You are on page 1of 59

Journal of Fluids Engineering.

Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

Experimental Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Compound Wing in


Ground Effect

Ma

nu
sc

rip

Shuhaimi Mansor
Department of Aeronautical Engineering,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti TeknologiMalaysia (UTM),
Skudai 81310, Johor, Malaysia.
Tel.: +60 75535845
E-mail: shuhaimi@fkm.utm.my

tN

ot

Co
py

ed

Adi Maimun Abdul Malek


Marine Technology Center,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti TeknologiMalaysia (UTM),
Skudai 81310, Johor, Malaysia.
Tel.: +60 755 35707
E-mail: adi@fkm.utm.my

ite
d

Saeed Jamei1
Marine Technology Center,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)
Skudai 81310, Johor, Malaysia.
Tel.: +60 75535957
E-mail: jsaeed2@live.utm.my, jaameisa@yahoo.com

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Nor Azwadi Che Sidik


Department of Thermo Fluids,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti TeknologiMalaysia (UTM),
Skudai 81310, Johor, Malaysia.
Tel.: +60 75534718
E-mail: azwadi@fkm.utm.my

Saeed Jamei, Marine Technology Center, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), jsaeed2@live.utm.my

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

ite
d

Agoes Priyanto
Tel.: +60 75534744
Marine Technology Center,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti TeknologiMalaysia (UTM),
Skudai 81310, Johor, Malaysia.
Tel.: +60 75534744
E-mail: agoes@fkm.utm.my

ed

ABSTRACT

Co
py

Wing configuration is a parameter that affects the performance of wing-inground effect (WIG) craft. In this study, the aerodynamic characteristics of a new

tN

ot

compound wing were investigated during ground effect. The compound wing was

rip

divided into three parts with a rectangular wing in the middle and two reverse taper

nu
sc

wings with anhedral angle at the sides. The sectional profile of the wing model is
NACA6409. The experiments on the compound wing and the rectangular wing were

Ma

carried to examine different ground clearances, angles of attacks and Reynolds

ed

numbers. The aerodynamic coefficients of the compound wing were compared with

pt

those of the rectangular wing, which had an acceptable increase in its lift coefficient at

Ac

ce

small ground clearances and its drag coefficient decreased compared to rectangular
wing at a wide range of ground clearances, angle of attacks and Reynolds numbers.
Furthermore, the lift to drag ratio of the compound wing improved considerably at small
ground clearances. However, this improvement decreased at higher ground clearance.
The drag polar of the compound wing showed the increment of lift coefficient versus of
drag coefficient was higher especially at small ground clearances. The Reynolds number

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

had a gradual effect on lift and drag coefficients and also lift to drag of both wings.
Generally, the nose down pitching moment of the compound wing was found smaller
but it was greater at high angle of attack and Reynolds number for all ground clearance.
The center of pressure was closer to the leading edge of the wing in contrast to the

ite
d

rectangular wing. However, the center of pressure of the compound wing was later to
the leading edge at high ground clearance, angle of attack and Reynolds number.

Co
py

ed

KEYWORDS: Aerodynamic characteristics; Compound wing; Wind tunnel; Wing-inground effect.

tN

ot

INTRODUCTION

rip

The idea of using ground effect to improve lift was introduced as early as 1930. Initial

nu
sc

experimental and computational techniques used special body shapes in ground


proximity to calculate lift and more information can be found in the references [1-3].

Ma

The results included pressure distribution and lift coefficients for any shape in two or

ed

three dimensional bodies [4, 5]. There are several review papers on different WIG crafts

pt

that discuss their performance and design conception [6, 7]. Many researchers have

Ac

ce

worked to develop WIG crafts that could fly near the ground. Initial research in the
development of WIG crafts was carried out in Finland, Russia, Sweden and the United
States. Ollila (1980) [6] wrote a paper that reviewed experimental and proposed designs
over the course of time. Another paper, which investigated the history and development
of WIG crafts, was written by Rozhdesvensky [8]. Many countries are currently working
on WIG crafts because of the advantages of these crafts offer in terms of fuel economy

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

and high travel speeds when compared to other water transport vehicles. The study
reviews the experimental and theoretical configuration of WIG crafts used, which
improve the aerodynamic performance. Lift was improved when the flow of air
underneath the wing body and around stagnation point on the pressure surface (lower

ite
d

surface of body) was trapped. This created high pressure on the lower surfaces and low

ed

pressures on the upper surfaces and provided a high lifting force (Ram effect).

Co
py

Research into the influence of ground effect on streamline around the wings
began in the 1920s [9, 10]. Rozhdestvensky [11] described the flow of air over the

tN

ot

airfoils at different edges including the leading, trailing and side edge. Airflow can be

rip

streamlined by reducing the downwash angle that causes the efficient angle of attack to

nu
sc

rise. This will improve the lift force and reduce drag force. Wieselsberger [12] used
Prandtls Lifting Line theory to develop the aerodynamic characteristics required by

Ma

airplanes for takeoff and landing. His numerical results agreed with the experimental

ed

data. As a result, longer landing strips for airplanes were introduced to take advantage

pt

of existing dynamic air cushions under the wings. The wind tunnel investigations

Ac

ce

conducted by Recant [13] showed that ground effect does not affect maximum lift but
flaps do cause a reduction in the maximum lift in proximity to the ground.

Chawla et al. [14] employed a moveable flap, detachable end and center plates
in the wind tunnel test for their wing model. They showed that the wing experienced
ground effect at ground clearances (h/c) below 1. The influence of endplate on the lift to

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

drag ratio was higher at lower ground clearances. Ahmed and Goonaratne [15] studied
the growing lift of thick airfoils with small aspect ratios (AR). They found that there was
a relationship between lift and drag coefficients with respect to increasing angles of
attack. For example, the lift coefficient increased and drag coefficient decreased when

ite
d

the wing reached a 2 angle of attack of for various angles of flap. Ahmed [16]
investigated the influence of camber on performance of different airfoils. He discovered

ed

an acceleration of flow, at the rate of 50% and 30%, occurring on NACA 4415 and NACA

Co
py

0015 airfoils. The lowest level of acceleration was for the NACA 6415 airfoil because of
low suction on its upper surface. The intensity of turbulence over NACA 0015 airfoil at

tN

ot

low ground clearance was greater than other NACA airfoils. Ahmed illustrated the

rip

narrow wake region and small turbulence intensity behind the trailing edge of NACA

nu
sc

6415. He also showed the development of a boundary layer on thick airfoils that left the
suction surface at the trailing edge and reattached to the ground surface near the

Ma

trailing edge of airfoils at small ground clearances. This phenomenon caused a

ed

substantial reduction in velocity and subsequently a large dropping momentum, which

pt

increased the turbulence intensity. The reduction of velocity and rising of turbulence

Ac

ce

intensity was increased when the angle of attack was increased. The reattachment of
the boundary layer did not appear at higher ground clearances.

Ahmed et al. [17] studied the aerodynamic characteristics of NACA4412 airfoil


sections in a low turbulence wind tunnel with a moving ground model. They measured
the pressure distribution, velocity and wake region of the flow over the airfoil surface,

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

lift and drag forces. A reduction of suction on the upper surface was shown when the
airfoil approached the ground for all pitch angles. For a small angle of attack (<6), the
lift force was reduced when the ground clearance decreased, although it increased for
greater angles of attack by improving the pressure distribution on the pressure side. A

ite
d

few researchers have worked on the influence of endplates on wing performance near
the ground [18, 19]. Fink and Lastinger [18] studied the aerodynamic characteristics of

ed

thick and highly cambered wings with respect to different aspect ratios. Two wings with

Co
py

mirror arrangement were employed to simulate the ground effect. Accordingly, lift force
was enhanced, induced drag decreased and the lift to drag ratio increased. They

tN

ot

suggested that static longitudinal stability improved at the nose up angle of attack

rip

because of constant pressure distribution on the lower side of the wing, even though it

nu
sc

was reduced at nose down angle. They also demonstrated that the reduction of induced
drag at low ground levels was not affected by wing profile. Based on their experiments,

Ma

a considerable enhancement in lift to drag ratio had been reported when air was

ed

trapped on the lower side of a wing due to endplate use.

ce

pt

Abramowski [20] proposed the following a formula (Eq. 1) for lift coefficient

Ac

according to chord dominated ground effect:


CL ground= CL (h/c)-0.11

(1)

where CL and h/c are the specify lift coefficient in free stream and non-dimensional
height of the wing from ground (ground clearance) respectively. The 2D viscous flow
around the NACA/Munk M15 with a flat bottom was solved using Reynolds Averaged
Navier Stokes Equation. The second-order upwind discretization technique and

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

SIMPLE algorithm for the coupling of velocity and pressure were used in the finite
volume method. The moving ground was used to better demonstrate ground effect.
+

Based on the theory of flat-plate flow [21] the y on wing was estimated around 100 as
shown below in Equation 2.
y+ = 0.172 (y/l) Re0.9

ite
d

(2)

ed

where y and Re are the height of first mesh on wing and local Reynolds number of flow,

Co
py

respectively. The incompressible flow was assumed according to its Mach number of
0.1.

tN

ot

Using a Canard wing as a replacement for a tail wing is an alternative design

rip

parameter used for creating stability in WIG craft [22, 23]. Li et al. [23] showed that the

nu
sc

Canard wing caused the aerodynamic center to shift to the leading edge of the main
wing without changing the relationship between the centers. This is an advantage when

Ma

locating the center of gravity. The weak point of the Canard wing was reported on

ed

height stability, although it behaved well in terms of pitching stability. Li et al.

pt

established that the drag force of a Canard wing was less than tail wing that caused

Ac

ce

higher efficiency for WIG crafts. Lee et al. [24] examined the aerodynamic characteristics
of rectangular wings with anhedral angles and endplates when different angles of attack
and ground clearances were used. Three configurations were examined, clean wing,
wing with endplate and wing with anhedral angle. The lift to drag ratio of wing with
anhedral angle was in the middle and its height static stability performed satisfactorily
for all angles of attack and ground clearances. They explained that the variations of lift

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

coefficient for wings with anhedral angle versus Reynolds numbers was the smallest and
the drag coefficient was the largest when compared to other models.

Wing planforms are a challenge when designing WIG craft [25, 26]. Yang et al.

ite
d

[25] analyzed two different WIG craft configurations. One of the configurations used an
airplane concept and another configuration used the Lippisch concept. The main wing of

ed

airplane concept was a rectangular wing and a reverse forward swept wing was used for

Co
py

the Lippisch concept craft. In terms of aerodynamic forces and static height stability,
they found that the performance and stability of the Lippisch concept WIG craft was

tN

ot

better than the airplane concept WIG craft. A higher lift coefficient and lower drag

rip

coefficient were found for the Lippisch concept craft at different ground clearances and

nu
sc

angles of attack. In terms of pressure distribution and the wing planform, the tip vortex
of the airplane type craft was stronger. The Lippisch concept WIG craft could fly in and

Ma

out of ground effect with acceptable height static stability. Yang [27] et al. showed that

ed

the aerodynamic centers of Forward Swept (FS) Wings and Reversed Forward Swept

pt

(RFS) Wings were nearer to the leading edge of the wings unlike the aerodynamic center

Ac

ce

of a rectangular wing. The performance (L/D) of rectangular wings was lower than the
RFS wing but greater than the FS wing in terms of extreme ground effect. They revealed
the static stability of the 3D model of the wings was higher than 2D model. They also
illustrated that endplates were not suitable for static height stability because they
moved towards 2D with increased ground clearance.

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

Wing configuration is the greatest challenge facing researchers attempting to


improve aerodynamic behavior by finding the optimal configuration for wings in terms
of ground effect. Several concepts have been tried, such as flap, endplate, and multielement wings. The aim has been to bring about improvement by modifying the

ite
d

performance of WIG crafts by increasing their flight range and reducing their
environmental impact. This paper experimentally investigated the aerodynamic

ed

characteristics of a new compound wing configuration in terms of ground effect, which

Co
py

this wing has numerically examined by Jamei et al [28]. This compound wing was
composed of three parts; a rectangular wing in the middle and two reverse taper wings

tN

ot

with an anhedral angle at each side. Increasing the aerodynamic performance of the

rip

wing is the main idea. In this study, two wings were used in wind tunnel test, a

nu
sc

compound wing and a rectangular wing. The tests were performed to examine different
ground clearances, angles of attacks and Reynolds numbers. The results, such as lift and

Ma

drag coefficients, lift to drag ratio, pitching moment and centre of pressure of the

Ac

ce

WIND TUNNEL

pt

ed

compound wing were compared with the rectangular wing results.

The aerodynamic characteristics, specifically the ground effect, of the new compound
wing were investigated in a low speed wind tunnel at the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(UTM-LST). This wind tunnel was able to deliver a maximum airspeed of 80 m/s (160
knots or 288 km/hr) inside the test section. The size of test section was 2.0 meters wide,
1.5 meters height, and 5.5 meters long. The flow inside the wind tunnel was of good

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

quality, with a flow uniformity < 0.15%, temperature uniformity < 0.2%, flow angularity
uniformity < 0.15%, and turbulence < 0.06%. UTM-LST had high-quality facilities that
allow for accuracy and repeatability of experiment results.

The size of test model and the magnitude of the force measurements required

ite
d

that the wind tunnel was equipped with different balance systems for measuring

ed

aerodynamic forces and moments. In this study, a JR3-50M31A3 sensor was used for

Co
py

force measurements. This sensor is a 6- axis force and toque transducer with internal

tN

capacities of this sensor are shown in Table 1.

ot

electronics. The diameter of the sensor was 50 mm and it was 31 mm thick. The

nu
sc

rip

WING MODEL

The experiments were carried out on a rectangular and a compound wing as shown in

Ma

Figure 1. The compound wing was composed of three parts; a rectangular wing in the

ed

middle and two reverse taper wings with an anhedral angle at the sides. The NACA 6409

ce

pt

airfoil section was selected because it suitable for low speed flights when the airspeed

Ac

was between 25.5-40 m/s. The principal dimensions of both wings are shown in Figure 2
and summarized in Table 2.

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES AND SET-UP

In the wind tunnel, aerodynamic force measurements were carried out for a range of
ground clearances (h/c) and angles of attacks (), from h/c= 0.015 to h/c= 0.405 and

ite
d

from = 0 to = 10. Ground clearance (h/c) was defined as the distance ratio between
the wing trailing edge center and ground surface (h) to root chord length (c) of the wing.

ed

The range of the angles of attack is small because of touching wing to ground for some

Co
py

ground clearances.

In this study, the floor of wind tunnel was used as a fixed flat ground as shown in

tN

ot

Figure 3. The wing was mounted in the test section of the wind tunnel with a strut

rip

(Figure 3). The position of the strut was at the quarter-chord length from the leading

nu
sc

edge of the wings. The strut was adjusted and then the height of the wings was fixed at
the ground clearances. The wing could rotate about an axis at the quarter-chord length

ed

Ma

from the leading edge of wings.

pt

The Frontal area ratio wing and test section was small, resulting in a negligible

ce

blockage ratio for the wings related to side and roof walls of the wind tunnel. In this

Ac

study, all experiments were performed with three freestream velocities, 25.5, 30 and 40
m/s. Based on theses freestream velocities and the chord length of the wings (c) the
6

6,

correspond Reynolds numbers (Re) were 0.34910 , 0.41110 , 0.54810 respectively.

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

REPEATABILITY OF THE EXPERIMENT

One way to check the setup of the model and accuracy of the data is to repeat the
experiment. Figure 4 shows the lift and drag coefficients of two different occurrences of

ite
d

the model and wind tunnel test under the same conditions present at the Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia low speed wind tunnel (UTM-LST). As shown below, there was an

Co
py

ed

acceptable level of repeatability for this experiment.

ot

COMPARISON OF AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN COMPOUND AND


RECTANGULAR WINGS

tN

Figures 5-10 show comparisons of aerodynamic coefficients of the rectangular and the

rip

compound wings respect to the ground clearance (h/c), angle of attack () and

nu
sc

Reynolds number (Re).

ed

Ma

Lift Coefficient

pt

The lift coefficient of the rectangular wing and the compound wing are shown in Figure

Ac

ce

5. The lift coefficient of the compound wing was substantial higher than the lift
coefficient of the rectangular wing at a low ground clearance of 0.1 for an angle of
attacks of 4 as a shown in Figure 5 a-c. At small angle of attack resulted in a lower lift
coefficient for the compound wing but this was not a drawback because the angle of
incidence in WIG crafts is greater than 4. When the ground clearance increased, the
difference between rectangular and compound wing lift coefficients decreased. There

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

was a slightly higher lift coefficient for the rectangular wing at ground clearance of
h/c0.2 (Figure 5 g-p) that means at high ground clearance had more effect on lift
coefficient. The compound wing configuration had a higher ram pressure at low ground
clearance as compared with rectangular wing. This creates an advantage for WIG craft

ite
d

water takeoffs by reducing the hydrodynamic resistance because there is higher lift and
then wetted surface of WIG craft hull decreased. There was an increment in lift

Figure 5 shows that the lift coefficient was

Co
py

was higher for the compound wing.

ed

coefficient for both types of wings when ground clearance decreased but this increment

enhanced when the Reynolds numbers had a higher value at all ground clearances. In

tN

ot

most cases, varying the Reynolds numbers had little effect on the gap between the lift

nu
sc

rip

coefficients of the rectangular and the compound wings.

Ma

Drag Coefficient

ed

The great advantage of a compound wing configuration is related to its drag coefficient.

pt

Figure 6 illustrates that the drag coefficient of the compound wing was lower than the

Ac

ce

drag coefficient of the rectangular wing at all ground levels and Reynolds numbers. This
reduction of drag was associated with the smaller distance between the wingtip and the
ground and a smaller wingtip cross section area, which created a weaker tip vortex. The
reduction of drag on the compound wing as compared with rectangular wing became
more beneficial at lower ground levels and angles of attack of 2 (Figure 6 a-i). The
distance between the plots of the wings reduced when the ground clearance

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

augmented because the effects of side parts of the compound wing reduced (Figure 6 jp). The drag coefficient of both wings dropped when the wings approached the ground.
According to the drag coefficient plots, power requirement and then fuel consumption
of WIG craft with the compound wing will reduce. Both wings experienced a slight

ite
d

reduction in drag coefficient when the Reynolds numbers increased because the friction
drag, due to the viscose effect in higher Reynolds numbers, was smaller. Typically, the

ed

gap between the drag coefficient of rectangular and compound wings were reduced

Co
py

with increments of Reynolds number at all ground clearances.

tN

ot

Lift to Drag Ratio

rip

The most important performance parameter for a wing is defined by its lift to drag ratio

nu
sc

(L/D). The efficiency of a wing is referred to its lift to drag ratio. The comparison of lift to

Ma

drag ratio between the rectangular and the compound wing is shown in Figure 7. The lift to
drag ratio for both wings was enhanced when the ground level dropped. The lift to drag

pt

ed

ratio of the compound wing increased considerably compared to the rectangular wing at

ce

low ground clearances of 0.1and 0.15 for all Reynolds numbers (Figure 7 a-f). The lift to drag

Ac

ratio of the compound wing was moderately augmented at a ground clearance of 0.2 and an
angle of attack of approximately >2 (Figure 7 g-i). The angle of incidence in WIG crafts is

greater than 4 then at this ground clearance level, the performance of the compound
wing still improved. However, the performance of compound wing had nor more
increment at higher ground clearances (h/c=0.3) as shown in Figure 7 m-p. Also, at free

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

stream (ground clearance around 1.5), angle of attack of 4 and Re1, the lift to drag ratio
was recorded around 5.2 and 6 for the compound wing and the rectangular wing
respectively, these magnitudes were near the plots of Figure 7m that could be explained
the advantages of the compound wing exits at ground clearance lower than 0.3. Figure 7

ite
d

reveals the increase in Reynolds number created by a gradual enhancement of lift to

ed

drag ratio for both compound and rectangular wings for all ground clearances. The gap

Co
py

between the plots of wings has small variation respect to Reynolds numbers. The effect

ot

of Reynolds number was higher for both wings at lower ground clearances (Figure 7 a-f).

rip

tN

Drag Polar

nu
sc

The correlation between the drag coefficient and the lift coefficient is called the drag

Ma

polar. Figure 8 a-f (h/c0.15) shows the average drag polar plots for the compound
wing, which was noticeable upper than the drag polar plots for the rectangular wing.

pt

ed

This meant that for certain drag coefficients the lift coefficient for the compound wing

ce

was higher. The gap between the rectangular and the compound wing decreased rapidly

Ac

especially at ground clearances greater than 0.15 (Figure 8 g-p). The increment of
Reynolds number made a slight shifting up on drag polar plots of both wings. However,
the distance between the plots of wings generally reduced when Reynolds number
enhanced.

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

Moment Coefficient

The pitching moment is a parameter that affects the longitudinal stability of WIG crafts.
The moment coefficient for the compound and rectangular wings is shown in Figure 9.

ite
d

Figure 9 shows that there was a steady reduction in the moment coefficient for both
wings when the height dropped, although there was an increase in the moment

ed

coefficient at high angles of attack and high Reynolds numbers that could be because

Co
py

changes of pressure distributions on the surface of the wings (Figure 9 c, f, i, l, p). At a

ot

low ground clearance of 0.1 (Figure 9 a-c) the different between the plots of the

tN

rectangular and the compound wing was small, while for higher ground levels, the

rip

moment coefficient of the rectangular wing was slight greater that of the compound

nu
sc

wing. However, the moment coefficient of the compound wing was greater than that of
the rectangular wing in high Reynolds numbers and high angles of attack (Figure 9 c, f, i,

Ma

l, p). At all ground clearances, slope of the plots of both wings averagely decreased

ed

when Reynolds number enhanced where it was negative for the rectangular wing at

ce

pt

high Reynolds number and ground clearances of 0.25 and 0.3 (Figure 9 l, p).The moment

Ac

coefficients of both wings decreased slightly when the Reynolds numbers increased, but
this reduction was larger at high ground clearances especially for the rectangular wing
(Figure 9 l, p). Generally, the gap between the plots of both wing gradually decreased
respect to increment of Reynolds number.

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

Centre of Pressure

The center of pressure of the wing is another parameter that plays an important role in
the longitudinal stability of WIG crafts. The distance between the leading edge and

ite
d

center of pressure on the wing is defined as Xcp. Figure 10 shows the center of pressure
position for the rectangular and the compound wing. In general, the position of center

Co
py

ed

pressure of compound wing was a little nearer to leading edge, compared to the
rectangular wing, except at ground clearance greater than 0.15 and high Reynolds

ot

numbers where the center of pressure of the rectangular wing was nearer to leading

tN

edge (Figure 10 i, l, p) . The center of pressure for both wings moved slightly to the

rip

leading edge as the Reynolds numbers increased, especially for angles of attack of

nu
sc

greater than 6. Typically, the center of pressure shifts to the leading edge as ground
clearance is reduced, however at high Reynolds numbers (Re3) and ground clearances

Ma

greater than 0.15, this center shifted to trailing edge. The gap between the plots of both

Ac

ce

CONCLUSION

pt

ed

wings commonly had slight reduction versus Reynolds number.

This study experimentally investigated the aerodynamic characteristics of a new ram


wing concept called a compound wing. The compound wing was composed of three
parts. The middle part was a rectangular wing and two side parts were reverse taper
wings with an anhedral angle. Based on the experimental force measurements, the lift
coefficient for the compound wing improved at low ground clearance compared to the

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

rectangular wing, which can decrease takeoff distance. The anhedral angle of a
compound wing shifts the stagnation point towards the lower side of the wing and
modifies the pressure distribution on the pressure surface leading to a higher
augmentation in lift force at low ground clearances. The drag coefficient of the

ite
d

compound wing was reduced compared to the rectangular wing, especially for low
ground clearances. The distance between the wing tip of the compound wing and

ed

ground was smaller which meant that the tip vortex and downwash velocity were

Co
py

weaker. Consequently, the induced drag of the compound wing decreased. According to
lift and drag force, the lift to drag ratio for the compound wing was enhanced for a wide

tN

ot

range of ground clearances. The substantial improvement in lift to drag ratio for the

rip

compound wing in extreme ground effect identifies it a good performing and efficient

nu
sc

WIG craft. The moment coefficient of the compound wing was smaller than for the
rectangular wing, although at a high angle of attack and Reynolds number, the moment

Ma

coefficient for the compound wing was greater. Comparably, the center of pressure for

ed

the compound wing shifted slightly towards the leading edge, which can affect the

pt

longitudinal stability of a WIG craft. A suitable tail out of the ground effect is one

Ac

ce

method to modify the longitudinal stability of WIG craft. In the future, an investigation
into the aerodynamic characteristics of a complete WIG craft model will be tested in the
UTM wind tunnel.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation
(MOSTI) Malaysia for funding this research.

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

NOMENCLATURE
anhedral angle

wing Span

bm

middle wing span

chord length

ct

tip chord length

CL

lift Coefficient

CD

drag Coefficient

drag Force

height of trailing edge above the ground

h/c

ground clearance

characteristics length

lift force

L/D

lift to drag ratio

Re

Reynolds number

XCP

center of pressure

height of first mesh

ed
Co
py
ot

tN
rip

nu
sc

Ma

ed

pt

ce
Ac

y+

ite
d

non-dimensional wall distance

angle of attack

taper ratio (c/ ct)

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

REFERENCES
[1] Davis, J. E., and Harris G. L., 1973, Nonplanar wings in nonplanar ground effect,
Journal of Aircraft, 10(5), pp. 308-312.
[2] Barrows, T. M., 1973, The ram air cushion-advanced fluid suspension for tracked
levitated vehicles, ASME Paper No. 73-ICT 14.

ite
d

[3] Widnall, S. E., and Barrows, T. M., 1970, An analytic solution for two and three
dimensional wings in ground effect, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 41(4), pp. 769-792.

ed

[4] Rubbert, P. E., and Saaris, G. R., 1972, Review and evaluation of a three-dimensional
lifting potential flow analysis method for arbitrary configurations, AIAA Paper 72-188.

Co
py

[5] Johnson, F. T., and Rubbert, P. E., 1975, Advanced panel-type influence coefficient
methods applied to subsonic flow, AIAA Paper 75-50.

tN

ot

[6] Ollila, R. G., 1980, Historical review of WIG vehicles, Journal of Hydrodynamics,
14(3), pp. 65-76.

rip

[7] Ando, S., 1990, Critical review of design philosophies for recent transport WIG effect
vehicles, Trans. Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 33(99), pp. 28-40.

nu
sc

[8] Rozhdestvensky, K. V., 2006, Wing-in-ground effect vehicles, Journal of Aerospace


Science, 42, pp. 211-283.

Ma

[9] Raymond, A., 1921, Ground influence on airfoils, NAC Technical Note 67.

pt

ed

[10] Reid, E., 1927, A full scale investigation of ground effect, NACA Technical Report
265.

Ac

ce

[11] Rozhdestvensky, K. V., 2000, Aerodynamics of a lifting system in extreme ground


effect, 1st edition, Springer-Verlag.
[12] Wieselsberger, C., 1922, Wing resistance near the ground, NACA TM. 77.
[13] Recant, I. G., 1939, Wing-tunnel investigation of ground effect on wing with flaps,
NACA TN. 705.
[14] Chawla, M. D., Edwards, L. C., and Franke, M. E., 1990, Wind-tunnel investigation
of wing-in-ground effect, Journal of Aircraft, 27(4), pp. 289-293.
[15] Ahmed, N., and Goonaratne, J., 2002, Lift augmentation of a low-aspect-ratio thick
wing in ground effect, Journal of Aircraft, 39(2), pp. 381-384.

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

[16] Ahmed M. R., 2004, Flow over thick airfoils in ground effect- an investigation on
the influence of camber, proc. 24th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences,
29 August- 3 September, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 1-10.
[17] Ahmed, M. R., Takasaki, T., and Kohama, Y., 2007, Aerodynamic of NACA4412
airfoil in ground effect, AIAA Journal, 45(1), pp. 37-47.

ite
d

[18] Fink, M. P., and Lastinger, J. L., 1961, Aerodynamic characteristics of low-aspectratio wings in close proximity to the ground, NASA TN D 926.

ed

[19] Carter, A. W., 1961, Effect of ground proximity on the aerodynamic characteristics
of aspect-ratio 1 airfoils with and without endplate, NASA TN D 970.

Co
py

[20] Abramowski, T., 2007, Numerical investigation of airfoil in ground proximity,


Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, 45(2), pp. 425-436.
[21] Schlichting, H., 1968, Boundary Layer Theory, New-York: McGraw-Hill.

tN

ot

[22] Li, Y., Yang, W., and Yang. Z., 2010, Numerical study on wing in ground effect of
canard configuration, Aeronautical Computing Technique, 40(4), pp. 27-30.

nu
sc

rip

[23] Li, Y., Yang, W., and Yang. Z., 2010, Numerical study on static longitudinal stability
of canard wig craft, Flight Dynamics, 28(1), pp. 9-12.

Ma

[24] Lee, J., Han, C. S., and Bae, C. H., 2010, Influence of wing configurations on
aerodynamic characteristics of wings in ground effect, Journal of Aircraft, 47(3), pp.
1030-1040.

ce

pt

ed

[25] Yang, Z., Yang, W., and Li, Y., 2009, Analysis of two configurations for a commercial
wig craft based on CFD, Proc. 27th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 22 - 25
June, San Antonio, Texas, pp.1-9.

Ac

[26] Ying, C., Yang, W., and Yang, Z., 2010, Numerical simulation on reverse forward
swept wing in ground effect, Computer Aided Engineering, 19(3), pp. 35-39.
[27] Yang, W., Yang, Z., and Ying, C., 2010, Effects of design parameters on longitudinal
static stability for wig craft, International journal of Aerodynamics, 1(1), pp. 97-113.
[28] Jamei, S., Maimun, A., Mansor, S., and Azwadi, N., and Priyanto, A., 2012,
Numerical Investigation on Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Compound Wing in
Ground Effect, Journal of Aircraft, 49(5), pp. 1297-1305.

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

Figure Captions List


Fig. 1

(a) Rectangular wing and (b) Compound wing

Fig. 2

Sketch of (a) Rectangular wing and (b) Compound wing

Fig. 3

Experimental setup in the low speed wind tunnel at the Universiti

Repeatability of experimental test (a) Lift coefficient and (b) drag

ed

Fig. 4

ite
d

Teknologi Malaysia

Fig. 5

Co
py

coefficient

Lift coefficient of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of attack

Drag coefficient of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of attack

tN

Fig. 6

ot

() for different ground clearances (h/c) and Reynolds number (Re)

Lift to drag ratio of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of attack

nu
sc

Fig.7

rip

() for different ground clearances (h/c) and Reynolds numbers (Re)

() for different ground clearances (h/c) and Reynolds number (Re)


Drag polar of rectangular and compound wing for different ground

Ma

Fig. 8

Moment coefficient of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of

pt

Fig. 9

ed

clearances (h/c) and Reynolds number (Re)

Fig. 10

Ac

(Re)

ce

attack () for different ground clearances (h/c) and Reynolds numbers

Center of pressure of rectangular and compound wings versus angle of


attack () for different ground clearances (h/c) and Reynolds numbers
(Re)

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

Table Caption List


Load capacities of JR3 sensor

Table 2

Principal dimensions of the wings

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu
sc

rip

tN

ot

Co
py

ed

ite
d

Table 1

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ed

ite
d

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

(b)

pt

ed

Ma

nu
sc

rip

tN

ot

Co
py

(a)

Ac

ce

Fig. 1 (a) Rectangular wing and (b) Compound wing

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Co
py

ed

ite
d

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu
sc

rip

tN

ot

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2 Sketch of (a) Rectangular wing and (b) Compound wing

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ot

Co
py

ed

ite
d

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu
sc

rip

tN

Fig. 3 Experimental setup in the low speed wind tunnel at the Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.60
0.50

CL

0.40
0.30
0.20

ite
d

0.10
0.00
2

(a)

tN

ot

0.05
0.04

CD

rip

0.03

nu
sc

0.02

Ma

0.01
0.00

pt

ed

10

Angle of attack

(b)

Ac

ce

10

Co
py

Angle of attack

ed

Fig. 4 Repeatability of experimental test (a) Lift coefficient and (b) drag coefficient

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.70

0.70

0.70

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

0.10

0.10

0.00

0.00
2

10

12

ip
t

nu

sc
r

(b) Re2, h/c=0.1

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

(a) Re1, h/c=0.1

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

0.60

Compound wing

0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20

tC

0.30

No

0.30

ed

0.50

op
y

0.50

Rectangular wing

Compound wing

CL

0.60

Compound wing

CL

CL

0.60

Rectangular wing

ite
d

Rectangular wing

0.10
0.00
10

12

(c) Re3, h/c=0.1

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.70

0.70

0.70

Rectangular wing
0.60

Compound wing

Rectangular wing
0.60

Compound wing

0.50

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

0.10

0.10
0.00
0

10

12

ip
t

No

tC

0.00

ed

0.30

op
y

0.30

(e) Re2, h/c=0.15

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(d) Re1, h/c=0.15

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

CL

0.50

ite
d

0.50

CL

CL

0.60

Rectangular wing

Compound wing

0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

12

(f) Re3, h/c=0.15

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.70

0.70

0.70

Rectangular wing
0.60

Compound wing

Rectangular wing
0.60

Compound wing

0.50

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

0.10

0.10
0.00
0

10

12

ip
t

No

tC

0.00

ed

0.30

op
y

0.30

(h) Re2, h/c=0.20

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(g) Re1, h/c=0.20

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

CL

0.50

ite
d

0.50

CL

CL

0.60

Rectangular wing

Compound wing

0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

12

(i) Re3, h/c=0.20

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.70

0.70

0.70

Rectangular wing
0.60

Compound wing

Rectangular wing
0.60

Compound wing

0.50

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

0.10

0.10
0.00
0

10

12

ip
t

No

tC

0.00

ed

0.30

op
y

0.30

(k) Re2, h/c=0.25

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(j) Re1, h/c=0.25

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

CL

0.50

ite
d

0.50

CL

CL

0.60

Rectangular wing

Compound wing

0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

12

(l) Re3, h/c=0.25

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.70

0.70

0.70

Rectangular wing
0.60

Compound wing

Rectangular wing
0.60

Compound wing

0.50

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

0.10

0.10
0.00
2

10

12

0.20
0.10
0.00

12

(p) Re3, h/c=0.3

(n) Re2, h/c=0.3

10

12

Lift coefficient of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of attack () for different ground clearances (h/c) and
Reynolds number (Re)

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Fig. 5

Ma

nu

sc
r

(m) Re1, h/c=0.3

10

0.30

No

tC

Compound wing

ip
t

0.00

ed

0.30

op
y

0.30

CL

0.50

ite
d

0.50

CL

CL

0.60

Rectangular wing

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.10

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00
0

10

12

ed

0.02

0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00

12

(c) Re3, h/c=0.1

(b) Re2, h/c=0.1

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(a) Re1, h/c=0.1

10

0.04

No

op
y

0.03

tC

0.03

0.05

ip
t

0.04

ite
d

0.05

CD

0.07

0.06
0.04

Compound wing

0.08

0.07
0.05

Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.08

CD

CD

0.08

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.10

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00
0

10

12

ed

0.03

ip
t

No

op
y

0.03

tC

0.04

ite
d

0.05

(e) Re2, h/c=0.15

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(d) Re1, h/c=0.15

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

CD

0.07

0.06
0.04

Compound wing

0.08

0.07
0.05

Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.08

CD

CD

0.08

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00

12

(f) Re3, h/c=0.15

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.10

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00
0

10

12

ed

0.02

0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00

12

(i) Re3, h/c=0.2

(h) Re2, h/c=0.2

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(g) Re1, h/c=0.2

10

0.04

No

op
y

0.03

tC

0.03

0.05

ip
t

0.04

ite
d

0.05

CD

0.07

0.06
0.04

Compound wing

0.08

0.07
0.05

Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.08

CD

CD

0.08

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.10

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00
0

10

12

ed

0.03

ip
t

No

op
y

0.03

tC

0.04

ite
d

0.05

(k) Re2, h/c=0.25

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(j) Re1, h/c=0.25

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

CD

0.07

0.06
0.04

Compound wing

0.08

0.07
0.05

Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.08

CD

CD

0.08

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00

12

(l) Re3, h/c=0.25

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.10

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00
0

10

12

ed

0.02

0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00

12

(p) Re3, h/c=0.3

(n) Re2, h/c=0.3

10

12

Ma

nu

sc
r

(m) Re1, h/c=0.3

10

0.04

No

op
y

0.03

tC

0.03

0.05

ip
t

0.04

ite
d

0.05

CD

0.07

0.06
0.04

Compound wing

0.08

0.07
0.05

Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.08

CD

CD

0.08

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Fig. 6 Drag coefficient of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of attack () for different ground clearances (h/c) and
Reynolds numbers (Re)

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

12

12

10

10

10

ed

4
Rectangular wing

Rectangular wing

Compound wing
0

10

12

Rectangular wing

Compound wing

0
12

(c) Re3, h/c=0.1

(b) Re2, h/c=0.1

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(a) Re1, h/c=0.1

10

No

tC

ip
t

Compound wing

op
y

L/D

12

ite
d

14

L/D

14

L/D

14

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

12

12

10

10

10

ed

4
Rectangular wing

Rectangular wing

Compound wing

0
0

10

12

ip
t

No

tC

Compound wing

op
y

(e) Re2, h/c=0.15

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(d) Re1, h/c=0.15

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

L/D

12

ite
d

14

L/D

14

L/D

14

6
4
Rectangular wing

Compound wing

0
12

(f) Re3, h/c=0.15

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

12

12

10

10

10

ed

4
Rectangular wing

Rectangular wing

Compound wing
0

10

12

Rectangular wing

Compound wing

0
12

(i) Re3, h/c=0.2

(h) Re2, h/c=0.2

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(g) Re1, h/c=0.2

10

No

tC

ip
t

Compound wing

op
y

L/D

12

ite
d

14

L/D

14

L/D

14

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

12

12

10

10

10

ed

4
Rectangular wing

Rectangular wing

Compound wing

0
0

10

12

ip
t

No

tC

Compound wing

op
y

(k) Re2, h/c=0.25

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(j) Re1, h/c=0.25

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

L/D

12

ite
d

14

L/D

14

L/D

14

6
4
Rectangular wing

Compound wing

0
12

(l) Re3, h/c=0.25

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

12

12

10

10

10

ed

4
Rectangular wing

Rectangular wing

Compound wing
0

10

12

Rectangular wing

Compound wing

0
12

(p) Re3, h/c=0.3

(n) Re2, h/c=0.3

10

12

Lift to drag ratio of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of attack () for different ground clearances (h/c) and
Reynolds number (Re)

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Fig.7

Ma

nu

sc
r

(m) Re1, h/c=0.3

10

No

tC

ip
t

Compound wing

op
y

L/D

12

ite
d

14

L/D

14

L/D

14

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

0.70

0.60

0.60

0.60

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.30

0.10

ed

0.20
Rectangular wing

Rectangular wing

0.10

Compound wing

0.00
0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.00

0.02

0.06

0.10

Rectangular wing

0.10

Compound wing

0.00
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

CD

(c) Re3, h/c=0.1

(b) Re2, h/c=0.1

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(a) Re1, h/c=0.1

0.08

0.20

CD

No

CD

0.04

tC

0.00

0.30

ip
t

0.00

Compound wing

op
y

0.20

0.30

CL

0.70

ite
d

0.70

CL

CL

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

0.08

0.10

0.70

0.60

0.60

0.60

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.30

Rectangular wing

0.10

ed

0.20

Rectangular wing

0.10

Compound wing

op
y

0.20

0.30

0.00
0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.00

0.02

0.06

CD

ip
t

No

CD

0.04

(e) Re2, h/c=0.15

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(d) Re1, h/c=0.15

0.08

tC

0.02

0.30
0.20
Rectangular wing

0.10

Compound wing

0.00
0.00

CL

0.70

ite
d

0.70

CL

CL

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

0.10

Compound wing
0.00
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

CD

(f) Re3, h/c=0.15

0.08

0.10

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.70

0.70
Rectangular wing

0.60

Compound wing

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.10

0.00

0.00
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.00

0.02

0.06

0.10

0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

CD

(i) Re3, h/c=0.2

(h) Re2, h/c=0.2

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(g) Re1, h/c=0.2

0.08

0.30

CD

No

CD

0.04

op
y

0.10

tC

0.20

Compound wing

ip
t

0.20

ed

0.30

CL

0.50

ite
d

0.50

0.30

Rectangular wing

0.60

Compound wing

0.50

CL

CL

0.60

0.70
Rectangular wing

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

0.08

0.10

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.70

0.70
Rectangular wing

0.60

Compound wing

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.10

0.10

0.00

0.00
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.00

0.02

0.06

CD

ip
t

No

CD

0.04

op
y

0.20

(k) Re2, h/c=0.25

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(j) Re1, h/c=0.25

0.08

tC

0.20

ed

0.30

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

0.10

CL

0.50

ite
d

0.50

0.30

Rectangular wing

0.60

Compound wing

0.50

CL

CL

0.60

0.70
Rectangular wing

Compound wing

0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

CD

(l) Re3, h/c=0.25

0.08

0.10

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.70

0.70
Rectangular wing

0.60

Compound wing

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.10

0.10

0.00

0.00
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.00

0.02

0.06

CD

ip
t

No

CD

0.04

op
y

0.20

(n) Re2, h/c=0.3

0.10

Compound wing

0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

CD

(p) Re3, h/c=0.3

Ma

nu

sc
r

(m) Re1, h/c=0.3

0.08

tC

0.20

ed

0.30

CL

0.50

ite
d

0.50

0.30

Rectangular wing

0.60

Compound wing

0.50

CL

CL

0.60

0.70
Rectangular wing

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Fig. 8 Drag polar of rectangular and compound wing for different ground clearances (h/c) and Reynolds number (Re)

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.10

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01
0.00
2

10

12

0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00

12

(c) Re3, h/c=0.1

(b) Re2, h/c=0.1

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(a) Re1, h/c=0.1

10

0.04

No

tC

0.05

ip
t

0.00

ed

0.03

op
y

0.04

ite
d

0.05

CM

0.07

0.06

0.04

Compound wing

0.08

0.07
0.05

Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.08

CM

CM

0.08

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.10

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01
0.00
0

10

12

ip
t

No

tC

0.00

ed

0.03

op
y

0.04

ite
d

0.05

(e) Re2, h/c=0.15

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(d) Re1, h/c=0.15

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

CM

0.07

0.06

0.04

Compound wing

0.08

0.07
0.05

Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.08

CM

CM

0.08

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00

12

(f) Re3, h/c=0.15

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.10

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01
0.00
2

10

12

0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00

12

(i) Re3, h/c=0.2

(h) Re2, h/c=0.2

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(g) Re1, h/c=0.2

10

0.04

No

tC

0.05

ip
t

0.00

ed

0.03

op
y

0.04

ite
d

0.05

CM

0.07

0.06

0.04

Compound wing

0.08

0.07
0.05

Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.08

CM

CM

0.08

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.10

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01
0.00
0

10

12

ip
t

No

tC

0.00

ed

0.03

op
y

0.04

ite
d

0.05

(k) Re2, h/c=0.25

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(j) Re1, h/c=0.25

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

CM

0.07

0.06

0.04

Compound wing

0.08

0.07
0.05

Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.08

CM

CM

0.08

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00

12

(l) Re3, h/c=0.25

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.10

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01
0.00
2

10

12

0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00

12

(p) Re3, h/c=0.3

(n) Re2, h/c=0.3

10

12

Ma

nu

sc
r

(m) Re1, h/c=0.3

10

0.04

No

tC

0.05

ip
t

0.00

ed

0.03

op
y

0.04

ite
d

0.05

CM

0.07

0.06

0.04

Compound wing

0.08

0.07
0.05

Rectangular wing

0.09

Compound wing

0.08

CM

CM

0.08

0.10
Rectangular wing

0.09

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Fig. 9 Moment coefficient of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of attack () for different ground clearances (h/c) and
Reynolds numbers (Re)

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.80

0.80
Rectangular wing

0.80
Rectangular wing

0.70

Compound wing

0.60

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.20

0.20

0.10

0.10

ite
d

0.00
0

10

12

ip
t

No

tC

0.00

ed

0.30

op
y

0.30

0.40

(b) Re2, h/c=0.1

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(a) Re1, h/c=0.1

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

XCP/c

0.60

0.40

Rectangular wing

0.70

Compound wing

0.60

XCP/c

XCP/c

0.70

Compound wing

0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

12

(c) Re3, h/c=0.1

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.80

0.80
Rectangular wing

0.80
Rectangular wing

0.70

Compound wing

0.60

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.20

0.20

0.10

0.10

ite
d

0.00
0

10

12

ip
t

No

tC

0.00

ed

0.30

op
y

0.30

0.40

(e) Re2, h/c=0.15

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(d) Re1, h/c=0.15

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

XCP/c

0.60

0.40

Rectangular wing

0.70

Compound wing

0.60

XCP/c

XCP/c

0.70

Compound wing

0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

12

(f) Re3, h/c=0.15

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.80

0.80
Rectangular wing

0.80
Rectangular wing

0.70

Compound wing

0.60

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.20

0.20

0.10

0.10

ite
d

0.00
0

10

12

ip
t

No

tC

0.00

ed

0.30

op
y

0.30

0.40

(h) Re2, h/c=0.2

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(g) Re1, h/c=0.2

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

XCP/c

0.60

0.40

Rectangular wing

0.70

Compound wing

0.60

XCP/c

XCP/c

0.70

Compound wing

0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

12

(i) Re3, h/c=0.2

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.80

0.80
Rectangular wing

0.80
Rectangular wing

0.70

Compound wing

0.60

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.20

0.20

0.10

0.10

ite
d

0.00
0

10

12

ip
t

No

tC

0.00

ed

0.30

op
y

0.30

0.40

(k) Re2, h/c=0.25

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu

sc
r

(j) Re1, h/c=0.25

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

10

XCP/c

0.60

0.40

Rectangular wing

0.70

Compound wing

0.60

XCP/c

XCP/c

0.70

Compound wing

0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

12

(l) Re3, h/c=0.25

10

12

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering

0.80

0.80
Rectangular wing

0.80
Rectangular wing

0.70

Compound wing

0.60

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.20

0.20

0.10

0.10

ite
d

0.00
0

10

12

ip
t

No

tC

0.00

ed

0.30

op
y

0.30

0.40

(n) Re2, h/c=0.3

Compound wing

0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

12

10

12

(p) Re3, h/c=0.3

Ma

nu

sc
r

(m) Re1, h/c=0.3

10

XCP/c

0.60

0.40

Rectangular wing

0.70

Compound wing

0.60

XCP/c

XCP/c

0.70

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Fig. 10 Center of pressure of rectangular and compound wings versus angle of attack () for different ground clearances (h/c) and
Reynolds numbers (Re)

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

Table 1 Load capacities of JR3 sensor


Fy

Fz

Mx

My

Mz

100 N

100 N

200 N

5 N-m

5 N-m

5 N-m

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu
sc

rip

tN

ot

Co
py

ed

ite
d

Fx

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;


Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering

Table 2 Principal dimensions of the wings


Rectangular wing

Compound wing

Total wing span (b)

25 cm

25 cm

Root chord length (c)

20 cm

20 cm

Middle wing span ( bm)

12.5 cm

Taper ratio ( = c/ ct)

Anhedral angle (a)

ite
d

Dimension

13

Ac

ce

pt

ed

Ma

nu
sc

rip

tN

ot

Co
py

ed

1.25

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms