing with a Symmetry Plane Figure 107: Front View of Trefftz Plane for Simple 757 Wing Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .P a g e | 101 Figure 106: Top View of Domain of Simple.

P a g e | 102 Figure 108: Pressure Field around 757 Simple Wing Figure 109: Streamlines at Wing-Tip of 757 Simple Wing Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

Time for Simple 757 Wing 5.0956025 0.38 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .P a g e | 103 Figure 110: Plot of Residuals vs.514469 0.2 Original Boeing 757 Winglets Table 11: Values of Forces for Original Boeing 757 Winglets Force Functions Coefficient of Lift (CL) Coefficient of Drag (CD) Coefficient of Moment (CM) Lift/Drag ratio (CL/CD) Value 0.0623464 5.

P a g e | 104 Figure 111: Side View of Original Boeing 757 Winglet Figure 112: Front View of Original Boeing 757 Winglet Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

P a g e | 105 Figure 113: Top View of Original Boeing 757 Winglet Figure 114: Front View of Trefftz Plane of Original Boeing 757 Winglet Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

P a g e | 106 Figure 115: Side View of Pressure Field for Original Boeing 757 Winglets Figure 116: Streamlines at Wing-Tip for Original Boeing 757 Winglets Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

P a g e | 107 Figure 117: Plot of Residuals vs. Time for Original Boeing 757 Winglets Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

3 6.529444 0.5514 Figure 118: Front View of Optimal Boeing 757 Winglets Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .0960115 0.3 Optimal Boeing 757 Winglets Table 12: Values of Forces for Optimal Boeing 757 Winglets Force Functions Coefficient of Lift (CL) Coefficient of Drag (CD) Coefficient of Moment (CM) Lift/Drag ratio (CL/CD) Value 0.0647884 5.P a g e | 108 5.

P a g e | 109 Figure 119: Top View of Optimal Boeing 757 Winglets Figure 120: Side View of Optimal Boeing 757 Winglets Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

P a g e | 110 Figure 121: Front View of Trefftz Plane for Optimal Boeing 757 Winglets Figure 122: Side View of Pressure Field for Optimal Boeing 757 Winglets Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

P a g e | 111 Figure 123: Streamlines at Wing-Tip of Optimal Boeing 757 Winglet Figure 124: Plot of Residuals vs. Time for Optimal 757 Winglets Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

CFD programs have been evolving and the size and power of computers have been growing. empirical evidence through observation and experimentation to test a hypothesis. The empirical values of Cd.0623464 5.529444 0. However. wind tunnel testing has now played a less crucial role in design. wind tunnels were the norm in the fields of aerodynamic design and testing. In order to prove the validity of our computational analysis.13: Comparison of aerodynamic efficiency of 757 with and without winglets Simple 757 Wing Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag Coefficient of Moment CL/CD Desired Improvement of CL/CD Actual Improvement of CL/CD 0.2% Original 757 Winglet 0.0488408 5. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .227 8% 5.0956025 0.514 ------- Chapter 6 Testing and Evaluation 6. 7 inches is a good general rule of thumb to remember. To test prototypes on a wind tunnel. The size of the prototype has to adhere to certain restrictions so as to avoid blockage of the wind tunnel.P a g e | 112 Table 5. the cross sectional area of the test section of the wind tunnel is a crucial value to know. as a result. This is also done to allow the vortices at the wing-tip to properly develop. CL.38 2% 2.0647884 5. if this rule is not adhered to. At least 7 inches of clearance between the wall of the wind tunnel and each side of the wing have to be given.514469 0.1 Testing With the rapid modernization of computers and their increased role in industry. CM and ultimately CL/CD will be compared to their analytical counterparts attained through OpenFOAM simulation. Prior to CFD analysis and computer clusters.43% Optimal 757 Winglet 0.0960115 0. the scientific method is based on gathering experimental. Throughout the years. computers are now playing new roles in the field of engineering and the sciences.496619 0. experiments have to be conducted in a wind tunnel.095009 0.

P a g e | 113 flow will not properly develop and experimental results will not reflect those of CFD simulations. Michael Scheppa for giving us full access to all their testing facilities and for their help in guidance in testing. One is a wind tunnel with a 40’’x30’’ test cross section. the second is a smoke tunnel with a 24’’x18’’ test cross section. this way flow separation point and boundary layer can be seen with ease. Figure 125 illustrates this rule of thumb well. Snorri Gudmundsson and Mr. Acknowledgements have to be given to Mr. Figure 125: Clearance for Wind Tunnel Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University currently has two excellent wind tunnels in which testing can be performed. Smoke tunnels have the added advantage of flow visualization. Figure 126: Smoke Tunnel Test Section at Embry-Riddle Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

Calculating for the least amount of blockage. Maintaining the same chord length between both wings has the advantage of significantly saving money. the wing for the wind tunnel will have a span of 18’’ while the wing for the smoke tunnel will be 12’’ spanwise. out will be tested on a NACA 2412 wing. winglets with airfoils that are symmetrical. To take advantage of both the wind and smoke tunnels. one for each tunnel. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . creating separate winglets for each wing would be very costly. Winglet configurations #’s 1. two holes will be drilled in the wing and winglet. the holes will be 1/8’’ diameter to allow a slender steel pin to connect both. Since the objective is to find CL. chosen as optimal from the Pareto front graphs. several configurations of winglets will be tested. Figure 128: 1/8’’ Steel Pin for Retrofitting Winglets Once the reasoning for the preliminary analysis is complete.Cm . the next logical step is to test all the optimal winglets.CD. To corroborate our initial testing on the effect of the camber on the airfoil in the winglet. two sets of NACA 2412 wings will be manufactured. These dimensions were calculated as desirable for wind to develop over the wingtips. cambered in.P a g e | 114 Figure 127: Test Section of Embry-Riddle Wind Tunnel To verify the computational work performed throughout. the span of the wing will not skew results since these are dimensionless parameters. To retrofit the wing to the winglets. The chord length of both wings will remain constant. The only factor between both wings that varied was the span. so as to be able to retrofit all winglets on both wings and test them in both tunnels.2 and 5.

The 3D printer was chosen as the best option for constructing the wing + winglets. parts are extremely fragile and great care has to be taken when removing them from the bin. The best of these will be found experimentally. Drill 1/8’’ holes into winglets and wing to allow space for steel pins to be inserted. the 757 wing will have to be constructed. 5.2 Manufacturing These several configurations of winglets will be manufactured using a Z-510 3D Printer. heat parts in a 200˚ F oven for 30 minutes. Two winglets will be tested on this wing. more validity will be given to CFD analysis as a reliable tool for aerodynamic design and analysis. 6. and if these results coincide with those of OpenFOAM. The procedure for the manufacturing of these winglets was as follows: 1. This wing will only be tested in the wind tunnel. Parts however are very fragile and epoxy resin has to be applied to insure complete infiltration. De-powder excess dust and powder with a small vacuum cleaner. 4. Sand down parts to remove any imperfections. 6. it is one of the most efficient rapid protyping machine in industry. 3. To strengthen parts apply a marine grade epoxy. To test the optimal Boeing 757 winglet. until it is perfectly smooth. and break easily. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . 7. parts are very fragile. the optimal Boeing 757 winglet and the original 757 winglet. Apply epoxy resin until the part is completely infiltrated with the epoxy. As illustrated in Figure 129. It is capable of creating physical models from CAD files in hours instead of days. To speed up curing process of epoxy. rapid prototype machine. Flow visualizations on the NACA 2412 winglets will provide sufficient data as to flow separation point and boundary layer. This part is important because if part is not smooth interferences will exist with the wind and results will be skewed. before applying epoxy. Excavate and remove parts from bin of 3D printer with extreme care. 2. place parts in a 100˚ oven for 45 minutes and let the parts completely de-gas.P a g e | 115 will be tested for its aerodynamic efficiency on the smoke and wind tunnels using both NACA 2412 wings. such that more is not necessary.

P a g e | 116 Figure 129: Removing Parts from 3D Printer Figure 130: De-powdering Excess of the Parts Figure 131: Parts Heating in Oven Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

P a g e | 117 Figure 132: Applying Epoxy to the Wing and Winglets Figure 133: Parts After Curing Process Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

P a g e | 118 Figure 134: Sanding Parts Figure 135: Drilling Holes in the Wing and Winglets Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

UK we can clearly see that they affect the noise pollution factor in a positive way.1 Environmental Impact of Winglets The introduction of winglets into the modern aviation industry can be very beneficial in the economical sense. NOx. All of them can affect the chemical balance and composition of the atmosphere in a long term or short term range. or the regional or global pollution associated to chemical changes in the troposphere that can reach several kilometers downwind of airports. and also there is the local pollution based on the noise level and the decrement of the air quality cause by COx emissions from the aircrafts. Their blended or elliptical transition from the wing tip helps reduce the stress concentration points and their shape helps to reduce vortices formation or induced drag making the engines work less while the takeoff or landing procedures8. When keeping track of the aviation history we found that the three more important aspects that define the environmental impact of the aviation industry are the noise pollution. The way winglets influence on this factor is indirectly and minimal because they only reduce the engines fuel usage during takeoff and landing procedures.P a g e | 119 Chapter 7 Environmental Impact 7. the local air quality and the climate changes5. With respect to the climate or global pollution the winglets did not act directly. During flight airplanes engines have several types of emissions such as CO2. for example the stratospheric ozone reduction that leads to an increment of the UV radiation surface. According to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution6 There are other points to consider when analyzing the effect of aircraft in flight into the environment7. water vapor. But will it be also beneficial to the environment? To address this question we look into several articles to create a global and or local impact description of the issue in question.2% for the 757-2002. As Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . hydrocarbons and sulfate or sulfur oxides in form of particles. If we look into the future clearly the last one is the most important of them. but indirectly they help with the reduction of NOx and CO2 emissions while reducing the fuel engines burn during takeoff and landing up to 6% for some aircrafts and about 3. Now entering into what winglets do or change in aircrafts according to the Aircraft Research Association in Bedford.9.

This change will contribute to the greenhouse effect. This way engines burn less fuel and reduce the greenhouse gases emission. However this effect only occurs in the lower stratosphere. because methane is one of the gases that permit through the short wave solar radiation and absorb and emit again the long wave thermal radiation crating the heating of the region near the tropopause. Since engines have to work less they will produce less noise. On the other hand methane life is long enough to allow the reduction of it to be spread throughout the entire atmosphere. However since ozone has a short life period its concentration increments or decrements are limited by to a short distribution horizontal and vertically in the atmosphere. Figure 136: The structure of the atmosphere below 50 km [6] Summarizing the overall impact of winglets into the environment we can say that they majorly influence indirectly into the noise pollution. But the NOx emissions product of the elevated temperature the engines work are quickly reacting leading to concentration changes of ozone and methane. When the airplane is flying the engines emit CO2 as result of the kerosene combustion and it mixes very well into the atmosphere. In the troposphere ozone is created by the NOx emissions. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . the local climate change. This is also clearly shown on Figure 136. and the global pollution by increasing the engines performance.P a g e | 120 a matter of fact during flight winglets increase the friction drag because they constitute an addition of surface area into the airplane structure10.

however. Thanks to winglets. due respect has to be given to these type of flow structures. L/D Ratio. vertically while producing substantial downwind up to 300 m/s downwind. Aerodynamic efficiency. extend their range capabilities. and cut down on noise and emissions. These are all motives why rotational flow patterns are so highly regarded and studied. reduce takeoff and landing thrust settings.P a g e | 121 Chapter 8 Conclusion Large commercial transport planes are not likely to be critically affected by trailing vortices from a preceding aircraft. aircrafts will be able to more efficiently consume fuel. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . and having moved a total of 200 ft. Wing tip vortices have been recorded to have lasted up to 3 minutes after the passing of a large aircraft. noise and many more. leads to a series of factor which impact the economics of flying with the extent of fuel consumption and fatigue on the aircraft.

1: Types of Boeing 757-200 aircraft [11] Specifications Boeing 757-200 Versions B757-200 B757-200 Freighter B757-200M B757-200PF B757-200SF B757-200X VC-32A initial production passenger aircraft developed by Pemco Aeroplex as conversion to existing 757 aircraft combi.5 kN) 42.2: Engines types used by Boeing 757-200 aircrafts [11] Engines Type 2 Pratt & Whitney PW2037 2 Pratt & Whitney PW2040 2 Rolls Royce RB211-535E4 2 Rolls Royce RB211-535E4-B Fuel Capacity Thrust 36.000 km increase in range military version.P a g e | 122 Chapter 9 9. Air Force Table 9.1 Appendix Appendix A: Boeing 757-200 technical data Table 9. mixed cargo/passenger version. developed for United Parcel Service modified 200 coverted by Boeing to Special Freighter extended range version.200 lb st (178.684 liters (11.S.100 lb st (178.8 kN) 40. 4 built for U. more than 1. only one delivered to Royal Nepal Airlines package freighter.276 US gallons) Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .600 lb st (162.8 kN) 43.4 kN) 40.500 lb st (193.

ramp weight (PW2040 & RB211-535E4-B) 116.74 mtr max wheel track 7.245 kg max. landing weight (PW2037 & RB211-535E4) 89.22 mtr tail height 13.32 mtr wheelbase 18.50.475 .120 kg Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .29 mtr Table 9. take-off weight (PW2037 & RB211-535E4) 99. take-off weight (PW2040 & RB211-535E4-B) 115.790 kg max.665 kg max.57.840 .5: Operational external weights of the Boeing 757-200 aircraft [11] Weight and loadings operating weight empty 57.97 mtr tailplane span 15.20 mtr wing chord.P a g e | 123 Table 9.4: External dimensions of Boeing 757-200 aircraft [11] Dimensions. ramp weight (PW2037 & RB211-535E4) 100. external wingspan 38. 3 rear 1 front portside.49 mtr min 13. 2 rear of mid-ships (239 passenger version) Table 9. 1 rear in 239 passenger version (midships) 1 front portside.33 mtr length. at root 8.3: Workload of the Boeing 757-200 aircraft [11] Accomodation flightdeck cabin attendents standard interior arrangements galley toilets 2 5-7 9 2 3 4 3 provision for an observer from 178 in 2-class to 239 passengers in all tourist 1 front starboardside. landing weight (PW2040 & RB211-535E4-B) 95.815 kg max.605 kg freighter revenue load 32.255 kg max.755 kg freighter payload 757-200 SF 27. at tip 1.215 kg max.73 mtr wing aspect ratio 7.8 length.975 kg operating weight empty (freighter) 50.05 mtr wing chord. fuselage 46. overall 47.

843 km (3.900 ft) 1.675 mtr (38.570 Nm) / 4.398 km (2.P a g e | 124 Table 9.418 mtr (4.278 km (3.300 ft) / 11.100 ft) / 1.6: Flight performance parameters of the Boeing 757-200 [11] Performance max.555 mtr (5.795 mtr (38.700 ft) 1.378 mtr (7.900 ft) 4.930 Nm) / 6.104 mtr (6.650 ft) 1.500 ft) 2.86 M 0.800 ft) / 2.677 mtr (5.695 Nm) Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .800 ft) / 1.463 mtr (4.769 km (2.400 ft) / 10.80 132 knots (245 km/h) 137 knots (254 km/h) 11.376 Nm) 7.494 mtr (4.790 mtr (35.814 mtr (5.950 ft) / 1.700 ft) 10. operating Mach cruising speed approach speed (PW2037 & RB211-535E4) approach speed (PW2040 & RB211-535E4-B) cruising height: PW2037 / PW2040 cruising height: RB211-535E4 / RB211-535E4-B take-off field length: PW2037 / PW2040 take-off field length: RB211-535E4 / RB211-535E4-B landing field length: PW2037 / PW2040 landing field length: RB211-535E4 / RB211-535E4-B range: PW2037 / PW2040 range: RB211-535E4 / RB211-535E4-B 0.880 mtr (35.

These are our target aircraft wings Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .2 Appendix B: Engineering Drawings of Parts This appendix contains the detailed solidworks technical drawings of the boeing 757-200. The first figure is a 3-D picture of the model we used in solidworks to optimize winglets for.P a g e | 125 9. Figure 137: Boeing 757 aircraft SolidWorks model.

P a g e | 126 Figure 138: General parts of a commercial airplane. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

P a g e | 127 Figure 139: Comparison of dimension between a 757-200 and a 757-300 aircrafts. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering LF .P a g e | 128 HA Figure 140: Technical drawings of the wing for a 757 Boeing aircraft.

Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .P a g e | 129 Figure 141: Technical drawings for a rectangular camber wing NACA 2412 with the same average chord length as the wings of the 757 Boeing aircraft.

cw and β are shown also in this figure. Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .P a g e | 130 Figure 142: Technical drawing of a random elliptic blended winglet configuration. n. b. The optimization parameters a.

032 12.1634 3.307 12.88 11.09482 -0.08882 -0.931 2.273 2.574 1.847 5.065827 0.872 6.08357 -0.574 4.551 11.706493 0.186 5.764 4.626 5.776261 0.336 2.3 Appendix C: Sample of the three winglets elliptical curves Table 9.8302 0.06 12.767287 0.094 11.705 3.157 23.229 3.766581 0.882 29.089 1.062624 0.064379 0.847 30.155 3.072 2.647 1.12 4.08791 -0.07022 -0.256 1.09081 -0.884 11.2233 3.938 3.6588 3.066876 0.810707 0.066317 0.39 n 16.19 b 5.887 4.436 12.804262 0.09182 -0.893 4.577 4.7937 1.744834 0.068826 0.083 16.238 12.151 31.739014 0.065468 0.08438 -0.068345 0.49 11.939 3.391 3.634 3.312 27.554 1.059417 0.768412 0.847006 0.6661 2.869 10.7556 3.7982 1.175 1.573 5.07714 -0.069 3.08838 -0.184 11.88 1.049 1.54 1.070218 0.066892 0.042 12.08562 -0.062271 0.242 12.752 12.899 32.09252 -0.07618 -0.256 41.763 3.795359 0.903 1.2 11.095 2.882 41.812137 0.700233 0.111 1.822 2.137 2.7: Raw data for the 100 winglet configurations Winglet # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Cd 0.0815 -0.527 40.169 12.08918 -0.08657 -0.066089 0.7765 1.981 3.89 11.418 1.7084 2.515 29.907 26.733081 0.161 2.98 37.344 0.922 4.77116 0.91 41 29.02 1.743 1.215 15.12 11.615 2.217 11.377 39.387 3.387 6.062 12.813 12.063772 0.08835 -0.063235 0.711902 0.766487 0.06354 0.083 11.46 2.062145 0.07816 -0.75213 0.08103 -0.2063 2.723628 0.070695 0.986 43.335 10.284 0.763 12.743 2.227 3.307 2.236 3.904 2.496 41.067351 0.065261 0.123 2.787868 0.066075 0.917 11.09821 -0.344 10.0777 -0.08103 -0.561 1.004 12.722 11.08652 Cl/Cd 10.208 3.790893 Cm -0.4574 2.925 14.794 3.842 25.837 a 2.060168 0.496 5.08276 -0.914 5.601 12.2135 3.726496 0.544 4.831 25.777 11.764275 0.094 2.08159 -0.542 35.943 2.569 3.466 12.16 3.291 1.3662 1.341 7.061459 0.808459 0.0467 2.062924 0.2984 1.08376 -0.587 2.438 2.08277 -0.506 5.862 11.327 5.770204 0.799084 0.541 4.062514 0.8778 1.P a g e | 131 9.757 4.08404 -0.071363 0.844 7.065624 0.719 1.08131 -0.08025 -0.08057 -0.402 11.08501 -0.366 2.066056 0.069146 0.283 1.105 2 2.911 3.98 0.125 29.815 3.060672 0.32 12.068243 Cl 0.9812 3.667 2.912 3.596 2.07896 -0.064 3.515 0.07525 -0.828 4.253 3.784 1.037 1.232 4.08222 -0.824 5.059584 0.939 cw 2.065482 0.239 3.806 5.265 3.667225 0.70472 0.408 0.730628 0.941 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .067 29.888 3.928 2.477 30.755 4.064242 0.164 1.751 3.072 2.83 18.207 11.1134 1.064514 0.589 β 20.046 1.397 16.804213 0.833 3.256 10.056 21.774121 0.757304 0.951 27.16 2.211 2.925 3.046 4.226 0.708 11.155 4.375 2.153 0.93 2.846 1.042 3.75718 0.03 2.781814 0.

868 3.596 13.09393 -0.014 12.006 11.252 11.721 3.023 11.82277 0.821 3.062625 0.038 1.08777 -0.9618 2.469 3.097 12.8322 2.3175 3.788515 0.791038 0.252 5.391 3.106 12.845959 0.739882 0.846 4.845 2.468 3.938 1.518 19.0901 -0.967 11.196 3.371 9.P a g e | 132 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 0.067359 0.079 2.16 11.587 4.776 1.062079 0.09019 -0.067391 0.975 2.488 4.619 3.757 1.2761 3.194 11.029 1.09471 -0.311 4.0018 3.09659 -0.294 34.741703 0.854 12.09349 -0.163 1.09503 -0.88 2.042 12.09252 -0.507 3.07876 -0.575 1.265 1.925 6.08791 -0.298 2.06717 0.332 2.755 2.818742 0.08567 -0.618 4.258 1.01 2.09499 -0.729888 0.833 2.060086 0.066747 0.777 3.790231 0.654 3.78 4.036 3.018 12.064607 0.06254 0.58 4.922 4.929 0.081 2.226 8.828 2.294 12.064287 0.213 1.39 3.972 12.09878 -0.823617 0.09319 -0.863 1.211 2.662 4.768 12.025 3.317 4.08906 -0.279 4.464 19.752 32.249 14.060796 0.472 3.141 11.08164 -0.982 26.823019 0.727413 0.394 24.166 3.228 12.09081 -0.483 2.297 3.722 11.867 3.142 12.538 25.948 12.087 12.789 6.146 1.888 11.063122 0.439 1.88 35.750355 0.07863 -0.08766 -0.058473 0.329 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .456 2.729 1.79 12.85 3.09566 -0.731916 0.055 29.060754 0.790547 0.505 11.765545 0.411 4.066592 0.262 12.835251 0.067417 0.296 4.045 3.24 3.885 2.069 5.601 1.06535 0.063118 0.08237 -0.064845 0.429 16.79 2.696 2.968 12.726681 0.416 1.265 35.5236 0.142 4.643 3.86 12.266 12.08126 -0.408 8.14 0.239 11.583 1.751446 0.063056 0.804322 -0.149 3.0116 2.772613 0.133 1.08225 -0.064056 0.09186 11.047 12.895 1.768312 0.927 39.023 2.763 2.066688 0.559 23.09246 -0.2601 2.09227 -0.067354 0.064222 0.471 2.771703 0.08901 -0.776 1.779695 0.249 10.065082 0.301 38.067656 0.047 6.56 6.862 12.156 4.025 5.247 2.163 18.066373 0.773836 0.814 2.121 12.322 5.063322 0.678 4.218 30.767301 0.4105 3.08134 -0.556 1.43 23.09355 -0.7521 2.722218 0.822062 0.839568 0.375 2.57 4.752 1.632 2.666 1.064263 0.213 12.223 4.068173 0.965 1.077 30.888 12.066922 0.597 3.813 4.639 2.259 7.093 12.816557 0.814796 0.33 1.741 33.629 2.812104 0.08359 -0.912 1.062762 0.97 4.434 1.065146 0.181 2.0941 -0.976 5.239 42.974 9.067203 0.246 3.498 1.08861 -0.706 3.311 12.647 4.464 9.4058 3.065685 0.78912 0.1604 3.786 5.565 29.066072 0.08328 -0.09703 -0.780937 0.535 4.056 11.08544 -0.084 12.319 25.693 10.775 2.616 5.08736 -0.178 41.1835 1.792 1.136 2.248 2.106 3.695 2.123 9.798933 0.999 11.218 12.466 10.063533 0.156 3.3288 3.763955 0.007 1.492 35.535 2.391 2.876 4.068852 0.594 1.504 12.303 3.255 34.748223 0.269 2.09787 -0.495 3.65 2.655 39.829948 0.08138 -0.706604 0.063025 0.539 1.066765 0.4421 2.228 0.755 2.58 0.683 3.916 33.616 0.476 11.08644 -0.439 7.781072 0.353 0.748 2.41 3.956 11.

715177 0.597 21.974 5.064168 0.035 0 0.061373 0.489 1.05 12.847006 -0.062075 0.552 33.063824 0.770738 0.738 2.127 3.4672 1.P a g e | 133 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Max Min 0.08532 -0.08513 -0.169 12.669 44.149 5.916 1.352 35.798 0.746793 0.764602 0.207 11.8: Data for winglet 1 LMT 1 LMT cw ß c a b n 2.211 4.749 4.071 0.525 2.08746 -0.08889 -0.08911 -0.738 17.194 1.655 3.429 2.1656 1.063924 0.365 12.624 3.059447 0.644 39.065376 0.770538 0.723 3.391 3.695 3.886 28.587 2.252 3.185 3.86 0.673 2.779 2.321 1.08957 -0.609 10.737534 0.81989 0.06319 0.08487 -0.062364 0.097 2.791236 0.769012 0.538 2.1562 2.178 30.145 34.697 2.025 5.058473 0.867 17.233 31.279 1.778909 0.253 12.228 12.756973 0.5712 3.265 0.698 0.812 11.062996 0.197 3.062324 0.863 23.07691 -0.0366 2.7979 0 0.469 12.0891 12.168 2.716277 0.584 1.569 1.07982 -0.695 0.0018 0.07962 -0.8535 1.599 8.08532 -0.114 26.465 9.938 2.767336 0.999 12.654 2.194 11.063422 0.762937 0.445 2.633 2.103 11.4208 1.08386 -0.061137 0.07824 -0.466 0.81 1.08295 -0.669 4.273 6.793 5.701039 0.316 3.504 36.29 83.794 3.488 0.114 3.9317 1.061975 0.065399 0.753393 0.457 11.908 2.056 12.983 30.423 1.07 5.554 2.09328 -0.942 0.963 Leading edge Trailing edge Median edge y z x y z x y z Δb1L Δa1L Δc1T Δb1T Δa1L Δc1M Δb1M Δa1M 0 0 5.612 -45.07 12.531 0.8296 2.569 1.08747 -0.6553 0.616 2.08117 -0.34 0 0.126 12.536 9.064709 0.5577 2.176 1.089 11.92 7.538 Table 9.181 5.7979 0 0.063528 0.332 1.501 4.976 2.282 16.03 11.059066 0.177 1.766799 0.75143 0.699069 0.791213 0.91 12.303 3.298 44.740792 0.060548 0.057 12.09223 -0.06 3.9 0.05907 0.34 3.576 34.028 2.474 4.064 2.718 9.07 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering x Δc1L 0 0 0 .752 1.08479 -0.708716 0.062191 0.393 14.06368 0.645 4.303 3.08814 -0.487 4.867 11.772 3.094 2.423 5.182 2.825 2.750418 0.967 12.035 1.203 2.751 5.08632 -0.725 2.746287 0.181 12.793 12.935 2.761 tx twx x0 s φ α 1.782 1.08309 -0.584 1.89 12.663 2.058911 0.3 3.076 11.34 0 0 1.017 12.114 11.721 3.584 40.34 0 0.333 4.933 3.066915 0.117 12.487 1.059731 0.698 2.08058 -0.732 42.431 3.035 5.887 12.08442 -0.726842 0.7979 0 0 0 0.699 16.07 1.09878 -0.031 4.621 1.431 5.157 4.333 3.378 36.

34 5.1207 1.1908 1.1051 0.7705 0.5604 0.7979 1.34 5.2101 0.34 5.2101 0.3502 0.1401 0.4903 0.7979 1.7979 1.34 5.7979 1.7979 1.7979 1.0857 1.34 5.4553 0.34 5.7979 1.7705 0.9806 1.7979 1.34 5.7355 0.2452 0.0507 1.34 5.4553 0.4203 0.34 5.2802 0.34 5.2608 1.8055 0.34 5.2452 0.0507 1.34 5.1401 0.2958 1.5604 0.1751 0.7004 0.34 5.2608 1.7979 1.5253 0.4903 0.3152 0.7979 1.0001 0.2258 1.1557 1.9106 0.8405 0.7979 1.0857 1.8756 0.34 5.7979 1.7979 1.34 5.6654 0.7979 1.3152 0.4359 1.7979 1.4709 5.34 5.9806 1.7979 1.9106 0.7355 0.34 5.1908 1.7979 1.3852 0.2958 1.3308 1.3659 1.2258 1.7979 1.7979 1.7979 1.0857 1.1401 0.3308 1.7979 1.0507 1.3399 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1E-05 1E-05 1E-05 1E-05 2E-05 2E-05 3E-05 3E-05 4E-05 5E-05 7E-05 8E-05 0.2802 0.34 5.6304 0.4553 0.7979 1.3399 5.5253 0.7979 1.7979 1.7979 1.34 5.1751 0.34 5.7979 1.2802 0.7979 1.0156 1.2958 1.8405 0.7979 1.34 5.9456 0.5253 0.7979 1.0156 1.34 5.5954 0.3502 0.7979 1.3852 0.7979 1.4009 1.7705 0.6304 0.34 5.4009 1.7979 1.34 5.6654 0.34 5.8756 0.8756 0.34 5.4009 1.7979 1.9106 0.6304 0.7979 1.9456 0.7979 1.7979 1.7979 1.4203 0.7979 1.2452 0.7004 0.3152 0.34 5.P a g e | 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1E-05 1E-05 1E-05 1E-05 1E-05 2E-05 2E-05 3E-05 4E-05 5E-05 6E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1E-05 1E-05 1E-05 1E-05 2E-05 2E-05 3E-05 3E-05 4E-05 5E-05 7E-05 8E-05 0.2101 0.34 5.1207 1.2608 1.1908 1.34 5.0001 0.34 5.8055 0.0001 0.34 5.4203 0.5604 0.3502 0.1557 1.4709 1.1207 1.4903 0.3852 0.6654 0.7979 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1E-05 1E-05 1E-05 1E-05 2E-05 2E-05 3E-05 3E-05 4E-05 5E-05 7E-05 8E-05 0.8055 0.4359 1.3308 1.1051 0.9806 1.2258 1.3659 1.34 5.4359 1.9456 0.1557 1.34 5.34 5.34 5.7979 1.7355 0.1051 0.4709 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .1751 0.34 5.5954 0.0156 1.8405 0.5954 0.34 5.34 5.3659 1.7004 0.

0313 2.4516 2.3336 5.0035 0.8006 1.0051 0.0035 0.3465 2.6267 2.2414 2.0015 0.798 1.8003 1.9963 2.576 1.7668 2.0053 0.7982 1.5916 2.7511 1.3388 5.0167 0.0004 0.6811 1.0005 0.7981 1.0002 0.3399 5.8912 1.3381 5.0121 0.3317 5.8368 2.4516 2.0026 0.7986 1.4165 2.0017 0.6267 2.3182 5.9612 1.3395 5.6967 2.0017 0.6967 2.0007 0.0004 0.3206 5.3294 5.8912 1.002 0.9963 2.0074 0.0002 0.8018 2.0001 0.0213 0.8018 2.0002 0.7861 1.0003 0.7991 1.0031 0.0003 0.8212 1.611 1.7984 1.6267 2.3394 5.7861 1.0131 0.004 0.0003 0.0013 0.506 1.0023 0.0031 0.0006 0.1714 2.0003 0.7161 1.004 0.0004 0.0009 0.0007 0.0015 0.798 1.7996 1.0066 0.0131 0.798 1.2064 2.576 1.003 0.5566 2.0008 0.0342 0.0003 0.7994 1.506 1.7511 1.004 0.2064 2.0046 0.0002 0.611 1.541 1.335 5.0131 0.0008 0.798 1.0384 1.002 0.506 1.0002 0.0009 0.0188 0.5916 2.3398 5.7983 1.7317 2.2414 2.0061 0.0148 0.1364 2.3384 5.8368 2.0195 0.0313 2.7981 1.4866 2.5566 2.3327 5.009 0.0005 0.3115 2.8562 1.3375 5.0069 0.798 1.0102 0.8212 1.5216 2.0031 0.9262 1.0007 0.8212 1.0003 0.3367 5.0115 0.0017 0.0002 0.0005 0.5216 2.6617 2.3396 5.3362 5.0137 0.3306 5.002 0.4165 2.0006 0.3357 5.0002 0.0017 0.0011 0.001 0.1364 2.9612 1.0007 0.8022 0.0342 0.646 1.0188 0.4866 2.0012 0.0384 1.7668 2.0001 0.8368 2.3465 2.541 1.3378 5.8 1.2764 2.0213 0.0015 0.9262 1.0102 0.024 0.7981 1.0045 0.0061 0.7982 1.0001 0.6967 2.7982 1.7317 2.0023 0.0663 2.0026 0.0011 0.4866 2.6811 1.328 5.3386 5.7161 1.9262 1.0115 0.7981 1.2764 2.0188 0.3247 5.0384 1.0046 0.0001 0.7988 1.7989 1.798 1.9612 1.3154 5.0002 0.0023 0.0079 0.0011 0.646 1.0003 0.0002 0.5216 2.3392 5.3115 2.8718 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .7992 1.8018 2.0026 0.1013 2.8718 5.5916 2.0004 0.009 0.3391 5.027 0.3124 0.611 1.0079 0.0011 0.0015 0.002 0.2764 2.3399 5.798 1.0006 0.7317 2.8009 1.027 0.6617 2.0058 0.024 0.576 1.0304 0.8562 1.0154 0.798 1.0053 0.0061 0.0004 0.3115 2.3465 2.3815 2.3228 5.027 0.4165 2.0115 0.0219 0.5566 2.0026 0.798 1.4516 2.3265 5.8912 1.3815 2.0069 0.0304 0.339 5.0008 0.0069 0.2414 2.3398 5.8718 1.0213 0.7985 1.0663 2.1714 2.7511 1.6811 1.0342 0.0003 0.3398 5.1013 2.0167 0.3395 5.798 1.7161 1.3371 5.0012 0.7985 1.6617 2.0002 0.8562 1.0107 0.646 1.7668 2.0148 0.7998 1.0102 0.0095 0.0039 0.0023 0.0005 0.798 1.3397 5.7861 1.8017 1.798 1.P a g e | 135 7E-05 9E-05 0.3343 5.3397 5.0167 0.0035 0.0304 0.0173 0.0148 0.0009 0.009 0.0002 0.0002 0.0046 0.0084 0.0006 0.0079 0.024 0.0313 2.0008 0.0001 0.8013 1.1364 2.9963 2.3815 2.0053 0.1013 2.0035 0.2064 2.0012 0.0663 2.541 1.7983 1.7987 1.1714 2.3399 5.

1501 0.0447 0.1701 0.3007 5.2321 5.1144 0.0506 0.1738 0.152 3.0573 0.8057 1.152 3.0246 0.9419 2.8033 1.0991 0.825 1.082 3.9769 3.1006 0.8107 1.3972 3.117 3.1738 0.2151 5.4672 1.0616 0.P a g e | 136 0.2984 0.8125 1.8173 1.0856 0.2984 0.5994 2.9068 2.1501 0.1384 0.0547 0.117 3.3271 3.2921 3.0652 0.3972 3.4322 3.0396 0.222 3.2921 3.9116 0.9419 2.4672 Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering .3621 3.9769 3.5994 2.0351 0.0887 0.0784 0.0616 0.1006 0.0432 0.3621 3.8311 1.1738 0.2571 3.9068 2.082 3.2571 3.0582 4.3972 3.8048 1.8206 1.0695 0.1306 0.082 3.2036 0.2957 5.977 0.1144 0.804 1.5994 2.3921 1.3921 1.0486 0.187 3.1144 0.0486 0.8067 1.0119 3.2578 5.305 5.222 3.2428 0.1655 5.0887 0.1306 0.9769 3.0616 0.0695 0.2901 5.117 3.9068 2.0784 0.0432 0.2461 5.187 3.8091 1.0887 0.2921 3.0432 0.8416 1.152 3.2235 0.0469 3.2428 0.0547 0.0119 3.0312 0.3271 3.1902 0.3621 3.0277 0.2036 0.3271 3.4322 3.0469 3.9419 2.0547 0.2571 3.3089 5.0695 0.0469 3.2036 0.3921 1.222 3.1306 0.2762 5.0745 0.4322 3.0784 0.1255 5.2836 5.1936 5.0486 0.8078 1.2428 0.0119 3.1006 0.1501 0.8146 1.1161 0.8027 1.2677 5.187 3.4672 5.2984 0.

boeing. 9 ICAO. “Particle swarm optimization”.C. proposed ICAO Circular. 11 http://www. 11 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.1. Blended Winglet.4. College of aeronautics blended wing body development programme.E. 11 KUCHEMANN. J.1. Ulrich Paquet. September 1994.com/commercial/757family Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization of Winglets ∙ FIU ∙ College of Engineering . Andries P. CAEP/5-IP/4. 11 SMITH. pages 1942-1948.E. 11 http://www.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_facts. CAEP/5IP/4.boeing. 2 11 1 http://www. January 2001.4. IV. 1999. September 2000. September 1994. Progress in Aerospace Sciences. Proceedings of ICAS 2000 Congress. June 2003. Pergamon. J. Conference on Neural Networks.E. aviation and the environmental challenge. The Aerodynamic Design of Aircraft. proposed ICAO Circular. Blended Winglet. Harrogate. Operational opportunities to minimise fuel use and reduce emissions.P a g e | 137 Chapter 10 References The Aviation Partners Boeing Co. 1978. J. H. Pergamon. Harrogate. 10 KUCHEMANN. June 2003.boeing. H.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_facts. Unites states Patent. Engelbrecht 5 ALLEN. http://www. January 2001. in Proceedings of the IEEE International. September 2000. paper 1. Global energy issues affecting aeronautics: a reasoned conjecture. The environmental effects of civil aircraft in flight. aviation and the environmental challenge. Unites states Patent. Global energy issues affecting aeronautics: a reasoned conjecture. Proceedings of ICAS 2000 Congress. 6 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 11 ICAO. The environmental effects of civil aircraft in flight. 7 ALLEN. November 2002. D. Eberhart. D. 8 SMITH. J.E. Progress in Aerospace Sciences.html 3 Kennedy and R.boeing. 11 ALLEN. The Aerodynamic Design of Aircraft.com/commercial/757family 11 The Aviation Partners Boeing Co. Operational opportunities to minimise fuel use and reduce emissions. 1999. 4 A New Particle Swarm Optimiser for Linearly Constrained Optimisation. 1978. College of aeronautics blended wing body development programme.html 11 ALLEN. November 2002. paper 1.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.