This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Computational Investigation of Airfoils with Miniature Trailing Edge Control Surfaces
Hak-Tae Lee, ∗ Ilan M. Kroo † Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
Miniature trailing edge eﬀectors (MiTEs) are small ﬂaps (typically 1% to 5% chord) actuated with deﬂection angles of up to 90 degrees. The small size, combined with little required power and good control authority, enables the device to be used for high bandwidth control. Recently, there have been attempts to use MiTEs as aeroelastic control devices, mainly to stabilize a wing operating beyond its ﬂutter speed. However, the detailed aerodynamic characteristics of these devices are relatively unknown. The present study investigates the steady and unsteady aerodynamics of MiTEs. In order to understand the ﬂow structure and establish a parametric database, steady state incompressible Navier-Stokes computations are performed on MiTEs with various geometries using INS2D ﬂow solver. In addition, to resolve the dynamic characteristics, time accurate computation is implemented.
The Gurney ﬂap is a small ﬂap used to increase the lift of a wing. It was developed and applied to race cars by Robert Liebeck1 and Dan Gurney in the 1960’s. Numerous wind-tunnel tests and numerical computations have been performed on airfoils with Gurney ﬂaps.1, 3–5, 8, 9 These studies conﬁrm that despite their small size, Gurney ﬂaps can signiﬁcantly increase the maximum lift or the lift produced at a given angle of attack. The aerodynamic force alteration is produced by a small region of separated ﬂow directly upstream of the ﬂap, with two counterrotating vortices downstream of the ﬂap eﬀectively modifying the trailing edge Kutta condition. This
∗ Doctoral Candidate, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA Student Member † Professor, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA Fellow
Copyright c 2004 by the authors. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
mechanism was ﬁrst proposed by Liebeck1 and later veriﬁed via ﬂow visualization8–10 and CFD3 simulations. Miniature Trailing edge Eﬀectors (MiTEs) are small movable control surfaces similar to Gurney ﬂaps, at or near the trailing edge. MiTEs are deﬂected to large angles to produce control forces and moments that may be used for general ﬂight control or aeroelastic control. Recently, Lee11 and Bieniawski12 designed an aeroelastic control system to suppress ﬂutter using a simple linear aerodynamic model of MiTEs. However, the experiments done by Solovitz10 and Bieniawski12 suggest that signiﬁcant nonlinear characteristics such as vortex shedding exists in the aerodynamics of MiTEs and more sophisticated aerodynamic models are required for higher performance control. Most of the previous work on Gurney ﬂaps3–6, 8 has concentrated on studying lift and drag, while varying the size of the ﬂap and the angle of attack. As a control device, the focus of the current study is on the change in lift, drag, and pitching moment with fully deployed MiTEs as compared to the clean conﬁguration. A blunt trailing edge is needed to provide a space behind the trailing edge to store the ﬂap. For the present study, which involves a sliding rectangular plate behind the trailing edge, a blunt trailing edge with the thickness at least the same as the ﬂap height is required. For steady state computations, the height, h, of the ﬂap is varied for both sharp and blunt trailing edge airfoil as well as Reynolds number and angle of attack. For unsteady computations, time accurate simulation is performed for a fully deployed ﬂap with the ﬂow started impulsively. With this ﬁxed grid time accurate computation, transient force response and vortex shedding frequencies are investigated. Time history of lift and moment coeﬃcients are then computed with the ﬂap sliding up and down in a harmonic motion over a range of frequencies. The latter results are obtained with moving grid computations.
1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
especially for the blunt trailing edge case.5% thick trailing edge is constructed by linearly shearing the thickness distribution of the baseline airfoil using Equation 3. INS2D utilizes an artiﬁcial compressibility scheme that requires subiterations in the pseudo time domain to ensure a divergence free velocity ﬁeld at the end of each physical time step. INS2D2 is used. 2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . tT E = 0. The ﬂow is assumed to be fully turbulent and the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model is used. (1) Flow Solver A two dimensional Reynolds-averaged Incompressible Navier-Stokes code. The equations are solved using an implicit line relaxation scheme or generalized minimum residual method. Minimum grid size in the direction normal to the solid wal is set to 1. For a blunt trailing edge airfoil. For the present study. The ﬂaps are represented in the computational domain using the iblank function of INS2D. since this model is well known for its good performance in separated regions away from the wall. and bottom where c is the chord length. is explained. while a second-order central diﬀerencing is used for the viscous ﬂuxes. h is the height of the ﬂap measured from the airfoil surface. In the later section. tblunt (x/c) = tsharp (x/c) + 0. downstream.hf = h wf hf h wf tTE lTE Figure 2: C-Grid used for sharp NACA0012 airfoil Figure 1: Geometry of MiTEs attached to sharp and blunt trailing edge airfoils h = hf = lT E . (2) h is equal to hf for a sharp trailing edge airfoil but not necessarily the same as hf for a blunt trailing edge airfoil. For a sharp trailing edge airfoil. wf . the signiﬁcance of these geometric parameters. Figure 3 shows the grid around the trailing edge and the ﬂap. top. Chordwise thickness of the ﬂap. Far ﬁeld boundaries are located 15c from the airfoil in upstream. tT E is the trailing edge thickness and lT E is the overall projection thickness of the trailing edge including the ﬂap.015(x/c) (3) Geometry and Grid Figure 1 shows the geometric parameters for the ﬂaps attached to both sharp and blunt trailing edges. is set to have the minimum possible value which is determined by the minimum grid point requirement for using iblank. For a blunt trailing edge airfoil. hf and wf are height and chordwise thickness of the ﬂap respectively. For both cases. With iblank. computations were performed using a single zone C-grid as shown in Figure 2. any point in the grid can be speciﬁed as a no slip surface or blanked out to be a hole region. For sharp NACA0012 airfoil. An upwind diﬀerencing scheme based upon ﬂux-diﬀerence splitting is used for the convective terms. lT E = tT E + h. tT E = 0. NACA0012 is chosen for the baseline airfoil and an airfoil with 1.0 × 10−5 c to ensure acceptable value of y + .
η ξ ξ η ξ A B η ξ η Figure 3: Grid near the sharp trailing edge Nf 34 52 78 118 Cl Cd Cl Cd Cl Cd Cl Cd Coarse Medium Fine 339 x (59+N f ) 503 x (88+N f ) 749 x (132+N f ) 0.01291 0. The boundary condition for MiTEs can be easily implemented by specifying no slip wall condition to both A and B segment. As can be seen from Figure 7.3375 0. For a ﬂap size other than 1. 3 Figure 5: The actual G-Grid used for blunt trailing edge airfoil Figure 5 shows the actual G-grid used for the computations and Figure 6 shows the detailed grid structure around the trailing edge.3357 0. Nf is scaled linearly according to the ﬂap height. To reduce computational time. the diﬀerence is less than 1%.0% ﬂap.3372 0. η = 0 grid line meets part of ξ = 0 grid line at the wake cut surface which is perpendicular to the chord line.5%.01296 0. From the coarsest grid of 339 by 93 to the ﬁnest one of 749 by 250.0125 0. all time accurate computations are completed with the coarse resolution and a baseline Nf of 52 for the 1. Medium density with Nf = 78 is selected as the baseline resolution for steady state computations.3377 0. zone I is a C-grid surrounding only the airfoil without the wake. A three-zone overset grid is used for the moving grid computations.01264 0.5% ﬂap to 553 by 257 for 3. Table 1 shows the Cl and Cd values computed from twelve diﬀerent grid resolutions. Zone III is a small rectangular grid needed to deﬁne the solid American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .01269 0.5% at a zero angle of attack and a Reynolds number of 1. Mesh resolution for this G-grid is chosen to be similar to that of C-grid and ranges from 387 by 127 for 0.3365 0.01269 Figure 4: Schematic diagram of G-Grid Table 1: Cl and Cd computed using grids of various resolution (Re = 1.01273 0.01273 0.5 × 106 to ﬁnd the proper number of grid points Nξ in ξ direction and Nη in η direction as well as Nf inside the ﬂap region.3372 0.01295 0.5 × 106 ) A grid reﬁnement study is performed on a baseline design of h = 1. Zone II is a rectangular region downstream of the trailing edge and contains the ﬂap where the grid points on the ﬂap surface are speciﬁed as solid wall boundaries and the points inside the ﬂap are blanked out using iblank.01273 0. A new gridding scheme called G-grid is devised to represent a blunt trailing edge airfoil with MiTEs. h.3348 0.01268 0.5% ﬂap.01246 0.3369 0. A G-grid is similar to a C-grid but.3359 0.3354 0.3362 0. Figure 4 shows the schematic diagram of a G-grid.3373 0.
and zone III and II. Previous research4. Figure 11 also shows that ∆Cl is less sensitive to the angle of attack for the blunt trailing edge airfoil. the ﬂap size. The boundary values are updated from linear interpolation between zone I and II. thus reducing the ∆Cl .5% to 2.5. Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the color maps of stagnation pressure and streamlines near the trailing edge for sharp and blunt NACA0012 airfoils. h (%) Zone III ¢ ¢ ¢ Reynolds number (×10 ) Angle of attack ( ) ◦ 1. The Reynolds number is set to 1. Note that the interfaces between zone I and III are solid wall boundaries and these two small taps block the ﬂow between the trailing edge and the ﬂap. 2. 1. the basic ﬂow structures are the same. ∆Cl increases as α increases for every ﬂap size for both airfoils. Detailed view near the trailing edge is given in Figure 8.5%.0 −5.0.5. 8. As can be seen from both streamlines.5% to 3. however. respectively.0.0. α. ranges from 0.0% and for blunt NACA0012 airfoil with trailing edge thickness of 1. Zone II slides up and down as a rigid body translation according to the motion of the ﬂap. −2.0.5. Steady State Computation Results Steady state force coeﬃcients were computed for various conﬁgurations.0 Table 2: Conditions for the steady state computations Figure 7: Three zone overset grid used for moving ﬂap computation wall for the blunt trailing edge. For all the 4 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . Grids are generated at each time step as well as the interface ﬁle that gives the information for updating the boundaries.Zone I Leak blocking tap Zone III Solid walls Moving flap Zone I Zone II Figure 6: Grid near the blunt trailing edge ¢ ¢ ¢ Figure 8: Enlarged view of the overset grid near the trailing edge Zone I ¡ Zone II ¢ ¢ ¢ Airfoil TE thickness.5 0. ∆Cl is plotted with respect to angle of attack.5. Conversely. h ranges from 0.0. 2. relatively minor compared to the values of ∆Cl . 10 suggests that the ∆Cl and ∆Cm remain more or less constant for moderate angles of attack.5 × 106 .0. in Figure 11 for both trailing edge thicknesses to closely examine the eﬀect of angle of attack on ∆Cl . When the angle of attack is negative.5. 2.5%. 6. For a sharp NACA0012 airfoil. h. (3. 0. 1. 5. tT E (%) ¢ NACA0012 0. 1. thinner boundary layers enhanc the ﬂap eﬀectiveness at positive angles of attack. The variations are. 2. the boundary layer thickens at the lower surface where the ﬂap is attached and it is known that thick boundary layers reduce the effectiveness of Gurney ﬂaps. 1.5. The computations were also completed at three diﬀerent Reynolds numbers and ﬁve angles of attack summarized in Table 2.0) 6 Airfoil ¡ ¢ ¢ Flap size.
5%. consistently decreases as h increases.0% h = 2. For the pitching moments. The pressure proﬁle given in Figure 15. h. in Figure 12 for both airfoils and is compared to experimental data. α = 0◦ .5 0.0. deﬁned as ∆Cl /(h/c).1 0 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 α (degree) 1 2 3 4 5 (b) Blunt trailing edge (tT E = 1.5%) Figure 11: ∆Cl with respect to α (Re = 1.5 0. It is demonstrated throughout the results that the value of ∆Cl . ∆Cl is plotted with respect to ﬂap height. indicates that the increase in lift is relatively ﬂat along the chord. Re = 1. as given in Figure 13.2 h = 0. However the eﬃciency.4 ∆ Cl 0.2 h = 0. h = 1.3 0. which also conﬁrms the trend for the relation between ∆Cm and ∆Cl .5% h = 3.5% h = 2.3 0. Re = 1. zero angle of attack is assumed unless mentioned speciﬁcally. α = 0◦ . and consequently the ∆Cm for both the sharp and blunt trailing edges match very well if the ﬂap height is deﬁned as the distance between the 5 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Figure 10: Streamline and stagnation pressure map near the trailing edge of a blunt NACA0012 airfoil(tT E = 1. Although the blunt trailing edge results generally match the sharp one closely.0% 0. the efﬁciencies for 0. 6.5% and 1. 8 ∆Cl increases monotonically as h increases while the blunt trailing edge airfoil results closely follow the values from the sharp trailing edge ones.0% ﬂap are notably higher than those for the sharp trailing edge.5 × 106 ) 0.6 0.5% h = 1.4 ∆ Cl 0.5% h = 2.5 × 106 ) subsequent results.5% h = 1.1 0 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 α (degree) 1 2 3 4 5 (a) Sharp trailing edge 0. the value expected from the thin airfoil theory as the size of the ﬂap approaches zero (Figure 14).5% Figure 9: Streamline and stagnation pressure map near the trailing edge of a NACA0012 airfoil(h = 1.0% h = 2. ∆Cm /∆Cl is nearly constant and close to − 1 4 .5%.0% h = 1.0% h = 1. computed at zero angle of attack to show the net eﬀect of the ﬂap.4.6 0.5 × 106 ) . the ratio.5%.
3 Thin airfoil theory Sharp trailng edge Blunt trailing edge −0. l 20 15 0 0. Drag increment.12 0. E423) Storms (Re = 2 x 1e6. but at the same time. ∆Cd is similar to the drag of clean NACA0012 airfoil. As can be seen. the drag penalty of the ﬂap is apparent.22 Figure 12: Change in the ∆Cl at zero angle of attack with respect to ﬂap height. h (%) 2 2.5 3 −0. At low lift coeﬃcients. the delay in the upper surface separation induced by the ﬂap causes the airfoil with a ﬂap to have lower drag.24 −0. the eﬃciency monotonically increases with the Reynolds number regardless of the ﬂap size although the variation is very small.5 3 Figure 13: Flap eﬃciency.2 −0. Figure 16 illustrates the change in ﬂap eﬃciency with respect to the Reynolds number for diﬀerent ﬂap heights.23 −0.5 × 106 ) 35 Sharp trailing edge Blunt trailing edge 30 ∆ C /(h/c) (Re=1.26 10 0 Flap size (%. α=0 deg) 25 airfoil surface and the end of the ﬂap as indicated in Figure 1.6 −0.75 − 0.5 x 106.5 1 1. ∆Cd increases steeply as h increases. height. At h = 3. log scale) 10 1 Cm (b) ∆ compared to the Thin airfoil ∆Cl theory Figure 14: ∆Cm ∆Cl with respect to h (Re = 1.89 x 1e6.2 x 1e6.4 ∆ Cl (α=0 deg) 0.5 3 (a) −0. ∆Cd with respect to h is plotted at Figure 18 for a sharp NACA0012 airfoil.21 −0. h.5 m l −0.16 l m −0. smaller ﬂaps have higher eﬃciency.5 × 106 ) −0.25 −0.2 −0. but at high Cl values.22 ∆C /∆C 0.14 0.1 ∆C /∆C Sharp trailing edge Blunt trailing edge Jeffrey (Re = 0. Figure 17 provides the drag polar for a sharp NACA0012 with 1.24 0.5 1 1. NACA0012) 0 0. Experimental data are plotted for comparison (Re = 1.1 ∆Cm ∆Cl with respect to h 0.5% ﬂap compared to the clean conﬁguration.5 flap height.26 0.0%.5 Flap size (%) 2 2.5 1 1.2 Thin airfoil theory Sharp trailng edge Blunt trailing edge −0. NACA4412) Moyse (Re = 2. As stated previously. h ∆Cl h/c with respect to ﬂap 6 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .5 flap height. This comparison suggests that the proper deﬁnition for the ﬂap height should be measuring the distance from the airfoil surface rather than from any other reference line such as the chord line. Figure 16 shows that smaller ﬂaps are more sensitive to the Reynolds number.−0.18 0 −0. h (%) 2 2.
22 0.015 0.004 0. the ﬂow was assumed to be started impulsively for an NACA0012 airfoil with a 1.6 0.5% clean Re=1.4 1.008 ∆ C (Re=1.1 0. The Reynolds number is 1.5 x 106.5%c.05 0. h=1.5% ﬂap 35 Sharp trailing edge h = 0.055 0.005 0 0.α=0 deg) 0.4 0.6 0.2 0. First. h (%) Figure 18: ∆Cd vs h curve for a sharp NACA0012 airfoil (Re = 1. The high frequency oscillation suggests vortex shedding.8 1 0 0.36 0.32 0.5% h = 1.4 −0.035 0.5e6.5%.38 0.5 3 d flap height. NACA0012 0.5 2 2.006 0.5%) 0.3 0.5 × 106 ) 0.6 0. Re=1.34 INS2D (h=1.6 1. although a high frequency ﬂuctuation exists.6 −0.24 30 30 ∆ Cl/(h/c) 25 25 ∆ Cl 0.8 C 1 1.5 × 106 ) Time accurate computations were performed to capture the unsteady eﬀect. The mean value for the Cl follows the Wagner curve closely.5% ﬂap attached to its trailing edge.18 20 20 0 1 2 3 Ut/c 4 5 6 15 1 1. 7 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .28 0.2 1.2 0 Cp 0.4 0.5 × 106 and the angle of attack is 0◦ .4 0. Figure 19 shows the time history of the lift coeﬃcient along with the result expected from linear theory where the ﬁnal Cl is set to 0.26 0.5 Re (x10 ) 6 2 15 Figure 19: Time history of Cl for an impulsively started 1 1.5% h = 2.5%c ﬂap and a clean airfoil (Re = 1.025 0.03 Cd h=1.34 obtained from the steady state computation.3 0.7 0.02 0.9 1 0 0.01 0.8 0.04 0.5 6 Re (x10 ) 2 NACA0012 airfoil with a 1. as can be seen in Figure 20.045 0.0% 35 Blunt trailing edge 0.8 −0.0.5% h = 3.8 l Figure 17: Cd vs Cl curve for an airfoil with h = 1.5 1 1.002 Sharp trailing edge Blunt trailing edge (1.01 −0.0% h = 2.2 0.2 0. Figure 20 presents a sequence of stagnation pressure maps and Cp proﬁles during a single oscillation.5% ﬂap attached Figure 16: Flap eﬃciency with respect to Reynolds number Time Accurate Computation Results 0.5e6) Wagner (C =0.0% h = 1.5 x/c 0.2 0.34) l0 Figure 15: Pressure proﬁle for sharp and blunt NACA0012 airfoils with a 1.
4 −0.0% were selected.4 0.4 0.7 0. time accurate computations were performed for a sharp trailing edge airfoil with a 3% ﬂap and a 1.4 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.3 (d) −0.5 x/c 0.2 0.9 1 (g) U∞ t c = 0.4 0.71 −0.1 −0.5 x/c 0.4 0.2 0 Cp 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.8 −0.6 −0.6 −0.6 0.8 −0.8 −0.8 0.8 0.18 0.6 0.9 1 (c) U∞ t c = 0.05 −0.5 × 106 using a three-zone overset grid. 82 by 501 for zone II.2 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.−0.0 1.6 0.5 3. the vortex shedding frequencies for both cases are the same.6 0.0 3.4 −0.5% ﬂap.7 0. For the ﬂap height based Reynolds number of 22. As summarized in Table 3.158 based on the height of the ﬂap.158 (a) U∞ t c = 0.5 Hz.2 0. A time step of 0.2 −0.2 0 Cp 0.2 0 Cp 0.7 0.8 1 0 0.6 −0.2 0.4 0.2 0 Cp 0.5 x/c 0.7 0.6 0. f Strouhal number.8 0.7 0.25 0.9 1 (i) U∞ t c = 0.9 1 case 1 tT E (%) h (%) lT E (%) Re (based on lT E ) (b) case 2 0.6 −0.65 −0.6 0.000 6.500 10. All computations were completed at zero angle of attack and Reynolds number of 1.8 0. and 9 by 131 for zone III.6 −0.01 was used 0.5 22.3 (h) 0.6 0.8 To further investigate how the vortex shedding frequency changes with the geometry.8 1 0 0. For the moving grid computation.1 0.18 case 3 1.3 frequency.5 x/c 0.1 0.2 0 Cp 0. 500.6 0.15 0.0 0.8 1 0 0.5 1.6 0.4 −0.0% and ﬂap height of 1.2 0.3 (j) 0.8 −0.6 −0. as seen in Figure 1.63 −0.3 (f) Figure 21: Time history.15 −0.4 −0.3 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.2 0 Cp 0. lT E .4 0.5 1.000 6.8 −0.2 0.0 45. which translates to the Strouhal number of 0. This result suggests that the proper characteristic length for the vortex shedding frequency should be deﬁned as the distance between the bottom end of the ﬂap and the upper end of the trailing edge.0 0.9 1 (k) U∞ t c = 0.9 1 (e) U∞ t c = 0.4 0.67 −0.1 0. k = π/27 The frequency of this oscillation is about 10. trailing edge thickness of 1. St Table 3: Summary of vortex shedding frequencies 0.73 (l) Figure 20: Vortex shedding 8 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .05 0 C l 0. Grid resolutions were set at 187 by 143 for zone I.1 0.0 3. while this frequency is roughly half the value from the sharp trailing edge with a 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.8 −0.1 0.8 1 0 0.4 −0.69 −0.2 0.5 x/c 0.4 −0.2 0.4 0. this Strouhal number agrees well with the experimental results.5% thick trailing edge airfoil with a 1.8 1 0 0.5% ﬂap.2 0.2 0.6 0.25 0 5 10 15 Ut/c 20 25 30 0.5 x/c 0.0 45.
The vortex shedding frequency decreases as the ﬂap moves away from the neutral position and increases as the ﬂap moves towards the neutral position.1 3 3. For comparison purpose. For a high reduced frequency of k = 1. 0.116.2 Cl −0. the magnitude and phase of the Figure 24: Moving ﬂap 0.5 6 Figure 23: Time history.02 −0.24 21 21. Figure 24 presents the sequence of streamlines and the stagnation pressure map of the ﬂap moving from neutral to down position with k = 1. at low reduced frequencies.2 0.15 Figure 22: Time history.2 reduced frequency. 0. Figure 21 shows the time history of the lift coeﬃcient for reduced frequency of k = 0. k = π/3 (e) U∞ t c = 3. As can be seen from the enlarged view in Figure 22.00 (b) U∞ t c = 3.2 0. k Figure 25: Frequency response compared to the magnitude and phase of the Theodorsen’s function.5 4 4.6 moving grid computation Theodorsen C(k) 0. 0.25 Magnitude (C ) 0.175. the vortex shedding occurs constantly regardless of the position of the ﬂap but the intensity is higher when the ﬂap is nearly stationary at the top or bottom end.4 Ut/c 21.524.4 0.2 15.30 (d) U∞ t c = 3.05 0 0 0.06 −0.8 1 1.0 −0.05 U∞ t c = 3.05. The magnitude and phase delay of the response at actuation frequency is computed at ﬁve reduced frequencies (k = 0.2 0.116.349.1 0.22 15.6 21.8 22 (a) Flap is near the neutral (b) Flap is near the top posiposition tion (a) U∞ t c = 3. enlarged view 0.05 0 C l (c) −0.75 to capture the vortex shedding and the grid ﬁle was generated at every time step to represent the ﬂap sliding up and down in a harmonic motion.45 −0.6 0. The resulting magnitude and phase delay are plotted with respect to reduced frequency in Figure 25.1 0.08 15 Cl −0.60 (f) U∞ t c = 3.05 (Figure 23) a slight vortex shedding is observed only when the ﬂap is at the up or down position where the velocity of the ﬂap is close to zero. C (k) 9 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .2 21.8 16 −0.8 1 1.04 −0.2 l 40 Phase (deg) 30 20 10 0 0 0.15 0.4 Ut/c 15. 1.05).4 0.18 −0.15 0.6 15.5 Ut/c 5 5.
M. 2000.. Zhang X. I. 2. P..... G.” Journal of Aircraft. “Experimental Aerodynamics of Mesoscale Trailing-Edge Actuators. and Hurst. B. R. No. June 1995. E. Steady state computations show that the lift increases as the ﬂap height increases. Eaton. M.” AIAA Journal. I. J. D. “Flutter Suppression for High Aspect Ratio Flexib Wings Using Microﬂaps. and Reﬂection Plane Model. R. pp. 772-780. and Jang. 9. F.. Conclusions Steady and time accurate CFD simulations are performed on airfoils with miniature trailing edge ﬂaps. Results presented in this study can provide a guideline for designing both attitude and vibration control systems using these devices.  Myose. June 1994. J.” AIAA Paper 92-2708. “Gurney Flap Eﬀects and Scaling for Low-Speed Airfoils. 3. June 1992. 5... “Gurney Flap Experiments on Airfoils. Zhang X. I. No.  Giguere. H. 2. Results for sharp and blunt trailing edge airfoils are compared and the proper convention for the miniature ﬂap sizing is suggested. S.. December 2002. 35. Kroo.” AIAA Paper 95-1881. D.. Finally.”. Lemay.. “Lift Enhancement of an Airfoil Using a Gurney Flap and Vortex Generators.. C. Kroo. but the eﬃciency decreases.” Journal of Aircraft. which the Strouhal number show good agreement with experiments. H. “Development and Testing of an Experimental Aeroelastic Model with Micro-Trailing Edge Eﬀectors... 15.. References  Liebeck. M.. “An Upwind Differencing Scheme for the Time Accurate Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equations. Journal of Aircraft. the general trend in the magnitude and phase follow the results from the linear theory.” AIAA Paper 88-2583. C (k ). and Cummings. March-April 1998. 1999.. Vol. January 2003.  Kroo. C. Vol. Ross.  Rogers. croﬂaps”. No.” Journal of Aircraft. 295-301. and Bieniawski.  Lee.. ”UAV Aeroelastic Control Using Redundant Mi- 10 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . “Aerodynamics of Gurney Flaps on a Wing in Ground Eﬀect. D. and Kwak. June 1988  Jang.. “Computational Evaluation of an Airfoil with a Gurney Flap. M. 31. “Aerodynamics of Gurney Flaps on a Single-Element High-Lift Wing.  Solovitz. Vol. Stanford University. L.” AIAA 2003-0220. are plotted together. S.. Wings. No. J. I. and Heron. and Prinz. Vol. As can be seen from Figure 25.” PhD Thesis.  Jeﬀrey. S.Theodorsen function.. Papadakis. April 2002. Computations for the impulsive starting case conﬁrmed the vortex shedding phenomenon.. resolving the dynamics of the miniature ﬂap.  Bieniawski.. S. Vol. frequency response results are presented.  Storms. 39...” AIAA 20021717. 37. W. C. AFOSR Program Review for Year I. J. S. No. S. May 2001. A.. pp. R. M.  Zerihan. and Dumas. “Design of Subsonic Airfoils for High Lift. September 1978.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.