0 Up votes0 Down votes

13 views246 pagesApr 30, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

13 views

© All Rights Reserved

- ME2135E Fluid Mechanics Lab -2 Flow Past an Aerofoil
- Sec. 2.2 Theory of Flight
- Phd Thesis Without Tears
- LLM_Final
- OTC-1263-MS
- Beamer2Thesis 2.2 English Guide
- assAs
- PhD Thesis Structure and Content
- Dissertation Guidelines
- Discovery Oral Notification 17 (1)
- nes42999
- Bonus Turbine
- English - Phd-borang Penyerahan Untuk Pemeriksaan
- Bachelor Graduate Research Paper or Project Assessment
- Beamer 2 Thesis
- Honors - Proposal Guidelines
- reverse outline for wp2
- Thesis.pdf
- Latin America DBQ 2016 2017
- Biophysics of tooth.pdf

You are on page 1of 246

DURING TAKE-OFF

NOVERDO SAPUTRA

PSZ 19:16 (Pind. 1/07)

DECLARATION OF THESIS PROJECT PAPER AND COPYRIGHT

OF A TRIMARAN WING IN GROUND EFFECT (WIG) MODEL

DURING TAKE-OFF

Act 1972)*

the organization where research was done)*

(full text)

2. The Library of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia has the right to make copies for the purpose

of research only.

3. The Library has the right to make copies of the thesis for academic exchange.

Certified by:

(NEW IC NO. /PASSPORT NO.) NAME OF SUPERVISOR

NOTES : * If the thesis is CONFIDENTAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with the letter from the

organization with period and reasons for confidentiality or restriction.

I hereby declare that I have read this thesis and in my opinion this

Signature :

Name : Professor. Dr. Adi Maimun Bin H. Abdul Malik

Date : September 2011

LONGITUDINAL STABILITY AND MOTION OF

TRIMARAN WING IN GROUND EFFECT MODEL

DURING TAKE-OFF

NOVERDO SAPUTRA

Requirements for the award of the degree of

Master of Engineering (Marine Technology)

University Technology Malaysia

SEPTEMBER 2011

ii

DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis entitled Longitudinal Stability and Motion Wing in Ground

Effect model during take-off is the result of my own research except as cited in the

references. The thesis has not been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently

submitted in candidature of any other degree.

Signature :

Name : Noverdo Saputra

Date : September 2011

iii

DEDICATION

Development of science and technology

welfare of all people in the world

Nothing is impossible in this world; keep trying, learning and seeking blessing from

the God until the end of your life

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dr. Adi Maimun Bin H. Abdul Malik, for support, guidance, criticism and

suggestions during the study. I am also very grateful to my co-supervisor Dr. Agoes

Prijanto for advice, guidance and motivation. I will never forget and are very grateful

to my external supervisor, Professor Kirril V. Rohtdezvensky for basic concept and

knowledge about "ground effect". I am also very grateful to Dr. Maurizio Collu that

has been provided all references about hydrodynamic hull planning and his advice.

And also I am very grateful to Dr. John Rogers for vortex lattice algorithm and Mr.

Dingo Twedie for Savitsky Method Algorithm.

1 All Aerodynamic Laboratory staff for the assistance given during the wind

tunnel test.

2 All Marine Laboratory staff for the assistance given during the hydrodynamic

test.

3 All Centre of Composite Laboratory staff for the assistance given during

making model and prototype.

4 All Structure Laboratory staff for the assistance given during strength

assessment.

5 All my fellow colleagues in the Marine Laboratory, Saeed Jamee, Mobasser,

Ike Suharyanti. Mr. Rahimudin, Mr. Nurcholis, Mr.Yogi, Syaril.

v

Kamal, Mr. Rizal, Zamrie.

7 My entire PSM student, Rahim, Waqiyudin, Faisal, Tan Yong Seng, Syakur,

Izad.

8 My Best friend in KTC S47, Arief, Kazman,Uda Umar, Aaak, Yudis, Delin,

Mr.Prabowo, Akhry Nuddin

9 All contractor and supplier which has been supporting this research.

10 My family and my special friend for their encouragement during my study.

vi

ABSTRACT

technology. It is more efficient than conventional aircraft and quicker compared to

conventional marine vehicles. However WIG is still not widely use as a public

transportation. One of the criteria to be is stability. Longitudinal stability of WIG

craft is still of concern to the designer and the solutions are being investigated.

Instability of a small WIG craft occurs when aerodynamic-hydrodynamic phase

changes into pure aerodynamic phase during the take-off. In this research,

investigations were conducted to determine the longitudinal static and dynamic

stability effect of Trimaran WIG craft during takeoff and to verify the factors

affecting its stability. Two parameters considered are aerodynamic and

hydrodynamic characteristics. The investigation resort vortex lattice method and

examines the effects of flat ground and end plate on the performance of aerodynamic

characteristic of the WIG craft. Planing hull has been chosen for the hull shape of the

WIG craft due to higher speed takeoff. The hydrodynamics of prismatic planing

surfaces, presented by Savitsky, is used to calculate the hydrodynamic characteristic.

Numerical result is compared to the experimental results and against published data.

The Static Stability Margin (SSM) for longitudinal static stability Trimaran WIG

model has been investigated and using the classical aircraft motion modification and

calculating the aerodynamic, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces, the complete

equation of motion that uses a small perturbation assumption for WIG during take-

off has been derived and solved. Finally, dynamic stability Trimaran WIG during

take-off has been investigated and analyzed using Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion

and Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP).

vii

ABSTRAK

baru dalam teknologi. Ia lebih cekap dari pesawat konvensional dan lebih pantas

berbanding kendaraan air konvensional. Walau bagaimana, WIG masih tidak boleh

digunapakai sebagai kenderaan pengangkutan awam. Salah satu kriteria yang perlu

dipenuhi adalah kestabilan. Kestabilan melintang kenderaan WIG masih menjadi

perhatian para pereka dan penyelesaianya sedang dikaji. Masalah kestabilan

kenderaan WIG yang kecil berlaku semasa pertukaran fasa aerodinamik-

hidrodinamik kepada fasa aerodinamik sepenuhnya ketika berlepas. Di dalam

penyelidikan ini, penyiasatan telah dijalankan untuk menentukan pengaruh kestabilan

melintang statik dan dinamik model knderaan trimaran WIG semasa berlepas dan

mengesahkan faktor yang mempengaruhinya. Dua parameter yang dipertimbangkan

ialah ciri aerodinamik dan ciri hidrodinamik. Kajian telah memilih kaedah kisi

vortex lattice dan memilih kesan tanah rata dengan hujung plat kepada prestasi ciri

aerodinamik dan ciri hidrodinamik kenderaan WIG. Planing hull telah dipilih

sebagai bentuk badan kenderaan trimaran WIG disebabkan perlunya kelajuan yang

tinggi untuk ia berlepas. Ciri Hidrodinamik permukaan prismatic untuk planing

hull yang dibentangkan oleh Savitsky telah digunakan untuk mengira ciri-ciri

hidrodinamik. Keputusan analisis berangka dibandingkan dengan keputusan uji

kajian atau dan data yang telah diterbitkan. Margin Kestabilan Statik (SSM) untuk

kestabilan static membujur model kenderaan trimaran WIG telah dikaji. Dan dengan

menggunakan mengambil kira modifikasi pergerakan asas pesawat udara dengan

mengira aerodinamik, hidrostatik dan daya hidrodinamik, persamaan lengkap

pergerakan yang menggunakan andaian perturbasi kecil, telah diterbitkan dan

diselesaikan untuk kenderaan WIG semasa ia berlepas. Akhirnya,kestabilan dinamik

Trimaran WIG semasa berlepas telah dikaji dan telah dianalisis menggunakan

Kriteria Stabiliti Routh-Hurwitz dan Faktor Kawalan Antisipasi (CAP).

viii

TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

ABSTRACT vi

ABSTRAK vii

ix

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background and problem statement 1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Historical ground effect vehicles 7

3, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 21

3.1 Introduction 21

(VLM) 23

(VLM) 24

(VLM) 25

x

stability analysis 27

4.1 Introduction 29

characteristic 36

disturbance 51

standard equation of motion 52

5. EXPERIMENTAL WORK 56

5.1 Wind Tunnel Test 56

Technology Malaysia (LST -UTM) 57

5.1.2.3 Testing 70

xi

linearization data 75

6.1 Validation Vortex Lattice Method (VLM) 80

experimental result 116

program with Hullspeed Maxsurf. 124

running test 131

Anticipation Parameter (CAP) 140

xii

REFERENCES 154

APPENDIX A 159

APPENDIX B 163

APPENDIX C 170

APPENDIX D 177

APPENDIX E 189

APPENDIX F 191

APPENDIX G 196

APPENDIX H 210

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

2.2 Photograph spray produced of a planing hull 13

2.3 Wetted area surface 14

2.4 Hydrostatic lift & hydrodynamics lift component 14

2.5 Dynamic airplane component 19

2.6 Dynamic WIG component 20

3.1 WIG trimaran Design 22

3.2 Flowchart preprocessor 24

3.3 Flowchart processor 24

3.4 Flowchart postprocessor 25

3.5 Flowchart savitsky method 26

3.6 Flowchart research 28

4.1 Flat wing sketch 30

4.2 Flat wing with dihedral sketch 30

4.3 Looking from upstream toward the trailing edge 31

4.4 Vortex filaments 32

4.5 New configuration SSM during take-off 48

5.1 Layout LST-UTM 59

5.2 LST-UTM main component 59

5.3 Aluminum block for model wind tunnel test 62

5.4 CNC milling MAHO 500 E2 62

xiv

5.6 Wing model for wind tunnel test 63

5.7 Set up fan power for wind speed 64

5.8 Honeycomb and screen LST-UTM 65

5.9 Heat exchanger LST-UTM 65

5.10 Balance and support system LST-UTM 66

5.11 3-Struts support 67

5.12 Street lantern light using single-strut support 67

5.13 Data Acquisition and Reduction System (DARS) LST-

UTM 68

5.14 Pressure measurement tools LST-UTM 69

5.15 Flow visualization LST-UTM 69

5.16 Pitot probe 70

5.17 Air stream check apparatus 71

5.18 Free running test schematic 78

5.19 Free running test 78

5.20 Recording data from running test 79

5.21 Real time data dashboard 79

6.1 Panel VLM 81

6.2 CL versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1 82

6.3 CL versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1.5 83

6.4 CL versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 2 84

6.5 CL versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1 85

6.6 CL versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1.5 86

6.7 CL versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 2 87

6.8 CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1, endplate he/c =

0.05 89

6.9 CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1.5, endplate he/c

= 0.1 90

6.10 CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 2, endplate he/c =

0.05 91

6.11 CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1, endplate he/c =

0.05 92

xv

6.12 CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1.5, endplate he/c

= 0.05 93

6.13 CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 2, endplate he/c

= 0.05 94

6.14 CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1 95

6.15 CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1.5 96

6.16 CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 2 97

6.17 CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1 98

6.18 CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1.5 99

6.19 CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 2 100

6.20 CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1, endplate he/c =

0.05 102

6.21 CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1.5, endplate he/c

= 0.05 103

6.22 CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 2, endplate he/c =

0.05 104

6.23 CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1, endplate he/c =

0.05 105

6.24 CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1.5, endplate he/c

= 0.05 106

6.25 CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 2, endplate he/c =

0.05 107

6.26 CL versus h/c every AOA for AR = 1.25 rectangular-

dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model without

endplate using VLM 109

6.27 CL versus h/c every AOA for AR = 1.25 rectangular-

dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model with

endplate 0.05c using VLM 110

6.28 CD versus h/c every AOA for AR = 1.25 rectangular-

dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model without

endplate using VLM 111

6.29 CD versus h/c every AOA for AR = 1.25 rectangular-

dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model with

endplate 0.05c using VLM 112

xvi

attack (AOA) versus ground clearance (h/c) rectangular-

dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model with

endplate (AR = 1.25) 114

6.31 Experimental result of drag coefficient every angle of

attack (AOA) versus ground clearance (h/c) rectangular-

dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model with

endplate (AR = 1.25) 115

6.32 Comparison of CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.06 he/c=0.06

and AR = 1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM,

and experimental LST-UTM after correction 117

6.33 Comparison of CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 he/c=0.06

and AR = 1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM,

and experimental LST-UTM after correction 118

6.34 Comparison of CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.15 he/c=0.06

and AR = 1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM,

and experimental LST-UTM after correction 119

6.35 Comparison of CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.15 he/c=0.06

and AR = 1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM,

and experimental LST-UTM after correction 121

6.36 Comparison of CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.15 he/c=0.06

and AR = 1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM,

and experimental LST-UTM after correction 122

6.37 Comparison of CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.15 he/c=0.06

and AR = 1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM,

and experimental LST-UTM after correction 123

6.38 Hull without step and hull with step (Clementss step) 124

6.39 Planing hull simulation using Hullspeed [52] 125

6.40 SM & Hullspeed Maxsurf comparison [52] 125

6.41 Drag water resistance Trimaran WIG model with or

without step using SM 127

6.42 Lift coefficient planing surface with and without Step 127

6.43 Calibration RIG result (Thrust versus RPM) 129

6.44 Free running dashboard 130

xvii

6.45 Total drag trimaran WIG model result from free running

test 131

6.46 Comparison drag trimaran Wig model every speed

between numerical result (SM) and experimental work

(free running test) 132

6.47 Draft change during take off 132

6.48 SSM wing without endplate, h/c= 0.06 - 0.3 134

6.49 SSM wing with endplate, h/c= 0.06 - 0.3, he/c = 0.06c 135

6.50 SSM wing with endplate and tail, h/c= 0.06 - 0.3 he/c =

0.06c 136

6.51 Short Period Pitch Oscillation (SPPO) Trimaran WIG

every ground clearance (h/c) during take-off 137

6.52 Short Period Pitch Oscillation (SPPO) trimaran WIG

every angle of attack (AOA) during take-off 138

6.53 Long Period Pitch Oscillation (Phugoid) trimaran WIG

every ground clearance (h/c) during take-off 139

6.54 Long Period Pitch Oscillation (Phugoid) trimaran WIG

every angle of attack (AOA) during take-off 139

6.55 Comparison trimaran WIG during take-off between

Simulink Flightgear simulation and free running test 140

6.56 Pitch motion trimaran WIG model 146

6.57 Heave motion trimaran WIG model 147

xviii

LIST OF TABLES

5.1 Model for wind tunnel test 61

6.1 Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c =

0.1, based on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al 82

6.2 Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c =

0.1, based on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al 83

6.3 Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c =

0.1, based on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al 84

6.4 Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c =

0.3, based on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al 85

6.5 Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c =

0.3, based on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al 86

6.6 Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c =

0.3, based on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al 87

6.7 Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c =

0.1, endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and

experimental by Jung et al 88

6.8 Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c =

0.1, endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and

experimental by Jung et al 89

xix

0.1, endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and

experimental by Jung et al 90

6.10 Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c =

0.3, endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and

experimental by Jung et al 91

6.11 Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c =

0.3, endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and

experimental by Jung et al. 92

6.12 Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c =

0.3, endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and

experimental by Jung et al 93

6.13 Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c =

0.1, based on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al 95

6.14 Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c

= 0.1, based on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et

al 96

6.15 Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c =

0.1, based on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al 97

6.16 Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c =

0.3, based on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et

al. 98

6.17 Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c

= 0.3, based on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et

al 99

6.18 Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c =

0.3, based on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et

al. 100

6.19 Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c =

0.1, endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and

experimental by Jung et al 102

6.20 Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c

= 0.1, endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and

experimental by Jung et al 103

xx

0.1, endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and

experimental by Jung et al 104

6.22 Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c =

0.3, endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and

experimental by Jung et al 105

6.23 Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c

= 0.3, endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and

experimental by Jung et al 106

6.24 Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c =

0.3, endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and

experimental by Jung et al 107

6.25 Lift coefficient every angle of attack (AOA) versus

ground clearance (h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing

trimaran WIG model without endplate (AR = 1.25) using

VLM 109

6.26 Lift coefficient every angle of attack (AOA) versus

ground clearance (h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing

trimaran WIG model (AR = 1.25) with endplate

(he/c=0.05) using VLM 110

6.27 Drag coefficient every angle of attack (AOA) versus

ground clearance (h/c) Rectangular-Dihedral (50-50)

wing trimaran WIG model (AR = 1.25) without endplate

using VLM 111

6.28 Drag coefficient every angle of attack (AOA) versus

ground clearance (h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing

trimaran WIG model (AR = 1.25) with endplate

(he/c=0.05), using VLM 112

6.29 Experimental result of lift coefficient every angle of

attack (AOA) versus ground clearance (h/c) rectangular-

dihedral (50-50) Wing trimaran WIG model with

endplate (AR = 1.25) 114

6.30 Experimental result of drag coefficient every angle of

attack (AOA) versus ground clearance (h/c) rectangular-

xxi

endplate (AR = 1.25) 115

6.31 Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25, h/c

= 0.06, endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM,

experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM

after correction. 117

6.32 Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25, h/c

= 0.1, endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM,

experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM

after correction 118

6.33 Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25, h/c

= 0.15, endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM,

experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM

after correction 119

6.34 Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25,

h/c = 0.06, endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM,

experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM

after correction 120

6.35 Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25,

h/c = 0.1, endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM,

experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM

after correction 121

6.36 Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25,

h/c = 0.15, endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM,

experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM

after correction 122

6.37 Drag water resistance trimaran WIG model with and

without step 126

6.38 Calibration RIG result 128

6.39 Thrust from experiment free running test 130

6.40 Comparison drag trimaran WIG model between SM and

free running test 133

6.41 SSM on rectangular-dihedral reverse wing NACA 6409

A/R = 1.25 trimaran WIG model without endplate 134

xxii

A/R = 1.25 trimaran WIG model with endplate (0.06c) 135

6.43 SSM on rectangular-dihedral reverse wing NACA 6409

A/R = 1.25 trimaran WIG model with endplate (0.06c)

and NACA = 0012 Tail A/R = 5 136

6.44 Routh-Hurwitz stability criterion for SPPO every ground

clearance (h/c) 141

6.45 Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for SPPO every

ground clearance (h/c) 141

6.46 Routh-Hurwitz stability criterion for Phugoid every

ground clearance (h/c) 142

6.47 Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for Phugoid every

ground clearance (h/c) 143

6.48 Routh-Hurwitz stability criterion for SPPO every angle

of attack (AOA) 143

6.49 Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for SPPO every

angle of attack (AOA) 144

6.50 Routh-Hurwitz stability criterion for Phugoid every

angle of attack (AOA) 145

6.51 Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for Phugoid every

angle of attack (AOA) 145

xxiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CDGE Chord Dominated Ground Effect

SDGE Span Dominated Ground Effect

PIV Particle Image Velocimetry

LDA Laser Doppler Anemometry

RANS Reynolds Average Navier-Stokes

VLM Vortex Lattice Method

BEM Boundary Element Method

SPM Surface Panel Method

DHMTU Department of Hydro-Mechanics of the Marine Technical University

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics

ACH Aerodynamic Center in Height

ACP Aerodynamic Center in Pitch

SSM Static Stability Margin

WISES Wing in Surface effect Ship

AOA Angle of Attack

LOA Length over all

BOA Breadth over all

B Hull breadth

LST-UTM Low Speed Wind Tunnel University technology Malaysia

ABB Allan Bradley

HCH Hydrodynamic Centre in Heave

AAMV Aerodynamically Alleviated Marine Vehicle

HCH Hydrodynamic Centre in Pitch

COG Centre of Gravity

SPPO Short Period Pitch Oscillation

xxiv

CAP Control Anticipation Parameter

EDF Electric Ducting Propeller

NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

COG Centre Of Gravity

MATLAB language programming

FORTRAN language programming

vortex spinning, often turbulent, flow of fluid

chord long of the wing

span width of the wing

hull body of ship

fuselage body of airplane

tail small wing at

EHP small wing at

RULM Rectilinear Uniform Level Motion

xxv

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Aerodynamic

b wing span ( m )

c Chord length ( m )

CM moment coefficient (=L/0.5AU2 )

CL lift coefficient (=L/0.5AU2 )

CD drag coefficient (=D/0.5AU2 )

CDi induced drag coefficient

h/c ground clearance

he/c endplate ratio

N maximum number of element panel

cc cord along trailing leg of elemental panel (m)

angle of attack ( 0 )

dihedral angle ( 0 )

ground influence coefficient

endplate influence coefficient

sweep Angle ( 0 )

air density

vortex strength

F influence function geometry of single horshoe

S wing area (m2)

U free stream velocity (m/s)

u backwash velocity (m/s)

v sidewash velocity (m/s)

xxvi

r1 , r2 vector distance

h/c ratio height ground into chord

h/b ratio height ground into span

a angle of attack

e downwash angle at the tail wing

z damping ratio

q pitch angle

n root of the speed subsidence mode

w frequency

alt lift curve slope of the tail wing

x,y,z distance along X,Y,Z

X ac distance center of aerodynamic from leading edge

body-axis system for plan form

wind axis system

distance along

x,y,z distance along X,Y,Z

X,Y,Z axis system for horsoe vortex

X ac distance center of aerodynamic from leading edge

X

derivatives height into surging

h

Z

derivatives height into heaving

h

M

derivatives height into pitching

h

Sref reference area

xxvii

Subscript

U backwash

V sidewash

w downwash

n index for elemental panel

H hydrodynamic pitch

OGE out ground effect

IGE in ground effect

E with endplate

WE without endplate

Hydrodynamic

LWL length water line on (hydro)static condition

b chine beam (average) or beam of planing surface

measured between the chine( BPa)

displacement mass or vertical load on water

displacement volume

h vertical depth of trailing edge of boat (at keel)

below level water surface or depth of keel @ transom

LCG location of the longitudinal centre of gravity , forward of transom

VCG vertical centre of gravity, above baseline

p number of propellers

r number of rudders

Vs boat forward planing velocity or horizontal velocity of planing surface

b deadrise angle (degrees) - average, usually taken @ 0,5 Lp

e propeller shaft line inclination relative to the baseline (or keel line)

t trim (angle between planing bottom and horizontal)

CV speed coefficient

FN volume Froude number

xxviii

Cf friction coefficient allowance for roughness of planing surface or

Correlation Allowance, Savitsky used CA = 0.0004 &

ITTC recommends CA = 0.003 for this friction line.( CA)

CL0 Lift coefficient @ zero deadrise

CL lift coefficient with deadrise surface

LP projected length of chine from transom to bow profile

LK Projected wetted keel length

LC Projected wetted chine length measured from transom to spray root

(stagnation line) intersection with chine (excluding spray)

LM Mean wetted length of pressure Area

BX beam max

or LM/b; mean wetted length / beam ratio

Effective increase in friction area length beam ratio

due to spray contribution to drag

LCP longitudinal location of centre of pressure

from trailing edge (i.e.transom)

CP Centre of pressure

N Resultant of pressure (hydrodynamic) and

buoyancy (hydrostatic) forces assumed acting normal to hull bottom

AP projected planing bottom area (excluding external spray strips)

or total bottom pressure area

Sw principal wetted surface area

(bounded by trailing edge, chines and heavy spray line)

SS area wetted by spray

f perpendicular distance off shaft line to Centre of Gravity (CG)

a the perpendicular distance between frictional drag-force

component Df and CG

fa Distance between Appendage Drag Da

(assumed as acting parallel to keel line) and CG

g acceleration due to gravity (or gravitational constant) = 9.81 m/s2

RN Reynolds number

n Kinematic viscosity of fluid (salt water @ 20 = 1*10-6)

xxix

q Angle between the keel (centreline) and

the outer edge of spray area measured in plane of bottom

specific weight of water (or mass density of water)

Df Frictional Drag-force component along bottom of surface

Da Appendage Drag (assumed as acting parallel to keel line)

T Propeller thrust along shaft line

d Diameter of shaft or bossing

c distance between N (pressure force applied to centre of pressure)

and CG measured longitudinally from transom stern and normal to N

RT total resistance

Fa Aerodynamic force

Fh Hydrodynamic force

Fc Control force

Fd disturbance force

Fg gravitational force

Fp Propulsion force

.

u surge displacement

.

q heave displacement, positive downward

.

w pitch rotation, positive bow up

A mass matrix

B damping matrix

C restoring matrix

D influence height into aerodynamic force

I moment inertia

xxx

Superscript

a related to aerodynamics

h related to hydrodynamics

perturbation value

Subscript

0 value at the equilibrium state

h derivative with respect to height

Experiment formula

Yw width of wake

q local dynamic pressure

q free stream

C mLE moment coefficient from leading edge

x(dc ) distance from leading edge (or other selected reference point)

P

pressure difference at each location

q

Pa pressure at inlet

Pb pressure at outlet

Y error every airspeed

xxxi

LIST OF APPENDICES

B Airfoil analysis 163

C Aero-hydro derivatives 170

D Vortex Lattice Method software 177

E Routh-Hurwitzh stability criterion code 189

F Savitsky method program 191

G Free running test set up 196

H Simulation program 210

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Moving marine vehicles at high speed has been one of the biggest challenges

faced by naval architects and hydrodynamic researcher over the years especially after

the invention of aircraft, much thought have been given to find different methods that

can move ships quickly, Wing In Ground Effect (WIG) Craft is the most successful

one in terms of gaining high speed. The phenomenon of ground effect was observed

by many researchers since early in the birth of aviation. The advantages of using a

high speed craft in ground condition are commonly acknowledged by reduce drag

and increase lift. Wieselsberger (1921), Reid (1937) and Carter (1961),

hypothetically and experimentally was analyzed the influence of the ground on

aerodynamics wings. Analysis of experimental drag of wing with endplate shown

effect endplate in aerodynamic characteristic has investigated by Hemke (1927).

Absolutely, ground clearances and endplate ratio have influence in static stability

margin (SSM). Kumar (1968), Irodov (1970), Zhukov (1974), and Staufenbiel

(1988), Chun, and Chang (2002), all of them tell about the problem of longitudinal

stability in ground condition, where position aerodynamic centre in pitch (ACP) and

position aerodynamic in height (ACH) was influenced from the scenery of the

longitudinal stability every comparative position. Plentiful studies have been

conducted analyzing the influence of the ground effect on wing performance.

2

research investigating the influence of wing profile and platform on the positioning

of the two aerodynamic centers.

All problems above tell us about longitudinal static stability and longitudinal

dynamic stability during cruise which means that only aerodynamic affects the

stability. However, the stability problem that often occurs on the small WIG craft is

when WIGs phase change from hydrodynamic-aerodynamic phase into pure

aerodynamic phase during take-off. Collu et al (2010) has been tried to solve

advance mathematical framework for the longitudinal stability of a high-speed craft

with planing hull and aerodynamic surfaces. Eventually, a complete kinematics

model is been developed. Their observation illustrates a mathematical method for

performance Aerodynamically Alleviated Marine Vehicle (AAMV) in dynamic

condition. That vehicle was designed to take advantage of combination aerodynamic

forces and hydrodynamic force in high speed craft to get fuel efficiency and to reach

further and with a greater payload.

There are similarities between an AAMV with a WIG, when the WIG in

phase "aero-hydro" during take-off. Not only the aerodynamic force that worked

when she takeoff, but both of aerodynamic force and hydrodynamic force that

worked at that moment. In this research, observations were performed to determine

aerodynamic characteristic of NACA 6409 dihedral rectangular wing (50-50) of

aspect ratio 1-1.5 with taper 0.8. The observation were conducted using vortex lattice

method and investigating the influence of flat ground and endplate on enforcement

of a trimaran WIG for relative ground clearances of 0.01 < h/c < 0.2, with ratio

endplate 0.015< he/c <0.1 on angles of attack between 0 and 8. Planing hull has

been chosen for the Wig as high speed is necessary to takeoff .In 1964; a

comprehensive paper that summarized previous experimental studies on the

hydrodynamics of prismatic planing surfaces was presented by Savitsky. He

presented a method for application of these results for the design of moving ships.

Besides, many laboratories and research centers have conducted hydrodynamic

3

studies on several fundamental planing hull phenomena. All numerical result will be

validated with experimental results or other published work.

After that, the old concept Static Stability Margin (SSM) was modified by

adding hydrodynamic factor. Thus, SSM during takeoff will be presented with the

new configuration with three criteria, first, the position Aerodynamic centre in

Pitch (ACP) should be located downstream of the position Aerodynamic Centre in

Height (ACH) , second, the position of center of gravity (COG) of the craft should

be located upstream of the aerodynamic center of pitch (ACP) and third, the

position Aerodynamic Centre in Height (ACH) should be located upstream of

Hydrodynamic center in Pitch (HCP). The classical aircraft motion has been

modified by calculating the aerodynamic force, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic

forces, using a small perturbation assumption the full equations of motion WIG

during takeoff are derived and solved.

a new configuration equation of motion WIG by calculating the equal importance of

aerodynamic and hydrodynamic forces in small-disturbance composition. The

arithmetical model of this framework was developed to investigate the longitudinal

static stability and longitudinal dynamic stability of a trimaran WIG during take-off.

4

method with criteria; NACA 6409 dihedral rectangular wing, aspect ratio

1.25, taper 0.8.

ii. To investigate influence of flat ground and endplate on the

performance of a trimaran WIG for several ground clearances, with ratio

endplate 0.06 on angles of attack between 0 and 8.

iii. To calculate hydrodynamic characteristic of prismatic planing surfaces

using Savitsky method.

iv. To validated the numerical results by experiment or publish work or

commercial software.

v. To arrange Static Stability Margin (SSM) criteria on WIG trimaran for

investigate longitudinal static stability WIG trimaran during takeoff.

vi. To arrange configuration equation of motion by calculating the equal

importance of aerodynamic and hydrodynamic forces in small-

disturbance composition for investigate longitudinal dynamic stability

WIG trimaran during takeoff.

dynamic stability of a trimaran WIG model during take-off. Where we should be to

calculate aerodynamics characteristic and hydrodynamics characteristic using

numerical equation and compare these calculation with experimental data or

commercial software.

5

The first chapter provides about the background and problem statement of the

study, purpose and objective of the study, scope of the study, significant of the study.

Finally, thesis managing is presented.

The second chapter tells about literature review; history of vehicles on ground

condition, aerodynamic characteristic of vehicles on ground condition,

hydrodynamic of ground effect vehicles, longitudinal static stability of ground effect

vehicles, and dynamic stability of ground effect vehicles.

dynamic motion WIG trimaran during takeoff, where the stages of research are initial

design model, computational calculation, experimental work, comparison and

analysis of computational results with experiments or other published researchers,

longitudinal static and dynamic stability.

wing in ground effect using vortex lattice methods, effect ground effect on lift

coefficient, effect endplate on lift coefficient, hydrodynamic wing in ground effect

using Savitsky methods, analysis static stability ground effect with new configuration

static stability margin, and last on this chapter try propose new configuration

equation motion of a trimaran wing in ground effect during take-off for analysis

Routh-Hurwitz criteria and Criteria for public transportation(CPT).

6

Chapter five provides procedure experiment in wind tunnel test at Low Speed

Tunnel (LST) UTM and free running test.

experimental, also analytical results

Chapter seven presents the conclusion and suggestion which can be used for

further research.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

since early in the birth of aviation. The advantages of using a high speed craft in

ground condition are commonly acknowledged by reduce drag and increase lift

(Rozhdestvensky 2000). These observations began in the early 1920 Prandtl (1920)

has tried to make theory of lifting surface. In 1921, the revolutionary ground effect

scientist, Wieselsberger (1920) on wing resistance near the ground presents a

theoretical and experimental understanding to explain the performance of the planar

wing in ground effect, and find the cause of the increasing L/D ratio. And find ways

to reduce ground effect by finding a suitable geometry wing.

Around 1920, for the first time this effect was described and was carried out

in this field. The seaplane Dornier DO-X could cross the Atlantic Ocean by flying

low over the waves of the sea. This concept is intended to save fuel when they should

return to his base with a damaged engine condition during the Second World War

(SE 1996, Korolyov 2007).

8

After seeing some of the potential of the ground effect, some countries began

to seriously entered research and develop this effect to be used in the aviation world,

with the low flying can reduce fuel usage. In 1935, Toivo J. Kaario, try to develop

the Aerosledge No.8, but did not receive enough funding for further development (SE

1996, Rozhdestvensky 2000, Rozhdestvensky 2006,Chun 2008).

In 1963, the KM Caspian Sea Monster most famous ekranoplan was built by

Russia with displacement 500 ton (Halloran 1999). Also in 1963 was developed the

small single seat Collins X-112 aerofoil boat with low aspect ratio reverse delta

wing, dihedral and forward sweep, designed by German Scientist Alexander

Lippisch and built in America (SE 1996, Halloran 1999, and Leon 2007).

WIG XTW series, which are based on a wing- tail configuration and Lippisch main

wing designs, the variant ever built are XTW-I, XTW-II, XTW-III, and XTW-IV (SE

1996, Leon 2007).

In 1979, the Soviet was built A-90 Orlyonok. Designed in 1974, only five

was built from the proposed 120, and were designed to quickly transport with larger

payloads (SE 1996, Leon 2007).

AWIG-750 was built after testing approximately 80 radio controlled model. The

AWIG-750 has thrust 745kg with 4 internal combustion engines and 2 propellers (SE

1996, Leon 2007).

9

In 1987, the Lun-class Ekranoplan was proposed by the USSR. This craft was

equipped with missile launchers for anti submarine warfare. The MD-160, one kind

of this type was trialed for three years but was never used in operation (Leon 2007).

In 1990, the Aerocon Dash 1.6, large wingship was built by the US Company

Aerocon. This vehicle has thrust 5000 tons and is capable of a cruise speed of 400

knots (740km/h) (Rozhdestvensky 2006, Leon 2007). In thats year, Pelican was

developed by Boeing Phantom Works. The craft has capability to fly in ground effect

with altitude 20ft but also can fly over ground effects with altitude around 20,000 ft,

with span twice that of the worlds largest aircraft (the An-225), 0.4 Ha (SE 1996,

Leon 2007).

At the last 1990, Airfish-3 for four seat model was tested at speeds of

120km/h and was able to reach a range of 370 km. This vehicle was designed to

operate in ground effect with maximum dynamic jumps around 4.5m. After

successfully launching thats product, launched a new product Flightship 8 (FS-8)

for eight seat people and 2 crew members (Rozhdestvensky 2006).

751, under the name Swan-I (2006, 2007). In 1995, Russia again raises new product

WIG, the Amphistar Aquaglide series has developed by the company Technology

and Transport with maximum take-off weight is 2720 kg, and cruising speed around

150km/h - 450km/h (Rozhdestvensky 2006, Leon 2007).

developing countries, Indonesia have been success launch two products. Belibis NA-

5 & Belibis NA-6 successfully tested fly at Jatiluhur Reservoir, West Java. This craft

10

has designed for eight seater and cruising speed of approximately 144 km/h (BPPT

2007).

WIG crafts that fly by the water surface. The development of WIG vehicles is

currently going on in many countries. The potential fuel savings and speed

advantages over other modes of water transportation are the stimulus. Ludwig

Prandt'l (1920) on assumption that the lift is distributed in half an ellipse over the

wing spans shown in Theory of Lifting Surface. The ratio of the distance of the point

considered to the wing span is represented by h/b, and then the term is more familiar

with Span Dominated Ground Effect (SDGE).

for predicting the reduction in induced drag for wing at various heights of the quarter

chord of the wing above the ground (h/c), then the term is more familiar with Chord

Dominated Ground Effect (CDGE) Experiments have been full field by Reid (1937)

and Carter (1961).

The frictional drag of the endplates can reduce induced drag, is sufficiently

large to increase the efficiency of the wing. Analysis of experimental drag of wing

with endplate has done by Hemke (1927).

11

Margason and Lamar (1971) has done made Vortex Lattice Method (VLM)

program for calculate subsonic aerodynamic characteristic of complex planforms

using FORTRAN.

Zhang et al. (2002) reported the influence of tip vortex characteristics on the

aerodynamic performance of a cambered airfoil. Tip vortices generated by a

cambered, single element wing operating in ground effect were studied using a range

of methods including Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV), Laser Doppler Anemometry

(LDA), surface pressures, force balance measurements, and surface flow

visualization. They showed vortex breakdown occurred as the wing was lowered to

the ground, leading to a slowdown in the force enhancement. They equipped wing

with end plates and operated in ground effect.

wings in ground effect with incompressible Reynolds Average Navier-Stokes

(RANS) equations which are approximated by finite difference schemes. The main

objective of their study was to clarify the two-dimensional ground effect and its flow

characteristics due to different ground boundary conditions, moving and fixed

bottom boundary. According to their computational results, the difference in the lift

and moment simulated by two bottom conditions is negligible, but the drag force

simulated by the fixed bottom is to some extent smaller than that by the moving one.

drag during takeoff. As a WIG needs to run at high speed to lift itself from the

surface of the water, it faces significant amount of hull resistance, so that it can affect

12

the dynamic motion on a wig .So to get a solution of this problem (reducing drag) is

a worthy effort (Noverdo 2010). There are some option hulls forms can be used for

WIG craft. Research and development of advanced hull forms is a continuous to

developed, though not necessarily for reduced drag at high speed craft. Because of

the high speed requirements of WIG craft, displacement hulls are poor candidates, as

hull resistance is much too high (Todd 2002). Figure 2.1 shows the large range of

high-speed hull forms.

Planing hull has been chosen for the Wig as high speed is necessary to take-

off .In 1964 a comprehensive paper that summarized previous experimental studies

on the hydrodynamics of prismatic planing surfaces was presented by Savitsky

(1964). He presented a method for application of these results for the design of

moving ships. Besides, many laboratories and research centers have conducted

hydrodynamic studies on several fundamental planing hull phenomena. The

underlying principles of high speed planing craft resistance have been treated by

DuCane, Clyton and Bishop. Viscosity and free surface effects, including spray and

overturning waves, play significant roles, making both experimental and numerical

13

predictions of suitable hull parameters very difficult. The planing hull is a kind of

hull that is specifically designed for a craft to achieve relatively high speed on the

surface of water. A planing hull makes the water to be pushed down and to the sides

as the hull moves forward. By the wake depression behind the hull, the downward

motion of the water is observed. The pushing of the water sideways can be observed

by the spray produced to the sides of the hull. Figure 2.2 show downward and

sideways movement of water builds pressure under the hull (Saunders 1957).

The total wetted area surface of a planing hull is actually divided into 2

regions (Figure 2.3), the pressure area and spray area. The pressure area is the load

carrying area of the planing hull. The spray area contributes to the drag, but is not

considered to support any portion of the load (Savitsky 1964). The configuration will

be present as follows by (Todd 2002).

14

hulls have longitudinal and transverse curvature, the planing hull has a transverse

deadrise section and straight buttock lines to induce early flow separation. The

negative dynamic pressure induced on the convex hull surfaces causes a large trim by

the stern, increasing resistance when a traditional displacement hull operates at high

speeds. The planing hull is designed to develop positive dynamic pressure, so the

displacement decreases with increasing speed (Todd 2002).

Figure 2.4: Hydrostatic lift & hydrodynamics lift component (Savitsky 1964)

15

The investigation hydrodynamic planing hull has been widely applied to the

researchers. Many methods have been used to estimate. Hassan Ghassemi, Mahmoud

Ghiasi, has been tried to combine Boundary Element Method (BEM) for predicted

induced drag, the frictional drag (the boundary layer theory), and the spray drag

(practical method) .All combination has been used to determine hydrodynamic force

of planing hull in the calm water condition. In this investigation was investigated by

an amount of elements with steady speed latent every element, where induced force

was investigated using the free surface elevation condition and the Kutta condition at

the transom stern. And induced drag and lift force was investigated by intended

distributions of dynamic pressure (see Figure 2.4). The frictional resistance was

investigated using the boundary layer analysis method, based on estimation of the

momentum integral equation. The area of spray has present by a particular practical

approach (Ghassemi 2007).

In1997, Couser has used form factor to estimate the total viscous component,

where form factor has influenced on frictional resistance of the velocity

augmentation and changes in the boundary layer due to the modified pressure field

around the demihulls (1997). Takinaci et al, has presented to predicted predict the

flow around a three-dimensional rectangular foil section including the effect of

boundary layer used potential-based Surface Panel Method (SPM), where that

method based on boundary-integral formulation (Morino formulation) (2002).

the characteristics of the planing hull, later this formula is known as Savitsky Method

(SM) (1964, 1985, and 2007).

16

effect craft are rather different with the regular airplane .Chun and Chang (2002)

have tried to investigate longitudinal static stability 20-passenger WIG based on

wind tunnel test data, where the sea surface variation is neglected, and these a

surface is treated as a rigid wall. These stability characteristics play an important role

in designing a safe and efficient WIG due to its potential danger in sea surface

proximity.

hydrofoil ships, where all parameter investigation is fulfilled and recommendations

are obtained for the choice of combinations of the carrying system basic elements.

S.C. Rhodes and A.T. Sayers (2009) was investigated the effect of flat

ground on the aerodynamic force slender un-cambered DHMTU rectangular wing

with aspect ratio 3. The investigation were performed with comparison between

experimental work result and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) for investigate

influence of non-flat ground on the performance piece of rectangular wings in

ground condition, and was investigated in an open jet wind tunnel test with a flat

moving ground plane. The position ACH was found downstream of position the

ACP. The SSM were primarily unenthusiastic at all ground clearances (h/c), from

that result that rectangular wing was unstable in ground condition.

Hiromichi Akimoto, Syozo Kubo and Motoki Tanaka (2004), has tried to

applied canard stabilizer instead of horizontal tail and forward mounted propeller in

Wing in Surface effect Ship (WISES) to get stability requirement in the surface

effect.

17

for the longitudinal static stability of a high-speed craft with planing hull and

aerodynamic surfaces.

The dynamics in ground effect is quite dissimilar with the regular airplane

cause influenced by the ground, since the aerodynamic force and moment

coefficients, which in turn depend on height and angle of attack. Rozhdestvensky

(1998) has described longitudinal motion of ekranoplan in extreme ground effect for

very small relative ground clearances using singular asymptotic method, where

derivation of quartic and quintic characteristic equations of unsteady perturbed

motion is offered. In this analysis he shown in very close propinquity to the ground

parameters of stability and motion of the lifting system depend on curvature of the

lower side of the wing to relative ground clearance and ratios of design pitch angle.

In the other hand, the distances of the order of the chord from the moment of

perturbation the vehicle performs matching induced motions in height and pitch in

the same velocity.

with particular attention to the matters related to use of power augmentation and

peculiarities of static and dynamic stability has been described by Rozhdestvensky

(1998). Nikolai Kornev (2003) has tried to define the mathematical modeling of WIG

motion in all condition, such as planing, take-off, transition to flight, and flight itself.

The theory developed includes nonlinear hydro-aerodynamics base for simulation of

motion here enhances the process of designing WIG vehicles and can be used for

studying emergency problems in WIG operation. The results of numerical have been

18

compared with experimental data obtained for planing and flight condition of

motion.

(2009), where an analytical formulation is proposed for the force and moment

calculation in the existence of the ground and taking the aircraft attitude and sink rate

into account. This feature, the aerodynamic coefficients are firstly calculated for a

representative vehicle and its characteristics in ground effect and performance and

stability characteristics and non-linear dynamics are discussed with reference to

significant equilibrium conditions. Collu et al (2009) has been tried to solve advance

mathematical framework for the longitudinal dynamic stability of a high-speed craft

with planing hull and aerodynamic surfaces. The dynamic stability analyses of a 20-

passenger WIG during cruise has investigated by H.H. Chun, and C.H. Chang

(2002), where the quality of the 20-passenger WIG has analyzed according to the

military regulations.

The basic concept dynamic motion WIG come from conventional dynamic

motion airplane (see Figure 2.5), where mathematical dynamic motion airplane can

be expressed as (Chun 2002, Tulapurkara 2006).

(i)

19

2.6 Kumar (1972), Irodov (1970), Staufenbiel (1980), have been successfully to

introduce height derivatives for the wig in the above equation (Chun 2002).

X (ii)

Xh =

h

Z

Zh = (iii)

h

M

Mh = (iv)

h

20

After arranging equation (ii), 0, (iv) into equation (i), mathematical model

dynamic motion WIG craft can be expressed as (Chun 2002):

(v)

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

stability and longitudinal dynamic stability of a trimaran WIG during takeoff. The

research methodology consists of five main stages to complete the research. The

stages of research are: i) Initial design Model, ii) Computational calculation, iii)

Experimental work, iv) Comparison and analysis of computational results with

experiments or other published researchers, v) Longitudinal static and dynamic

stability analysis.

The model of WIG catamaran vehicle of current study designed use Maxsurf,

initial hydrodynamic calculation using Hidromax Maxsurf, for estimating weight

distribution using Workshop Maxsurf. The initial design of model and its principal

dimension are shown in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1.

22

Wing Span (b)

Dihedral Wing 0.208 m x2

Chord length (c)

Dihedral Wing 0.666 m

23

in the literature many researchers have tried to do it with a variety of methods, such

as the potential flow, particle image velocimetry combining between (PIV) and laser

Doppler anemometry (LDA), the Reynolds Average Navier-Stokes (RANS)

equations, and the Vortex Lattice Method (VLM).

In this thesis, using a VLM that will be combined with ground effect

Wieselsberger theory and Hemke theory used to determine the effect endplate to

aerodynamic characteristics. Richard and. Lamar method used to analyze the

complex wing shapes. Vortex lattice method was developed in three main category

algorithm using language programming Matlab to make certain code portability

transversely model, where categories are the preprocessor, the solver and the

postprocessor.

The preprocessor have function to set up the vertices and the boundary

environment beginning inputs. The preprocessor has several steps; such as input,

layout and meshing. See Figure 3.2 for illustration.

24

preprocessor (meshing) into the aerodynamic force, where all information from the

preprocessor was described all essential data for the arithmetical approach. The

solver has several steps, such as: downwash, boundary condition, inwash &

sidewash, force and coefficients computation. See Figure 3.3 for illustration.

25

inclusive way. In the other hand there are some problem to categorize data and to

select the best display of plot, expected that all problems can be solved in this phase.

This of course depends on the language used. See Figure 3.4 to illustrate flow of

postprocessor.

The calculation planning hull using the Savitsky method was set up in

Microsoft excel combine with Microsoft Visual Basic for iteration. The develop code

for this program similar with vortex lattice method, with three main phase,

preprocessor, processor and postprocessor. See Figure 3.5 for flowchart illustration.

26

Experimental Work will be do using the wind tunnel test LST-UTM to get the

aerodynamic force and the free running test to get the hydrodynamic force Lift force,

drag force, moment and centre of pressure of wing of a Trimaran WIG model (foil

NACA 6409) are experimentally will be done in LST-UTM wind tunnel with wind

speed 25.5 m/s, where its generated by a single stage fan that delivering maximum

air speed 80 m/s and propeller by 430 KW AC motor from ABB with Allen Bradley

system. Aerodynamic characteristic are deliberate with various primary aerodynamic

parameters such as clearance of ground, angle of attack and aspect ratio (AR) in test

section 2.0 m wide x 1.5 m high x 5.5 length with windows on both sides, settling

chamber with a acceptable flow quality, where velocity uniformity <0.15,

temperature uniformity <0.2C, flow angle uniformity <0.15 and turbulence

intensity <0.06%). Visualizing the flow of the air including the tip vortices around

the wing and wake subsequent the wing during test has been done using smoke trace

test and the model test has support with 3-strut support system with various ground

clearance (h/c) and angle of attack (). Aerodynamic forces, moments, and pressure

distribution are measured with electronic pressure scanner 128 port scan valve

27

system and 6-component balance with accuracy of the balance within 0.04% based

on 1 standard deviation. All data test have been read and stored at control room with

fully integrated automatic control.

Hydrodynamics drag obtained from the free running test. Telemetry system

used to obtain the data directly. Then the data were found will be converted using

equation from the calibration rig.

published work, analysis and discussion and then writing report. According of

experimental results will be tried to find the best computational simulation.

longitudinal static stability and longitudinal dynamic stability WIG trimaran with

planing hull. In this stage static stability margin was modified with new

configuration where, planing hull was added into that configuration. Then, new

configuration dynamic motion during take-off was created after undertaking the

classical WIG motion by adding hydrodynamic characteristic, so, the complete

equations motion of a trimaran WIG during take-off solved and investigated

28

GET DATA

GET DATA

(NUMERICAL)

(EXPERIMENT)

VALIDATE DATA

N VALIDATE DATA

(PUBLISH WORK & N

(MEASUREMENT SET

COMMERCIAL

UP AND FLOW

Y

Y

AERODYNAMIC & HYDRODYNAMIC

RESULT

RESULT

VALIDATION

N CHECK N

DATA

STATIC STABILITY CRITERIA

NEW CONFIG.DM

DYNAMIC STABILITY

CHAPTER 4

4.1 Introduction

hydrodynamic characteristic, longitudinal static stability and longitudinal dynamic

stability WIG during take-off.

The traditional representation for flat wing is shown in equation (vi), see

Figure 4.1 for illustration (Margason 1971):

30

equation (vii), see Figure 4.2 for illustration.

31

Equation (viii) show wing from upstream toward the trailing edge of the right

half of the wing span and see Figure 4.3 for illustration.

Figure 4.3: Looking from upstream toward the trailing edge (Margason 1971)

= l = r (ix)

W = v tan U (x)

32

Figure 4.4.

Related from Figure 4.4, equation (viii) (ix) (x) can be expressed for

downwash influenced coefficient:

( x ) + ( y sin ) + cos ( y tan 2 + z 2 sec 2 ) ' 2 z cos sin ( y + x ' tan ' )

' 2 2 2 2

x

( )

x ' + s cos tan ' cos tan ' ( y + s cos ) cos + ( z + s sin )

[(

x ' + s cos tan '

2 2

)

+ ( y + s cos ) + ( z + s sin )

2

]

x

( '

s cos tan '

)cos tan '

(y s cos )cos + (z s sin )

[(x '

s cos tan '

) 2

+ (y s cos

2

) + (z s sin )2

]

33

2

[( y s cos ) + (z s sin ) ] (x ' s cos tan ' )2 + ( y s cos )2 + (z s sin )2

2

[ ] 1

2

2

+

[( y + s cos ) + (z + s sin ) ] (x ' + s cos tan ' )2 + ( y + s cos )2 + (z + s sin )2

2

[ ]

1

2

( x ' ) 2 + ( y sin ) 2 + cos 2 ( y 2 tan 2 + z 2 sec 2 2 yx ' tan ' ) ' 2 z cos sin ( y + x ' tan ' )

x

x

( '

+ s cos tan '

)cos tan '

(y + s cos ) cos + (z + s sin )

[(x '

+ s cos tan '

) 2

+ (y + s cos

2

) + (z + s sin

2

) ]

(x '

s cos tan '

)cos tan '

(y s cos ) cos

+ (z s sin )

[(x '

s cos tan '

)

2

+ (y s cos

2

) + (z s sin 2

) ]

+

[( y + s cos )2 + (z + s sin )2 ] [(x '

+ s cos tan '

)2 2

+ ( y + s cos ) + ( z + s sin )

2

] 1

2

2

[( y s cos ) + (z s sin ) ]

2

[(x '

s cos tan ' 2

) + ( y s cos ) 2

+ ( z s sin )

2

]

1

2

z cos y sin

( x ' ) 2 + ( y sin ) 2 + cos 2 ( y 2 tan 2 + z 2 sec 2 2 yx ' tan ' ) ' 2 z cos sin ( y + x ' tan ' )

34

x

(x '

+ s cos tan '

)cos tan '

(y + s cos ) cos + (z + s sin )sin

[(x '

+ s cos tan ' ) +

2

(y + s cos )2 + ( z + s sin ) 1

2

]

(x '

s cos tan '

)cos tan '

(y s cos ) cos + (z s sin ) sin

[(x '

s cos tan ' ) +

2

(y s cos )2 + ( z s sin ) 1

2

]

x

(

x ' + s cos tan ' cos tan ) '

(y + s cos ) cos + (z + s sin )sin

[(

x ' + s cos tan '

2

+ ) (y + s cos

2

) + (z + s sin )

1

2

]

(x '

s cos tan '

)cos tan '

(y s cos ) cos + (z s sin )sin

[(x '

s cos tan ' ) +

2

(y s cos )2 + ( z s sin ) 1

2

]

We have known, infinitive vortex lines induces a flow field have been

expressed by Biot-Savart, and have been modified by Bertin & Smith. It takes the

form of equation:

1 r .r r1 r2 (xiv)

U= n 1 2 r0

4 [r1 .r2 ]2 r1 r2

From equation (xi) (xii) (xiii) (xiv), downwash, sidewash, backwash velocity

could be expressed as:

1 (xv)

U u ,v , w = n Fu , v , w ( x , y , z , s , , )

4

35

n (xvi)

(Fw Fv tan ) = U

4

each half of the wing, equation (xvi) can be expressed as:

N

2

n =1 4

(Fw ,n Fv ,n tan n ) = U (xvii)

The lift per unit length of a vortex filament for wing with dihedral can be

written as Kutta-Joukowski theorem (Margason 1971):

l ~ = V (xviii)

divided by free stream dynamic pressure can be expressed to implement equation

(xviii) as:

lt~ 2 V (xix)

Clt = = cc

qSref Sref U U

Like equation (xix) the expression a spanwise bound vortex filament divided

by free stream dynamic pressure and reference area can be expressed as:

l s~ 2 u v

Cl s = = (2 s ) 1 + tan cos (xx)

qSref Sref U U U

36

Finally, the total lift coefficient in out ground effect can be expressed as:

N /2

2 l s~ lt~

Cl (OGE ) = 2 +

n S qSref n qSref n (xxi)

Wieselsberger theory and effect endplate base on Paul E. Hemke Theory. Detail

explanation will be present in sub chapter below.

predicting the reduction in induced drag for wing at various heights of the quarter

chord of the wing above the ground . Experiments have been full field by Elliot

G.Reid (1937) and Arthur W Carter (1961). The induced drag in ground effect is

given by the equation:

2

C S (xxii)

C Di ( IGE ) = (1 ) L 2

b

Where:

37

h

1 1.32

= c (xxiii)

h

1.05 + 7.4

c

b2 1

C L ( IGE ) = C Di (xxiv)

s 1

as:

1

C L ( IGE ) = C L ( OGE ) (xxv)

1

The frictional drag of the endplates can reduce induced drag, is sufficiently

large to increase the efficiency of the wing. Analysis of experimental drag of wing

with endplate has done by Paul E. Hemke (1927).

2

C S

C Di (WE ) = (1 ) L 2 (xxvi)

b

Where:

38

2he (xxvii)

1.66

= c

2h

1 + 1.66 e

c

Just like equation (xxv) coefficient with endplate could be shown:

1 (xxviii)

C L (WE ) = C L ( NWE )

1

the empirical planing equations involved are thoroughly described in Savitsky. The

equations given, describe the lift, drag, wetted area, centre of pressure and propoising

stability limits of the planing hull, as a function of speed, trim angle, deadrise angle

and loading. These empirical planing equations are combined so as to formulate a

computational procedure in the form of a table where forces and moments acting on

a planing hull are considered, in order to determine an equilibrium trim are

applicable only to the bottom pressure area aft of the leading edge stagnation line. On

that basis a prediction can be made on resistance, effective power, running trim, and

draft and porpoising stability of a prismatic planing hull. His calculations show the

following:

i. For the first time we should know centre of pressure planing hull. Centre of

pressure for a flat planing surface is given by J.B. Hadler (1966):

39

LCP 1

Cp = 0.75 ( ) (xxix)

LM Cv 2

5.21 + + 2.39

2

Where:

( LK + LC )

= (xxx)

2B

b tan (xxxi)

L K = LM +

2 tan

b tan (xxxii)

LC = LM

2 tan

LCP = C P = C P LM

(xxxiii)

Planing hull also has hydrodynamic lift; Savitsky method involves the

following empirical equations:

following equation D. Savitsky (1927):

Vs

Cv = (xxxiv)

gb

40

The lift coefficient for flat planing hull (zero dead rise) is given by the

following equation Savitsky (1964):

Displ

C Lo = (xxxv)

0.5 V 2 b 2

Also can be described with parameter angle of trim and speed coefficient by

Savitsky (1964):

0.00552.5

C Lo = 1.1 (0.0120.5 + 2

) (xxxvi)

Cv

Savitsky [0] as:

0.6

C L = C Lo 0.0065 C Lo (xxxvii)

surface is simply developed for a given vessel speed (VS) (Hadler 1966):

0.5

VM 0.0120.5 1.1 0.0065 (0.0120.5 1.1 ) 0.6 (xxxviii)

1

VS cos

drag developed by pressure acting normal to the inclined bottom and

41

viscous drag acting tangential to the bottom in both of pressure area and

spray area Savitsky (1964).

Df

D = tan + (xxxix)

cos

C f V12 (b 2 )

Df = (xl)

2 cos 4

Where Cf is applied according ITTC, 1959 friction line, and is given by the

following:

0.075

Cf = (xli)

( LogRe 2) 2

VM xLM xbxVs V

Re = = x M (xlii)

VS

developed by J.B Hadler (1966).

Calculate Total Moment from moment due to displacement and moment due

to drag force:

42

M T = M + M Df (xliii)

Where:

M =

cos cos

f

(xlv)

M Df = Df a c tan

cos

cos( 0 + )

RT =

cos

[

sin 0 + D f 0 ] (xlvii)

Where:

M BH 1 ( 2 1 ) (xlviii)

0 = 1

M BH 2 M BH 1

Df 2 Df1

Df 0 = Df1 + 0 1 (xlix)

2 1

43

TT = RT xMfactor (l)

Where:

1.45

2 B B

WIG should be stable in pitch like an airplane, if rigid body have been

disturbed should be return to undisturbed position (Chun 2008), and mathematically

give as:

C M < 0 (lii)

CM = = x <0 (liii)

d dCl d

dCM

CM = CL < 0 (liv)

dCL

If:

44

C L > 0 (lv)

So:

dC M (lvi)

<0

dC L

Where:

dC M X X ac (lvii)

= cg

dC L c

dC M X cg X ac (lviii)

= <0

dC L c

(COG) of the craft in front of the aerodynamic center of pitch (ACP).

WIG also need to have stability in the vertical dimension. The mathematical

can be expressed as Kumar (1968):

C Mh = = x <0

dh dCl dh

45

C M

C Mh = C Lh < 0 (lxi)

C L

negative, mathematical have been expressed by Irodov (1970) and Staufenbiel

(1980).

C Lh < 0 (lxii)

So:

dC M (lxiii)

>0

dC L

Where:

dC M X Xh (lxiv)

= cg

dC L c

C M X cg X h (lxv)

= >0

C L c

46

From equation (lxv) we can describe the position center of gravity (COG)

craft behind of aerodynamic center in height (ACH).

can be derived as:

(lxvi)

X ac X h > 0

center in height are referred to as Static Stability Margin (SSM) (Rhodes 2009)

(lxvii)

SSM = X ac X h > 0

The above formula only for cruise condition but for takeoff condition,

hydrodynamic forces also affect the static stability margin. Planing hull have pitch

stability, and mathematically give as (Savander 2003):

C M

C MH = CLH < 0 (lxix)

CL

47

If:

So:

dC M (lxxi)

<0

dC L

Where:

C M X cg X H (lxxii)

=

C L c

Refer to equation (lviii) and equation (lxv) derivatives could be written as:

C M X cg X H (lxxiii)

= <0

C L c

From equation (lxxiii) we can describe the position center of gravity (COG)

of the craft should be located upstream of the Hydrodynamic center of pitch (HCP).

The position HCP WIG during take-off similar with prediction Collu et Al [0]

for AAMV, where the position hydrodynamic centre in heave (HCH) should be

located downstream of the aerodynamic centre in height (ACH) and aerodynamic

centre of pitch (ACP).

48

in height (ACH) should be located upstream of the centre of gravity (COG) of the

craft , aerodynamic centre of pitch (ACP) & hydrodynamic centre in Pitch (HCP)

should be located downstream of centre of gravity (COG) of the craft. So, new

configuration Static Stability Margin (SSM) a trimaran WIG during take-off can be

written as:

Positive and negative signs from above formula, only to indicate the position

of force in front of or behind the centre of gravity (COG), positive for behind COG,

negative for in front of COG.

The new configuration static stability margin can be illustrated from the

Figure 4.5.

49

during the take-off is very different with cruising. Because at during take-off not

only the aerodynamic force that influence but also influence the hydrodynamic force.

Conditions are very similar to aerodynamically alleviated marine vehicle (AAMV),

where mathematical models have been created by M.Collu et.al (2009). The factors

that influence in this analysis are aerodynamic force, hydrodynamic Force,

propulsion system, control system, disturbance, and gravity. Total Force can be

illustrated as:

F = Fa + Fh + Fp + Fc + Fg + Fd (lxxv)

Each force with equilibrium state with subscript (0) and perturbation from the

datum with subscript () can be expressed as;

F = F0 + F ' (lxxvi)

The traditional aircraft motion can be expressed like equation (i) and after

add height derivatives into that equation, equation WIG motion become equation (v),

after taking into equation (lxxvi) and Tailor linear expansion equation can be

expressed as:

50

Where:

F0a = ( X 0a Z 0a M 0a ) T (lxxviii)

a a a

'

a a a

'

X . X . X . . X u.. X w.. X q.. ..

u u u

w q

X ha

a ' a . a ..

F a' = Z h h + Z . Z a. Z a. a a

w + Z u.. Z w.. Z q.. w (lxxix)

M a u w q

. .

h a

q q..

M . M a. M a. M ..a M a.. M ..a

u w q

u w q

added mass and damping coefficients with respect to the aero-hydrodynamic

axis system, where that forces are extended in a Taylor series through the third

order equations of motion and was written as discrepancy equations with steady

coefficients with linearize the non-linear scheme of equations of motion and

derivatives are separated in restoring coefficients.. That equation expressed as:

(lxxx)

F h = F0h + F h '

51

Where:

F0h = ( X 0h Z 0h M 0h ) T (lxxxi)

h h h

'

h h h

'

h h

0 X w X q X . X . X . . X u.. X w.. X q.. ..

u u u

' u w q

h' h h

F = 0 Zw Zq w + Z h Z h Z h

. h h h

..

u. . . w + Zu.. Zw.. Zq.. w (lxxxii)

q w q

. ..

0 M h M h h q h q

w q

M . M h. M h. M .. M h.. M ..h

u w q

u w q

In this thesis thrust from propulsion system equal with total drag WIG during

take-off. Control force is zero with assume control system are fixed. Disturbance

from environmental, and other disturbance are neglected. Forces are expressed as:

F p = F0p (lxxxiii)

F c = F0c (lxxxiv)

Fd = 0 (lxxxv)

52

Where:

F0g = (0 mg 0) T (lxxxvii)

F g ' = ( mg 0 0 ) (lxxxviii)

T

reached after under taking equation (lxxix), (lxxxii), (lxxxiii), (lxxxiv), (lxxxv),

(lxxxvi) into longitudinal linearized equations of motion with accelerations are 0 and

all the perturbations velocities and the perturbation characteristic (RULM standard).

So equation can be expressed as:

53

0 = X 0a + X 0h + X 0p + X 0c + X 0d + X 0g

0 = Z 0a + Z 0h + Z 0p + Z 0c + Z 0d + Z 0g

(lxxxix)

0 = M 0a + M 0h + M 0p + M 0c + M 0d + M 0g

is decoupled) can be expressed as (superscript .representing the perturbated state

will be omitted):

..

X = m u'

.. .

Z = m( w' q 'V0 )

..

M = I q q' (xc)

After under taking equation (xc) into equation (lxxxix) and eliminating the

insignificant conditions, the numerical equation of motion a trimaran WIG during

take-off written in the aero-hydrodynamic axis system can be shown as:

.. .

u u u

.. . w + [D ]h = 0 (xci)

[A] w + [B ] w + [C ]

.. .

q q q

Where, matrix [A] is the amount of the mass matrix, the hydrodynamic added

mass derivatives and the aerodynamic added mass. Usually in aerodynamics

aerodynamic added mass they are not called added mass terms, but simply

acceleration derivatives, so matrix [A] can be expressed as:

54

'

h a h h

m X .. X .. X .. X ..

u w w q

(xcii)

A = Z ..h m Z a.. Z h.. Z ..h

u w w q

M ..h M a.. M h.. I 55 q..

M h

u w w

'

a h a h a

h

X . X . X. X. X. X.

u u w w q q

B = Z a. Z h. Z a. Z ..h a

Z. Z. h

(xciii)

u u w w q q

M .a M .h M a. M h. M a. M h.

u u w w q q

'

h

h

0 X w X q

h

C = 0 Z wh Zq (xciv)

0 M wh h

Mq

Matrix [D] defines as effect of the ground clearances above the surface on the

aerodynamic characteristic, equation expressed as;

55

'

h h

0 X w X q

h (xcv)

C = 0 Z wh Zq

0 M wh M qh

off in cauchy standard expressed as:

'

[A] [B] [A] [C] [A] [D]

1 1 1

(xcvi)

H = [I ]3x3 [0]3x3 [I ]3x1

0 0 1 0 0 V0 0

CHAPTER 5

EXPERIMENTAL WORK

The wind tunnel is tunnel where model of an airplane or object test set in

there and windblown through it at a certain speed to study the way air moves around

the model. The wind tunnel has function to measure air velocity and pressures model

of an airplane or object test, where air rapidity during the investigation (called the

throat) is dogged by Bernoulli's principle, the dynamic pressure, the static pressure,

and the temperature measure in the air stream for compressible flow only. The route

of air stream roughly a model test can be resolute by tufts of thread attached to the

aerodynamic model surfaces and aerodynamic model surface can be visualized by

increasing air stream around test model, also can be use smoke trace or bubbles trace

to visualized air stream on test model. Pressures distributions on the test model are

regularly considered with beam balances where the model test connect to strut,

strings, and multi-tube manometers. Also can be considered using pressure-sensitive

paint where elevated restricted force is indicated by lowered fluorescence of the

paint at that point. Sensitive pressure belts furthermore can be utilize for determine

pressure distribution and multiple ultra-miniaturized pressure sensor modules are

incorporated into a stretchy shred, where the shred is close to the aerodynamic model

surface with adhesive and it transfer data depicting the distribution of pressure along

its model surface. There are various techniques can be used to study the actual air

57

stream roughly model test and system of process using Reynolds number and Mach

number (2008).

5.1.1 Facility Low Speed Wind Tunnel Universiti Technology Malaysia (LST -

UTM)

Low Speed Wind Tunnel University Technology Malaysia (LST -UTM) has

capability to deliver airspeed inside the test section with maximum speed 80 m/s,

where test section size area is 2.0 m wide x 1.5 m height x 5.5 m length. LST -UTM

have high accuracy and good repeatability of wind tunnel test results with capability

an excellent flow quality, where flow uniformity less than 0.15%,temperature

uniformity less than 0.2, flow angularity uniformity less than 0.15, and turbulence

less than 0.06%). LST-UTM also has capability to provide wide range of testing

include aircraft, ground surface vehicle and industrial aerodynamics such as building,

bridges, street-lantern light and wind turbine. LST-UTM has three important

components in the wind tunnel which is known as test section, fan-motor and settling

chamber (see Figure 5.2) (2008).

58

Pressure/Temperature : Atmospheric

transducer (128-port)

vehicle (automotive)

UTM and furnished with compress air facility for general purpose applications. The

test section is connected to wind tunnel control room via metal structure platform

(Figure 5.1) (Suhaimi 2008).

59

60

Lift force from airfoil generally developed by lower pressures above the wing

(downwash) below the wing (upwash) and side the wing (sidewash) with deference

to the pressure of the resembling air. Lift coefficient increases with higher angle of

attack up to an essential angle and ground clearance. This essential angle the lift

coefficient decreases drastically, generally are called stalled. Generally pressure

distribution considered with little tubes implanted in model test and connected to

anxiety transducer with 128 inlet port, where inlet port are placed at various percent

chord on both superior and inferior surfaces. The distribution of pressure ought to

extrapolate the previous dimensions on the superior and inferior surfaces of the

model test, where coefficient of pressure (Cp=0) at the trailing edge of the model

test. Function of the impetus theory will be use to indicated drag coefficient on the

model test, where air stream ought to equivalent with lessening in linear impetus that

flow stream. Since the air stream resembling the model test is homogeneous, the

coefficient drag could be written as (Rae 1984):

Yw

2

YW 1 (xcvii)

CD =

c qc qdy

Yw

2

flow restricted dynamic force.

The wake assessment is through as far from behind the model test as probable

to deliver the static pressure possessions insignificant. On the testing could be verdict

that the wake turf the coefficient drag obtained in the held up arrangement disagrees

with additional drag, and they ought to observe the assumptions completed in the

61

are dishonored by the stream above a stalled model test (Rae 1984).

1 P

C mLE =

c2 q x(dc) (xcviii)

Model for wind tunnel test should have significant strength to suffer

aerodynamic forces. The opportunities of the material selection to make the model

are aluminum with scale 1: 10, for detail specification model test see Table 5.1.

Model for wind tunnel test made use aluminum block ( Figure 5.3), than shaping

with 3 axis CNC Milling MAHO 500 E2 (Figure 5.4) with cold milling technique

(Figure 5.5). Finally model can be show at Figure 5.6.

Wing Span (b)

Dihedral Wing 0.20833 m x2

Chord length (c)

Dihedral Wing 0.66667 m

62

63

64

First time we must set up fan motor and drive system to get wind speed

on our experiment, where LST-UTM is propelled by ABB motor with

maximum power 430 kW AC and control with Allen Bradley drive

system. Power consumption of the motor with test section wind speed is

show in Figure 5.7 (Suhaimi 2008).

Figure 5.7: Set up fan power for wind speed (Suhaimi 2008)

Settling chamber is an area where the flow is control using honeycomb to

straighten the flow and three screens to reduce the turbulence intensity

(Figure 5.8). Heat exchanger was used to reject heat generates from air

friction and maintain the test section temperature at normal condition

(Figure 5.9) (Suhaimi 2008).

65

LST-UTM equipped with a 6-component balance for load measurements.

LST-UTM balance is a pyramidal type with virtual balance moment at

66

the centre of the test section and has a capability to measure aerodynamic

forces and moment in 3-dimensional (Figure 5.10). LST-UTM also can

be tested at various wind direction by rotating the model via turntable

with accuracy of the balance is within 0.04% based on 1 standard

deviation and maximum load range is 1200N for axial and side loads.

LST-UTM balance originally furnished with 3-strut support system (

Figure 5.11). Also provide street lantern light using single-strut support

(Figure 5.12) (Suhaimi 2008).

67

Figure 5.12: Street lantern light using single-strut support (Suhaimi 2008)

68

LST-UTM equipped with fully integrated automatic Control, data

Acquisition and Reduction System (DARS). The operation and post-

processing data of the tests, measurement of air properties, 6-component

balance, pressure transducer, hot-wire and others transducer can be read

and stored are done inside the control room (see Figure 5.13) (Suhaimi

2008)

Figure 5.13: Data Acquisition and Reduction System LST-UTM (Suhaimi 2008)

69

Set up surface pressure measurement using electronic pressure scanner

128 port scanivalve system, 2 x 64-port Electronic Pressure

Scanner(Scanivalve DMS 3000 ZOC Series), pressure rating 1 psid, 5

psid FS, +/-0.08 FS accuracy (see Figure 5.14) (Suhaimi 2008).

Smoke trace is one of a qualitative technique to visualize the air stream

on the model test surface (Figure 5.15) (Suhaimi 2008).

70

5.1.2.3 Testing

The experiment is carried out at the wind speed of 25 5 ms-1. For this class of

experiment, the determining apparatus used is a 3-Components Balance which is

capable of determining aerodynamic force (Suhaimi 2008).

i. Barometer and thermometer have been use in the laboratory to determine the

density of the air stream in section area test.

ii. Pitot probe (Figure 5.16) or air stream check apparatus (Figure 5.17) have been

use to calibrate the section area of wind tunnel by create a graph of velocity

(m/sec) versus frequency motor (0- 60 Hz) and processed that result using

Bernoulli's equation.

71

1 1

Pa + aU a2 = Pb + bU b2 where (xcix)

2 2

Ua = 0 U b = U (c)

,

1

Pa Pb = U 2 = q or (ci)

2

Pa Pb = 1 hg e and (cii)

1

2 (Pa Pb ) 2

U = or (ciii)

1

hg e 2

(civ)

U = 1

72

1

f

(x )

i 2

Y =

2

i (cv)

i xi

Y = f ( xi ) (cvi)

iv. A pressure wing is mounted vertically in the wind tunnel. The pressure tubes

(128 with locations indicated above) from wing are connected to the inlet

nipples of the multiplexed tunnel pressure sampling system. The static pressure

of the test section is connected to the reference connection of the pressure

transducer. The dynamic pressure of the air stream is measured with the Pitot

probe. Dividing the pressure measured with the sampling system by gives the

pressure coefficient at the point of the measurement.

v. Operate the tunnel at airspeeds of 25.5 m/sec and make pressure measurements

on the wing at angles of attack of 0, 1, 2, 3, until 10. Check the zero

velocity pressure measurements from the wing and pitot probe before each data

set, measure and correct for any offsets in the pressure transducer at zero

velocity.

Collecting data is very important, because the wrong data will cause errors in

the study. There are several stages in the data collection (Suhaimi 2008).

73

i. Plot the pressure coefficient data points (upper and lower surface) as a

function of distance along the chord line of the wing and integrate to find

the Normal Force coefficient Cn which is given as:

c

1

C n = (C PL C PU )dx (cvii)

c0

Find this normal force coefficient for all angles of attack, ground

clearance and wind speeds.

ii. Determine the Lift coefficients CL from CN and Plot CL versus angle of

attack and ground clearance for each wind speed. Show the results on one

graph for comparison purposes.

iii. On a separate graph plot CD versus angle of attack and ground clearance

for each wind speed. Note that this method does not measure drag viscous

forces due to shear stresses and thus may underrepresented the total drag

force on the wing. The drag force and drag coefficient measured in this

experiment is the component of the normal force in the direction parallel

to the free stream flow, and increases as the angle of attack increases.

c

1

Cmref = 2 (C PL C PU )(X X ref )dx (cviii)

c 0

74

a. Calculate the leading edge pitching moment C mLE for the airfoil

results in a table.

X cp CmLE

= (cix)

c CN

angle of attach and ground clearance for each velocity and present

the results in a table.

c. Calculate the pitching moment through the quarter chord point

as a function of angle of attack and ground clearance for each

velocity and present the results in a table.

measurements on the wing at angles of attack of 0, 1, 2, 3, until 10.

Check the zero velocity pressure measurements from the wing and pitot probe

before each data set, measure and correct for any offsets in the pressure

transducer at zero velocity.

across the wake for each angle of attack and ground clearance for the

three different velocities.

b. Calculate the drag coefficient for the airfoil by the momentum method

by integrating the wake pressure distribution for each angle of attack and

the three velocities. Plot this drag coefficient versus angle of attack for

each of the flow velocities used in the experiment, and compare this

result to the drag force computed in part 3 above. Make sure to comment

on any differences or discrepancies in the two different drag estimates.

75

vi. Determine the effect of Reynolds Number on lift, drag, and 1/4 cord

pitching moment coefficients. (Plot the lift and pitching moment coefficient

from the pressure wing measurements, and the drag coefficient from the wake

measurements versus Reynolds number for all available angle of attack and

ground clearance.)

After we get and process result from wind tunnel, results must be corrected

with several corrections. Ishak et al (2006) has been corrected result from LST-UTM

for blockage effect, buoyancy effect, wall interference correction and STI (Strut, Tare

and Interference) correction, because all effect are donate rather considerably to the

finishing result.

i. Blockage Effect

There are two type blockages during experiment, such as: Solid Blockage,

where velocity around the model increases, because that model (size,

thickness, and thickness distribution) decrease the region during test.

Wake blockage, where velocity around the model increase, because wake

behind model have a signify velocity lesser than the free stream velocity

where the exterior velocity wake in a near wall should be elevated than

the free stream velocity. Although steady amount of stream could

overtake during test, if the exterior wakes have higher velocity so, it has

an inferior pressure and boundary film raise on the model test (Ishak

2006). Total blockage correction can be expressed as:

76

So, uncorrected free stream velocity and dynamic force can be corrected

using by empirical formula:

Vc = Vu (1 + total ) (cxi)

( ( )

qc = qu 1 + 2 M 2 total ) (cxii)

articulated by as:

qu

CLc = CLu (cxiii)

qc

qu

CDc = CDu (cxiv)

qc

qu

CMc = CMu (cxv)

qc

correction for temperature, Mach number and pressure neglected.

The buoyancy effect can be expressed as:

dC p S F

C D = (cxvi)

dx SW

77

dC p SF

Where =2,28E -03 (Ishak et al (2006)), =1 if model test without

dx SW

fuselage.

Wall interference correction should be done because reflection of the

wing tips vortices in the tunnel walls, floor and ceiling (2006).

The STI corrections were collected & developed by subtracting all

dummy inverted data from no dummy inverted data that will need to be

subtracted from no dummy upright data for a pitch run only at = -15,

0 and +15 owing to current UTM-LST limitations (Ishak 2006).

considerably to the all consequence, the other corrections are unspecified to be very

fewer considerable, and consequently be overlooked (Ishak 2006).

The free running test done because of limited facilities at UTM Towing tank,

because the required maximums speed for testing about 14.4 m/s. The free running

test is divided into two parts, the telemetry data records and calibration RIG.

Telemetry data system will provide results directly, where the data we can get are

rpm versus speed. Calibration test rig was conducted to determine the amount of

thrust for each rpm DC motor. Then the data that is obtained from the telemetry

78

usingg the tables generated from the calibration rig.

rig

For more details can be seen from the illustration below (see Figure 5.18 - Figure

5.21). Detail instrumentation set can be seen at Appendix G.

79

CHAPTER 6

These validations have been done by Adi et.al (2010). The investigation using

a model of NACA 6409 rectangular wing section were performed using Vortex

Lattice Method, where numerical VLM has made using Matlab software (detail

programming can be seen at Appendix) with three different aerodynamic characters

such as aspect Ratios (AR 1, AR 1.5 and AR 2), angle of attack ( = 0o, 2o, 4o, 6o and

8o), Reynolds Number 5 x 106, ground clearance (h/c) 0.1 and 0.3, height endplate

ratio 0.05 c .Ground clearance (h/c ) is ratio of distance between wing trailing edge

and ground surface (h) to wing chord length (c). The number of span wise panel 450

elements and number of chord wise panel 1000, totally number of panel around

450,000 panel elements (see Figure 6.1).

81

Figure 6.3 - Figure 6.7 shows the comparison results of lift coefficient (CL)

between VLM simulation, CFD simulation (has done by Saeed et al (2010)), and

experimental data (done by Jung et. al. (2008)) for wing only. The validation is

summarized in Table 6.1 Table 6.6. The lift coefficient varied with angle of attack

for three Aspect ratios (AR = 1, 1.5, and 2) and two ground clearances (h/c = 0.1 and

0.3). The influence of aspect ratio on lift coefficient in VLM models would be

declared on CFD simulation and experimental simulation. The magnitude of lift

coefficient increases with increment of aspect ratio, angle of attack, and ground

clearance. According to Figure 6.3 - Figure 6.7 lift coefficients of VLM at 0o - 2o

angle of attack less accurate than CFD results, where CFD closer to experimental

results. At 4o - 8o, VLM results better than CFD results, because near experimental

results.

82

Table 6.1: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.1, based on

VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR = 1

attack VLM CFD Experimental

0 0.357952302 0.254 0.25

2 0.379089462 0.367 0.3

4 0.404755018 0.469 0.356

6 0.460767795 0.561 0.451

8 0.54730893 0.65 0.551

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

CL

0.3

VLM

0.2

CFD

0.1

EXPERIMENT JUNG

0

0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10

83

Table 6.2: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.1, based on

VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR = 1.5

attack VLM CFD Experimental

0 0.392493514 0.345 0.27

2 0.460781729 0.491 0.402

4 0.533152467 0.614 0.515

6 0.628637532 0.719 0.603

8 0.745457613 0.82 0.702

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

CL

0.4

VLM

0.3

0.2 CFD

0.1 EXPERIMENT JUNG

0

0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10

Figure 6.3: CL versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1.5

84

Table 6.3: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.1, based on

VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR = 2

attack VLM CFD Experimental

0 0.340190829 0.367 0.32

2 0.450304116 0.492 0.45

4 0.564994997 0.612 0.58

6 0.674853409 0.727 0.69

8 0.800041768 0.836 0.8

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

CL

0.4

VLM

0.3

0.2 CFD

0.1 EXPERIMENT JUNG

0

0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10

85

Table 6.4: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.3, based on

VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR = 1

attack VLM CFD Experimental

0 0.275981291 0.233 0.2

2 0.301317573 0.316 0.28

4 0.347455144 0.395 0.34

6 0.402863156 0.477 0.42

8 0.478528676 0.56 0.51

0.6

0.5

0.4

CL

0.3

VLM

0.2

CFD

0.1

EXPERIMENT JUNG

0

0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10

86

Table 6.5: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.3, based on

VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR = 1.5

attack VLM CFD Experimental

0 0.311971724 0.323 0.27

2 0.366250308 0.432 0.38

4 0.454401137 0.51 0.47

6 0.535782214 0.62 0.54

8 0.635346937 0.723 0.64

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

CL

0.4

0.3 VLM

0.2

CFD

0.1

EXPERIMENT JUNG

0

0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10

Figure 6.6: CL versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1.5

87

Table 6.6: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.3, based on

VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR = 2

attack VLM CFD Experimental

0 0.42799614 0.417 0.326

2 0.5283454 0.582 0.489

4 0.633181255 0.724 0.624

6 0.756297897 0.842 0.727

8 0.896594578 0.945 0.85

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

CL

0.4 VLM

0.3 CFD

0.2

0.1 EXPERIMENT JUNG

0

0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10

88

Figure 6.8 Figure 6.13 shows the comparison results of lift coefficient (CL)

between VLM simulation, and experimental data (Jung et. al. (2008)) for wing only

with endplate. The validation is summarized in Table 6.7 - Table 6.12. The lift

coefficient varied with angle of attack for three Aspect ratios (AR = 1, 1.5, and 2),

two ground clearances (h/c = 0.1 and 0.3), and height endplate ratio 0.05c (chord).

The influence of aspect ratio on lift coefficient in VLM models would be declared on

experimental simulation. The magnitude of lift coefficient increases with increment

of aspect ratio, angle of attack, and ground clearance. According to Figure 6.8

Figure 6.13 lift coefficients of VLM at 0o - 4o angle of attack bigger than

experimental results. At 6o - 8o, VLM results less than experimental results.

Table 6.7: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.1, endplate

ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR=1

attack VLM EXP

0 0.391986373 0.316129032

2 0.415133252 0.367741935

4 0.471442712 0.470967742

6 0.53668419 0.574193548

8 0.637483897 0.709677419

89

Figure 6.8: CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1, endplate he/c = 0.05

Table 6.8: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.1, endplate

ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR=1.5

attack VLM EXP

0 0.429811761 0.317460317

2 0.504592812 0.457142857

4 0.583844553 0.615873016

6 0.688408329 0.749206349

8 0.816335653 0.86984127

90

Figure 6.9: CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1.5, endplate he/c = 0.1

Table 6.9: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.1, endplate

ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR=2

attack VLM EXP

0 0.468689973 0.4125

2 0.578580431 0.56875

4 0.693384069 0.69375

6 0.82820663 0.825

8 0.981842706 0.9875

91

Figure 6.10: CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 2, endplate he/c = 0.05

Table 6.10: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.3, endplate

ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR=1

attack VLM EXP

0 0.302221566 0.258

2 0.329966819 0.335

4 0.380491146 0.406

6 0.441167347 0.477

8 0.524027137 0.554

92

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

CL

0.2

VLM

0.1

EXPERIMENT JUNG

0

0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10

Figure 6.11: CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1, endplate he/c = 0.05

Table 6.11: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.3, endplate

ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al.

Angle of AR=1.5

attack VLM EXP

0 0.341633967 0.298412698

2 0.401073353 0.4

4 0.497605554 0.501587302

6 0.586724337 0.603174603

8 0.695755664 0.73015873

93

Figure 6.12: CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1.5, endplate he/c = 0.05

Table 6.12: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.3, endplate

ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR=2

attack VLM EXP

0 0.372536141 0.36875

2 0.459882082 0.475

4 0.551133244 0.6

6 0.658296357 0.7

8 0.780413308 0.8375

94

Figure 6.13: CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 2, endplate he/c = 0.05

Figure 6.14 - Figure 6.19 shows the comparison results of drag coefficient

(CD) between VLM simulation, CFD simulation (has done by Saeed et al. (2010)),

and experimental data (Jung et. al. (2008)) for wing only. The validation is

summarized in Table 6.13 - Table 6.18. The drag coefficient varied with angle of

attack for three Aspect ratios (AR = 1, 1.5, and 2) and two ground clearances (h/c =

0.1 and 0.3). The influence of aspect ratio on lift coefficient in VLM models would

be declared on CFD simulation and experimental simulation. The magnitude of drag

coefficient increases with increment of aspect ratio, angle of attack, and ground

clearance. According to Figure 6.14 - Figure 6.19 drag coefficients of VLM at almost

all angle of attack more accurate than CFD results, where CFD far away to

experimental results.

95

Table 6.13: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.1, based on

VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR = 1

attack VLM CFD Experimental

0 0.0386313 0.044 0.034

2 0.0394554 0.052 0.037

4 0.049345 0.066 0.043

6 0.0649006 0.084 0.059

8 0.0839587 0.107 0.079

0.12

0.1

0.08

CD

0.06

VLM

0.04

CFD

0.02

EXPERIMENT JUNG

0

0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10

96

Table 6.14: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.1, based

on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR = 1.5

attack VLM CFD Experimental

0 0.038270726 0.042 0.028

2 0.039918994 0.05 0.031

4 0.050529721 0.065 0.041

6 0.066960894 0.084 0.052

8 0.085503911 0.108 0.071

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

CD

0.04 VLM

CFD

0.02

EXPERIMENT JUNG

0

0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10

Figure 6.15: CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1.5

97

Table 6.15: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.1, based on

VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR = 2

attack VLM CFD Experimental

0 0.038064693 0.039 0.021

2 0.04007352 0.048 0.026

4 0.050941788 0.063 0.034

6 0.067475978 0.082 0.047

8 0.086018994 0.105 0.065

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

CD

VLM

0.04

CFD

0.02

EXPERIMENT JUNG

0

0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10

98

Table 6.16: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.3, based on

VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al.

Angle of AR = 1

attack VLM CFD Experimental

0 0.0424303 0.046 0.036

2 0.0433355 0.054 0.039

4 0.0541977 0.065 0.049

6 0.071283 0.081 0.06

8 0.0922153 0.101 0.08

0.12

0.1

0.08

CD

0.06

0.04 VLM

CFD

0.02

EXPERIMENT

JUNG

0

0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10

99

Table 6.17: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.3, based

on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR = 1.5

attack VLM CFD Experimental

0 0.042034324 0.042 0.0327

2 0.043844685 0.051 0.03758

4 0.055498885 0.062 0.04848

6 0.073545924 0.085 0.06424

8 0.093912487 0.103 0.08121

0.12

0.1

0.08

CD

0.06

VLM

0.04

CFD

0.02

EXPERIMENT JUNG

0

0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10

Figure 6.18: CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1.5

100

Table 6.18: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.3, based on

VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al.

Angle of AR = 2

attack VLM CFD Experimental

0 0.041808029 0.043 0.025

2 0.044014407 0.052 0.03

4 0.055951476 0.066 0.04

6 0.074111662 0.085 0.055

8 0.094478225 0.106 0.075

0.12

0.1

0.08

CD

0.06

VLM

0.04

CFD

0.02

EXPERIMENT JUNG

0

0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10

101

Figure 6.25 shows the comparison results of drag coefficient (CD) between

VLM simulation, and experimental data (Jung et. al. (2008)) for wing only with

endplate. The validation is summarized in

Table 6.19 - Table 6.24. The lift coefficient varied with angle of attack for

three Aspect ratios (AR = 1, 1.5, and 2), two ground clearances (h/c = 0.1 and 0.3),

and height endplate ratio 0.05c (chord). The influence of aspect ratio on lift

coefficient in VLM models would be declared on experimental simulation. The

magnitude of lift coefficient increases with increment of aspect ratio, angle of attack,

and ground clearance. According to Figure 6.20 Figure 6.25 drag coefficients of

VLM at almost all angles are quite similar to the experimental results. Only at AR =

2, h/c = 0.1, and endplate ratio he/c = 0.05 less accurate than experimental results.

102

Table 6.19: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.1, endplate

ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR=1

attack VLM EXP

0 0.0353822 0.03547

2 0.036137 0.038

4 0.0451949 0.048

6 0.0594421 0.059

8 0.0768973 0.0789

Figure 6.20: CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1, endplate he/c = 0.05

103

Table 6.20: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.1,

endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR=1.5

attack VLM EXP

0 0.031913548 0.02788

2 0.033288021 0.03194

4 0.042136191 0.04064

6 0.05583797 0.05297

8 0.071300793 0.07094

Figure 6.21: CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1.5, endplate he/c = 0.05

104

Table 6.21: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.1, endplate

ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR=2

attack VLM EXP

0 0.031741738 0.0235

2 0.033416878 0.0294

4 0.04247981 0.03529

6 0.056267493 0.04706

8 0.071730316 0.06353

Figure 6.22: CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 2, endplate he/c = 0.05

105

Table 6.22: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.3, endplate

ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR=1

attack VLM EXP

0 0.0353822 0.03547

2 0.036137 0.038

4 0.0451949 0.048

6 0.0594421 0.059

8 0.0768973 0.0789

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

CD

0.04

0.03

0.02 VLM

0

0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10

Figure 6.23: CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1, endplate he/c = 0.05

106

Table 6.23: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.3,

endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR=1.5

attack VLM EXP

0 0.035051971 0.03

2 0.036561612 0.036

4 0.046279924 0.045

6 0.061329156 0.059

8 0.078312614 0.0789

Figure 6.24: CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1.5, endplate he/c = 0.05

107

Table 6.24: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.3, endplate

ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al

Angle of AR=2

attack VLM EXP

0 0.034863266 0.0341

2 0.036703141 0.03773

4 0.046657335 0.04478

6 0.061800919 0.06125

8 0.078784377 0.078

Figure 6.25: CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 2, endplate he/c = 0.05

108

Model has been calculated using VLM software and has been compared with

experimental result at Wind Tunnel LST-UTM. The investigation was conducted

using NACA 6409 with configuration 50% rectangular wing, 50 % Dihedral reverse

wing with various angle of attack (0o, 2o, 4o, 6o, 8o, 10o) for Aspect Ratios (AR) 1.25,

various ground clearances (from h/c = 0 until h/c = 0.4), and taper 0.8 with dihedral

angle 13o at dihedral reverse wing without endplate and without endplate.

Figure 6.26 show results of lift coefficient (CL) from VLM simulation, for

Rectangular-Dihedral (50-50) Wing Trimaran WIG Model without endplate. The

result is summarized in Table 6.25. The lift coefficient varied with angle of attack for

Aspect Ratios (AR = 1.25), and varied with ground clearances (from h/c = 0 until h/c

= 0.4). The magnitude of lift coefficient decreases with increment of ground

clearance, otherwise lift coefficient increase with increment angle of attack. Figure

6.27 show results of lift coefficient (CL) from VLM simulation, for Rectangular-

Dihedral (50-50) Wing Trimaran WIG Model with endplate 0.05c. The result is

summarized in Table 6.26 with various angle of attack for Aspect Ratios (AR =

1.25), and various ground clearances (from h/c = 0 until h/c = 0.4). As well as at

Figure 6.27, the magnitude of lift coefficient decreases with increment of ground

clearance, and lift coefficient increase with increment angle of attack. If the result

Figure 6.26 and Figure 6.27 is compared, lift coefficients wing with endplate

increase around 14.5%.

109

(50-50) wing trimaran WIG model without endplate using VLM

Table 6.25: Lift coefficient every angle of attack (AOA) versus ground clearance

(h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model without endplate (AR =

1.25) using VLM

0 DEGREE AOA 2 DEGREE AOA 4 DEGREE AOA 6 DEGREE AOA 8 DEGREE AOA 10 DEGREE AOA

0.02 0.620801 0.02 0.699522 0.02 0.784827 0.02 0.913803 0.02 1.084022 0.02 1.28236

0.04 0.493606 0.04 0.556198 0.04 0.624025 0.04 0.726575 0.04 0.861918 0.04 1.019619

0.06 0.433768 0.06 0.488772 0.06 0.548377 0.06 0.638495 0.06 0.757431 0.06 0.896015

0.08 0.398187 0.08 0.448679 0.08 0.503395 0.08 0.586121 0.08 0.695301 0.08 0.822517

0.1 0.374366 0.1 0.421838 0.1 0.47328 0.1 0.551057 0.1 0.653705 0.1 0.773311

0.12 0.357213 0.12 0.40251 0.12 0.451595 0.12 0.525809 0.12 0.623754 0.12 0.737879

0.14 0.344234 0.14 0.387885 0.14 0.435187 0.14 0.506704 0.14 0.60109 0.14 0.711069

0.16 0.334051 0.16 0.376411 0.16 0.422313 0.16 0.491715 0.16 0.583309 0.16 0.690034

0.18 0.325838 0.18 0.367156 0.18 0.411931 0.18 0.479626 0.18 0.568968 0.18 0.67307

0.2 0.319069 0.2 0.359528 0.2 0.403372 0.2 0.469661 0.2 0.557147 0.2 0.659086

0.22 0.313389 0.22 0.353128 0.22 0.396192 0.22 0.461301 0.22 0.54723 0.22 0.647354

0.24 0.308554 0.24 0.34768 0.24 0.390079 0.24 0.454183 0.24 0.538786 0.24 0.637365

0.26 0.304386 0.26 0.342983 0.26 0.38481 0.26 0.448048 0.26 0.531508 0.26 0.628755

0.28 0.300755 0.28 0.338892 0.28 0.38022 0.28 0.442703 0.28 0.525168 0.28 0.621256

0.3 0.297563 0.3 0.335296 0.3 0.376185 0.3 0.438005 0.3 0.519595 0.3 0.614663

0.32 0.294735 0.32 0.332109 0.32 0.372609 0.32 0.433842 0.32 0.514656 0.32 0.60882

0.34 0.292211 0.34 0.329265 0.34 0.369418 0.34 0.430127 0.34 0.510249 0.34 0.603607

0.36 0.289945 0.36 0.326711 0.36 0.366553 0.36 0.426791 0.36 0.506292 0.36 0.598926

0.38 0.287898 0.38 0.324405 0.38 0.363966 0.38 0.423779 0.38 0.502719 0.38 0.594699

0.4 0.286041 0.4 0.322313 0.4 0.361618 0.4 0.421045 0.4 0.499476 0.4 0.590862

110

Figure 6.27: CL versus h/c every AOA for AR = 1.25 rectangular-dihedral (50-50)

wing trimaran WIG model with endplate 0.05c using VLM

Table 6.26: Lift coefficient every angle of attack (AOA) versus ground clearance

(h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model (AR = 1.25) with

endplate (he/c=0.05) using VLM

0 DEGREE AOA 2 DEGREE AOA 4 DEGREE AOA 6 DEGREE AOA 8 DEGREE AOA 10 DEGREE AOA

0.02 0.7164806 0.02 0.807334 0.02 0.9057874 0.02 1.0546409 0.02 1.2510944 0.02 1.2510944

0.04 0.5696819 0.04 0.6419205 0.04 0.7202019 0.04 0.838557 0.04 0.9947594 0.04 0.9947594

0.06 0.5006217 0.06 0.5641031 0.06 0.6328948 0.06 0.7369022 0.06 0.8741688 0.06 0.8741688

0.08 0.459557 0.08 0.5178312 0.08 0.5809801 0.08 0.676456 0.08 0.802463 0.08 0.802463

0.1 0.4320644 0.1 0.4868524 0.1 0.5462235 0.1 0.6359876 0.1 0.7544564 0.1 0.7544564

0.12 0.4122682 0.12 0.4645459 0.12 0.5211967 0.12 0.6068481 0.12 0.7198889 0.12 0.7198889

0.14 0.3972885 0.14 0.4476667 0.14 0.5022591 0.14 0.5847984 0.14 0.6937319 0.14 0.6937319

0.16 0.3855361 0.16 0.4344241 0.16 0.4874016 0.16 0.5674992 0.16 0.6732102 0.16 0.6732102

0.18 0.3760577 0.18 0.4237437 0.18 0.4754187 0.18 0.5535471 0.18 0.6566593 0.18 0.6566593

0.2 0.3682447 0.2 0.41494 0.2 0.4655414 0.2 0.5420466 0.2 0.6430165 0.2 0.6430165

0.22 0.3616896 0.22 0.4075537 0.22 0.4572544 0.22 0.5323978 0.22 0.6315703 0.22 0.6315703

0.24 0.3561088 0.24 0.4012652 0.24 0.450199 0.24 0.5241829 0.24 0.6218252 0.24 0.6218252

0.26 0.3512984 0.26 0.3958448 0.26 0.4441176 0.26 0.5171021 0.26 0.6134255 0.26 0.6134255

0.28 0.3471081 0.28 0.3911232 0.28 0.4388202 0.28 0.5109341 0.28 0.6061085 0.28 0.6061085

0.3 0.3434245 0.3 0.3869725 0.3 0.4341633 0.3 0.5055119 0.3 0.5996763 0.3 0.5996763

0.32 0.3401604 0.32 0.3832945 0.32 0.4300368 0.32 0.5007073 0.32 0.5939766 0.32 0.5939766

0.34 0.3372476 0.34 0.3800123 0.34 0.4263544 0.34 0.4964197 0.34 0.5888904 0.34 0.5888904

0.36 0.334632 0.36 0.3770651 0.36 0.4230477 0.36 0.4925697 0.36 0.5843232 0.36 0.5843232

0.38 0.3322702 0.38 0.3744038 0.38 0.4200619 0.38 0.4890932 0.38 0.5801991 0.38 0.5801991

0.4 0.3301268 0.4 0.3719885 0.4 0.4173521 0.4 0.485938 0.4 0.5764563 0.4 0.5764563

111

Figure 6.28 show results of drag coefficient (CD) from VLM simulation, for

Rectangular-Dihedral (50-50) Wing Trimaran WIG Model without endplate. The

result is summarized in Table 6.27. The drag coefficient varied with angle of attack

for Aspect Ratios (AR = 1.25), and varied with ground clearances (from h/c = 0 until

h/c = 0.4). The magnitude of drag coefficient increases with increment of ground

clearance, and drag coefficient increase with increment angle of attack. Figure 6.29

show results of drag coefficient (CD) from VLM simulation, for Rectangular-

Dihedral (50-50) Wing Trimaran WIG Model with endplate 0.05c. The result is

summarized in Table 6.28 with various angle of attack for Aspect Ratios (AR =

1.25), and various ground clearances (from h/c = 0 until h/c = 0.4). The magnitude of

drag coefficient increases with increment of ground clearance, and drag coefficient

increase with increment angle of attack. Like above comparison, if the result Figure

6.28 and Figure 6.29 is compared, drag coefficients wing with endplate decrease

around 25.17%.

(50-50) wing trimaran WIG model without endplate using VLM

112

Table 6.27: Drag coefficient every angle of attack (AOA) versus ground clearance

(h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model (AR = 1.25) without

endplate using VLM

0 DEGREE AOA 2 DEGREE AOA 4 DEGREE AOA 6 DEGREE AOA 8 DEGREE AOA 10 DEGREE AOA

0.02 0.0139735 0.02 0.0144605 0.02 0.0182067 0.02 0.023976 0.02 0.0309065 0.02 0.0387736

0.04 0.0221029 0.04 0.0228732 0.04 0.0287989 0.04 0.0379245 0.04 0.0488871 0.04 0.0613311

0.06 0.0286216 0.06 0.0296192 0.06 0.0372925 0.06 0.0491095 0.06 0.0633052 0.06 0.0794193

0.08 0.0339653 0.08 0.035149 0.08 0.044255 0.08 0.0582782 0.08 0.0751242 0.08 0.0942468

0.1 0.0384253 0.1 0.0397645 0.1 0.0500661 0.1 0.0659307 0.1 0.0849888 0.1 0.1066223

0.12 0.042204 0.12 0.043675 0.12 0.0549897 0.12 0.0724144 0.12 0.0933467 0.12 0.1171077

0.14 0.0454466 0.14 0.0470306 0.14 0.0592147 0.14 0.0779781 0.14 0.1005187 0.14 0.1261053

0.16 0.0482596 0.16 0.0499416 0.16 0.0628798 0.16 0.0828047 0.16 0.1067404 0.16 0.1339107

0.18 0.050723 0.18 0.0524908 0.18 0.0660895 0.18 0.0870314 0.18 0.1121889 0.18 0.1407461

0.2 0.0528982 0.2 0.0547418 0.2 0.0689236 0.2 0.0907636 0.2 0.117 0.2 0.1467818

0.22 0.0548329 0.22 0.056744 0.22 0.0714445 0.22 0.0940833 0.22 0.1212793 0.22 0.1521504

0.24 0.0565651 0.24 0.0585365 0.24 0.0737014 0.24 0.0970553 0.24 0.1251104 0.24 0.1569567

0.26 0.0581248 0.26 0.0601506 0.26 0.0757336 0.26 0.0997315 0.26 0.1285602 0.26 0.1612846

0.28 0.0595366 0.28 0.0616116 0.28 0.0775732 0.28 0.102154 0.28 0.1316829 0.28 0.1652022

0.3 0.0608207 0.3 0.0629404 0.3 0.0792462 0.3 0.1043572 0.3 0.1345229 0.3 0.1687651

0.32 0.0619935 0.32 0.0641541 0.32 0.0807744 0.32 0.1063696 0.32 0.137117 0.32 0.1720195

0.34 0.063069 0.34 0.0652671 0.34 0.0821757 0.34 0.1082149 0.34 0.1394958 0.34 0.1750038

0.36 0.0640588 0.36 0.0662914 0.36 0.0834653 0.36 0.1099132 0.36 0.141685 0.36 0.1777502

0.38 0.0649727 0.38 0.0672372 0.38 0.0846561 0.38 0.1114813 0.38 0.1437064 0.38 0.1802862

0.4 0.0658192 0.4 0.0681131 0.4 0.085759 0.4 0.1129337 0.4 0.1455786 0.4 0.1826349

(50-50) wing trimaran WIG model with endplate 0.05c using VLM

113

Table 6.28: Drag coefficient every angle of attack (AOA) versus ground clearance

(h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model (AR = 1.25) with

endplate (he/c=0.05), using VLM

0 DEGREE AOA 2 DEGREE AOA 4 DEGREE AOA 6 DEGREE AOA 8 DEGREE AOA 10 DEGREE AOA

0.02 0.0104906 0.02 0.0108562 0.02 0.0136687 0.02 0.018 0.02 0.0232031 0.02 0.0232031

0.04 0.0165938 0.04 0.0171721 0.04 0.0216208 0.04 0.0284719 0.04 0.036702 0.04 0.036702

0.06 0.0214877 0.06 0.0222366 0.06 0.0279974 0.06 0.036869 0.06 0.0475264 0.06 0.0475264

0.08 0.0254994 0.08 0.0263882 0.08 0.0332245 0.08 0.0437524 0.08 0.0563996 0.08 0.0563996

0.1 0.0288478 0.1 0.0298532 0.1 0.0375872 0.1 0.0494975 0.1 0.0638054 0.1 0.0638054

0.12 0.0316847 0.12 0.032789 0.12 0.0412836 0.12 0.0543652 0.12 0.0700801 0.12 0.0700801

0.14 0.0341191 0.14 0.0353082 0.14 0.0444554 0.14 0.0585421 0.14 0.0754645 0.14 0.0754645

0.16 0.0362309 0.16 0.0374937 0.16 0.047207 0.16 0.0621657 0.16 0.0801354 0.16 0.0801354

0.18 0.0380803 0.18 0.0394075 0.18 0.0496167 0.18 0.0653389 0.18 0.0842259 0.18 0.0842259

0.2 0.0397133 0.2 0.0410975 0.2 0.0517445 0.2 0.0681409 0.2 0.0878378 0.2 0.0878378

0.22 0.0411659 0.22 0.0426006 0.22 0.053637 0.22 0.0706331 0.22 0.0910505 0.22 0.0910505

0.24 0.0424663 0.24 0.0439463 0.24 0.0553314 0.24 0.0728644 0.24 0.0939267 0.24 0.0939267

0.26 0.0436372 0.26 0.0451581 0.26 0.0568571 0.26 0.0748735 0.26 0.0965167 0.26 0.0965167

0.28 0.0446972 0.28 0.046255 0.28 0.0582381 0.28 0.0766922 0.28 0.098861 0.28 0.098861

0.3 0.0456612 0.3 0.0472526 0.3 0.0594942 0.3 0.0783462 0.3 0.1009932 0.3 0.1009932

0.32 0.0465417 0.32 0.0481638 0.32 0.0606414 0.32 0.079857 0.32 0.1029407 0.32 0.1029407

0.34 0.0473491 0.34 0.0489993 0.34 0.0616935 0.34 0.0812424 0.34 0.1047266 0.34 0.1047266

0.36 0.0480922 0.36 0.0497683 0.36 0.0626617 0.36 0.0825174 0.36 0.1063701 0.36 0.1063701

0.38 0.0487783 0.38 0.0504783 0.38 0.0635556 0.38 0.0836947 0.38 0.1078877 0.38 0.1078877

0.4 0.0494138 0.4 0.051136 0.4 0.0643836 0.4 0.084785 0.4 0.1092932 0.4 0.1092932

Figure 6.30 show results of lift coefficient (CL) from wind tunnel test LST-

UTM, for Rectangular-Dihedral (50-50) Wing Trimaran WIG Model with endplate.

The result is summarized in Table 6.29. The lift coefficient varied with angle of

attack for Aspect Ratios (AR = 1.25), and with varied ground clearances (h/c = 0.06,

0.1, 0.2, 0.4). The magnitude of lift coefficient decreases with increment of ground

clearance, otherwise lift coefficient increase with increment angle of attack.

114

Table 6.29: Experimental result of lift coefficient every angle of attack (AOA)

versus ground clearance (h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG

model with endplate (AR = 1.25)

0.06 0.274 0.382 0.509 0.657 0.814 0.992

0.1 0.251 0.360 0.486 0.633 0.791 0.966

0.2 0.193 0.306 0.431 0.573 0.733 0.901

0.4 0.076 0.200 0.319 0.452 0.618 0.772

Figure 6.30: Experimental result of lift coefficient every angle of attack (AOA)

versus ground clearance (h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG

Model with endplate (AR = 1.25)

Figure 6.31 show results of drag coefficient (CD) from wind tunnel test LST-

UTM, for Rectangular-Dihedral (50-50) Wing Trimaran WIG Model without

endplate. The result is summarized in Table 6.30. The drag coefficient varied with

115

angle of attack for Aspect Ratios (AR = 1.25), and varied with ground clearances

(h/c = 0.06, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4). The magnitude of drag coefficient increases with

increment of ground clearance, and drag coefficient increase with increment angle of

attack.

Table 6.30: Experimental result of drag coefficient every angle of attack (AOA)

versus ground clearance (h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG

model with endplate (AR = 1.25)

h/c 0 deg 2 deg 4 deg 6 deg 8 deg 10 deg

0.06 0.025009 0.026429 0.0394133 0.051727 0.063488 0.07634

0.1 0.028218 0.0305842 0.0427602 0.054590 0.06711 0.08061

0.2 0.036239 0.0409713 0.051127 0.058167 0.071648 0.09129

0.4 0.052281 0.0617455 0.067862 0.0760567 0.09429 0.11264

Figure 6.31: Experimental result of drag coefficient every angle of attack (AOA)

versus ground clearance (h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG

model with endplate (AR = 1.25)

116

Based on the chapter fifth "experimental work", there are several corrections

that must be done to improve the result generated from the experiments. A very

significant correction that must be done is Blockage effect. In this experiment, only

wing (without fuselage) that has been tested in wind tunnel test, so buoyancy effect

correction negligible. Ground effect resulting from wall is needed in the calculations,

so wall interference effect correction is also ignored. .STI correction is ignored

because it does not significantly affect the results. Blockage effect has corrected by

equation (cxiii) and equation (cxiv).

Figure 6.32 Figure 6.34 shows the comparison results of lift coefficient (CL)

between VLM simulation, Experimental LST-UTM, and Experimental LST-UTM

after correction for wing only with endplate. The validation is summarized in

Table 6.31 - Table 6.33. The lift coefficient varied with angle of attack for

Aspect ratios (AR = 1.25), three ground clearances (h/c = 0.06, 0.1 and 0.15), and

height endplate ratio 0.06c (chord). The magnitude of lift coefficient increases with

increment of aspect ratio, angle of attack, and ground clearance. According all table,

lift coefficients of VLM at 0o - 8o angle of attack bigger than experimental results.

The differences that occur are 27.7% - 37.4% at 0o, 15.11% 15.9% at 2o, 7.55% -

8.9 % at 4o, 2.3% - 4.55% at 6o, 0.04% - 0.8% at 8o. While the blockage effect

correction only reduce experiment result approximately 0.01% - 4.7%.

117

Table 6.31: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25, h/c = 0.06,

endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and

experimental LST-UTM after correction.

Angle of AR = 1.25

attack VLM Experiment Exp. After Correction

0 0.376057666 0.274335 0.271591697

2 0.447666724 0.38213 0.380008174

4 0.546223472 0.508853 0.503224784

6 0.676455994 0.656465 0.645618792

8 0.802463006 0.813657 0.795767884

Figure 6.32: Comparison of CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.06 he/c=0.06 and AR =

1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM after

correction

118

Table 6.32: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25, h/c = 0.1,

endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and

experimental LST-UTM after correction

AR = 1.25

Angle of attack Exp. After

VLM Experiment Correction

0 0.361689632 0.2510218 0.248511544

2 0.423743704 0.3606635 0.356188301

4 0.521196723 0.4864629 0.474521992

6 0.635987638 0.6324594 0.60942323

8 0.754456397 0.7905743 0.753711715

Figure 6.33: Comparison of CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 he/c=0.06 and AR = 1.25

between VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM after

correction

119

Table 6.33: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25, h/c = 0.15,

endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and

experimental LST-UTM after correction

AR = 1.25

Angle of attack Exp. After

VLM Experimental Correction

0 0.351298402 0.2218802 0.219661354

2 0.391123177 0.3338301 0.330942616

4 0.487401556 0.4584754 0.450601124

6 0.606848094 0.6024522 0.592498258

8 0.719888876 0.75018 0.719596239

Figure 6.34: Comparison of CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.15 he/c=0.06 and AR =

1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM after

correction

Figure 6.35 - Figure 6.37 shows the comparison results of drag coefficient

(CL) between VLM simulation, Experimental LST-UTM, and Experimental LST-

UTM after correction for wing only with endplate. The validation is summarized in

120

Table 6.34 - Table 6.36. The lift coefficient varied with angle of attack for Aspect

ratios (AR = 1.25), three ground clearances (h/c = 0.06, 0.1 and 0.15), and height

endplate ratio 0.06c (chord). The magnitude of drag coefficient increases with

increment of aspect ratio, angle of attack, and ground clearance. According to Figure

6.35 - Figure 6.37 lift coefficients of VLM approximately at 0o angle of attack bigger

than experimental results. But at 2o - 8o angle of attack less than experimental results,

difference case occur at h/c= 0.15 almost drag coefficient VLM result like

experimental results. The differences that occur are 2.9% - 6.45% at 0o, -0.3% -

1.5% at 2o, -2.7% -17.3 % at 4o, -16.3% 2.8% at 6o, -4.08% - 8.9% at 8o. While

the blockage effect correction only reduce experiment result approximately 0.01% -

4.1%.

Table 6.34: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25, h/c = 0.06,

endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and

experimental LST-UTM after correction

Angle of AR = 1.25

attack VLM Experimental Exp. After Correction

0 0.0254994 0.0250098 0.024759748

2 0.0263882 0.0264294 0.026282655

4 0.0332245 0.0394133 0.038977379

6 0.0437524 0.0517278 0.050873126

8 0.0563996 0.0600259 0.058706224

121

Figure 6.35: Comparison of CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.15 he/c=0.06 and AR =

1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM after

correction

Table 6.35: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25, h/c = 0.1,

endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and

experimental LST-UTM after correction

Exp. After

VLM Experimental Correction

0 0.028847786 0.0282183 0.027936125

2 0.029853205 0.0305843 0.030319721

4 0.037587196 0.0392979 0.038622954

6 0.049497542 0.05459 0.053688061

8 0.063805426 0.0671123 0.064376187

122

Figure 6.36: Comparison of CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.15 he/c=0.06 and AR =

1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM after

correction

Table 6.36: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25, h/c = 0.15,

endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and

experimental LST-UTM after correction

AR = 1.25

Angle of attack Exp. After

VLM Experimental Correction

0 0.034119095 0.0322289 0.031906597

2 0.035308232 0.0357778 0.035468353

4 0.044455443 0.046944 0.046137699

6 0.058542147 0.0581678 0.057206728

8 0.075464487 0.0716422 0.068721441

123

Figure 6.37: Comparison of CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.15 he/c=0.06 and AR =

1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM after

correction

program, where this program was developed using Savitsky formula and other

numerical and empirical formula. This program was validated with commercial

software Maxsurf Hullspeed.

124

6.3.1 Result and validation Savitsky Method (SM) program with Hullspeed

Maxsurf.

where numerical SM was modified with clement formula (0, 0, 0) to calculate

planning hull with step. The simulation was conducted with step 5% in front of

midship, speed around 0- 28 knot. These numerical simulations was performed

comparison between hull without steps and hull with step (clement steps) (Figure

6.38) , clear clement step hull produce lesser wake compare to the hull without step

which indicates clement hulls efficiency in terms of reducing hull resistance (Figure

6.39). These simulations have been validated with commercial Software Hullspeed

Maxsurf by noverdo et.al (2010) for calculate Trimaran WIG Prototype (Figure

6.40). From Figure 6.40 show the comparison results of drag water resistance

between SM simulation and Hullspeed Maxsurf for planning condition only, its

difference about 8.7 %. Detail simulation can be seen at Appendix F.

Figure 6.38: Hull without step and hull with step (Clementss step) (2010)

125

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

DRAG WATER (N)

1000

800

600

400

200

SM

HULLSPEED

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

SPEED(KNOT)

126

investigated without or with step in Figure 6.41 and was summarized at Table 6.37.

Figure 6.41 shows thrust WIG trimaran model without step increase from 0-4 knot,

but when entering in speed 5 knot thrust decrease. This is hump phenomena, where

WIG trimaran model phase change from not-planning condition into planning

condition, after that thrust increase. Different with thrust WIG trimaran model with

Clementss step, after entering phase planning hull, thrust decrease, cause Clementss

step reduce spray resistance planing hull, for detail illustration see Figure 6.39. In

this simulation also show the comparison results of lift coefficient (CL) between flat

planing surface and vee planing surface (see Figure 6.42), where for trimaran WIG

model using vee planing surface.

Table 6.37: Drag water resistance trimaran WIG model with and without Step

0 0 0

2 0.205746 0.226796

3 0.411492 0.453592

4 0.696039 0.994002

5 0.739101 0.931861

6 0.795435 0.912511

8 0.921248 0.998557

10 0.957213 1.137501

12 0.883638 1.283672

14 0.773276 1.458618

16 0.666103 1.677205

18 0.573435 1.944325

20 0.496157 2.261427

22 0.432272 2.629338

25 0.356311 3.279654

26 0.335243 3.52356

28 0.298167 4.05462

127

Figure 6.41: Drag water resistance trimaran WIG model with or without step using

Savitsky Method

Figure 6.42: Lift coefficient planing surface with and without step

128

procedure, we must to do calibration rigs in advance to know the thrust generated

each round of his DC motor. Figure 6.43 show result calibration rig, where

experiment was starting from 2085 rpm until 9900 rpm and result come out from

0.18 kg until 2.6 kg. The result is summarized in Table 6.38.

RPM THRUST(kg)

2085 0.18

2385 0.295

2475 0.395

3060 0.6

3175 0.69

3895 0.7

4170 0.883109

4770 1.067729

4950 1.123115

6120 1.483124

6350 1.553895

7790 1.996983

8340 2.166218

9540 2.535458

9900 2.64623

129

2.5

Thrust (kg)

1.5

0.5 THRUST(kg)

Linear

0

0 5000 10000 15000

RPM

After doing the calibration rig and then we started to retrieve data using data

telemetry system. Figure 6.44 shows the data obtained directly when the experiments

conducted, where data is obtained rpm vs. speed, and then using the Table 6.38, we

can determine how much thrust was generated every each propulsion in use. Free

running test uses 2 EDF (Electric Ducting Propeller) so that the thrust can be

multiplied 2 according with amount of propulsion in experiment. For calculate total

drag we using formula from Fox & Blound (1976). Figure 6.45 represents the results

obtained from the telemetry system after process. All result and process was

summarized at Table 6.39.

130

Table 6.39

39: Thrust from experiment free running test

Thrust 1

Thrust 2 Total

V(knot) RPM motor

motor(kg) Drag(T/Mfactor)

(kg)

0 0 0 0 0

2 2025 0.2735 0.547 0.558163265

3 2379 0.3797 0.7594 0.774897959

4 2445 0.3995 0.799 0.815306122

5 3045 0.5795 1.159 1.182653061

6 3165 0.6155 1.231 1.256122449

8 4030 0.875 1.75 1.785714286

10 3895 0.8345 1.669 1.703061224

12 4768 1.0964 2.1928 2.23755102

14 4788 1.1024 2.2048 2.249795918

16 5667 1.3661 2.7322 2.787959184

18 5789 1.4027 2.8054 2.862653061

20 5987 1.4621 2.9242 2.983877551

22 6103 1.4969 2.9938 3.054897959

25 6456 1.6028 3.2056 3.271020408

26 6678 1.6694 3.3388 3.406938776

28 6979 1.7597 3.5194 3.59122449

131

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

RPM

Figure 6.45: Total drag trimaran WIG model result from free running test

Figure 6.46 are shows comparison Thrust Trimaran WIG model between SM

with step, SM without step and free running test on speed range from 0 until 28 knot.

According Figure 6.46 trend line from free running test really different with trend

line from SM with step, but looks similar with without step. Its mean no more effect

stepped hull in this model, because step in this model very small. So in this moment

we assume Trimaran WIG model without stepped hull. At 0 5 knot numerical

result (SM without step) near with experimental (free running test) result (not

planing hull phase), where aerodynamic drag and side hull not more effect in this

result, but from 6-24 knot experimental result bigger than numerical result (SM

without step). This phenomena was happens because of aerodynamic drag (air drag

wing and fuselage) began to affect of experiment results, because numerical result

(SM without step) only for the hydrodynamic drag, and therefore need to be added

aerodynamic drag on the numerical results (scope other master student). From 24

28 knot numerical results (SM without step) bigger than experimental results (free

132

running test). This moment was occurred because draft fuselage Trimaran WIG was

changed or all body Trimaran WIG was began fly (take off condition). For detail

condition we can see Figure 6.47. The comparison was summarized in Table 6.40.

4.5

4

SM with step

3.5 hull

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 6.46: Comparison Drag Trimaran Wig Model every speed between

numerical result (SM) and experimental work (free running test)

Gap 4 cm Gap 5 cm

133

Table 6.40: Comparison drag trimaran WIG model between SM and free running test

SM

SM with

V without EXP

step

step

0 0 0 0

2 0.205746 0.226796 0.558163

3 0.411492 0.453592 0.774898

4 0.696039 0.994002 0.815306

5 0.739101 0.931861 1.182653

6 0.795435 0.912511 1.256122

8 0.921248 0.998557 1.785714

10 0.957213 1.137501 1.703061

12 0.883638 1.283672 2.237551

14 0.773276 1.458618 2.249796

16 0.666103 1.677205 2.787959

18 0.573435 1.944325 2.862653

20 0.496157 2.261427 2.983878

22 0.432272 2.629338 3.054898

25 0.356311 3.279654 3.27102

26 0.335243 3.52356 3.406939

28 0.298167 4.05462 3.591224

(SSM) during take-off rectangular-dihedral reverse wing NACA 6409 Trimaran WIG

model, aspect ratio (AR) 1.25, ground clearance (h/c) = 0.06, 0.1, 0.3, endplate he/c

= 0.06c. Regarding equation (lxxiv) the distance between the Aerodynamic Centre in

Pitch (ACP), Hydrodynamic Centre in Heave (HCH) and Aerodynamic Centre in

Height (ACH) must be bigger than zero. Figure 6.48 show stability condition wing

without endplate in variation ground clearance. At h/c = 0.06, SSM in stable

condition, but when entering at h/c 0.1, SSM becomes unstable, and after entering

h/c = 0.3, SSM becomes stable again. The phenomenon occurred again in WIG with

endplate (Figure 6.49). From both of figures it can be concluded there is not a stable

phase between h/c = 0.06 and h/c 0.3, where these phase is a take-off phase. The

results are summarized in Table 6.41 Table 6.42. To overcome instability during

134

the takeoff, tail added (NACA 0012, AR = 5) at the trimaran design WIG. Figure

6.50 show stability condition wing with endplate in variation ground clearance after

added tail. SSM become stable in all ground clearance (h/c). The results are

summarized in Table 6.43.

Table 6.41: SSM on rectangular-dihedral reverse wing NACA 6409 A/R = 1.25

trimaran WIG model without endplate

WITHOUT ENDPLATE

ANALYSIS STATIC STABILITY MARGIN

(assume cog=0.3 c)

h/c h/c h/c

0.06 0.1 0.3

Cma -0.012 -0.0103 -0.0082

Cla 0.0399 0.0344 0.0273

Cmz 1.3412 0.8437 0.2409

Clz -4.4708 -2.8125 -0.803

CmH 0.0000001 0 0

ClH -0.001 0 0

Xa 0.60075188 0.5994186 0.6003663

Xz 0.59999105 0.59998222 0.6

XH -0.0001 0 0

SSM 0.00066083 -0.0005636 0.0003663

stable not stable stable

135

Table 6.42: SSM on rectangular-dihedral reverse wing NACA 6409 A/R = 1.25

trimaran WIG model with endplate (0.06c)

WITH ENDPLATE(0.06c)

ANALYSIS STATIC STABILITY MARGIN

(assume cog=0.3 c)

0.06 0.1 0.3

Cma -0.0138 -0.0119 -0.0095

Cla 0.046 0.0506 0.0316

Cmz 1.548 0.9738 0.274

Clz -5.1599 -3.3948 -0.9692

CmH 0.00000013 0 0

ClH -0.001 0 0

Xa 0.601 0.53517787 0.60063291

Xz 0.60000581 0.58685048 0.58270739

XH -0.00013 0 0

SSM 0.00086419 -0.0516726 0.01792552

stable not stable stable

Figure 6.49: SSM wing with endplate, h/c= 0.06 - 0.3, he/c = 0.06c

136

Table 6.43: SSM on rectangular-dihedral reverse wing NACA 6409 A/R = 1.25

Trimaran WIG model with endplate (0.06c) and NACA = 0012 Tail A/R = 5.

WITH ENDPLATE(0.06c)

ANALYSIS STATIC STABILITY MARGIN

(assume cog=0.3 c)

0.06 0.1 0.3

Cma -0.0138 -0.0119 -0.0095

Cla 0.046 0.0506 0.0316

Cmz 1.548 0.9738 0.274

Clz -5.1599 -3.3948 -0.9692

CmH 0.00000013 0 0

ClH -0.001 0 0

Cmat 0.0169 0.0169 0.0169

Clat 0.0675 0.0675 0.0675

Xa 0.601 0.53517787 0.60063291

Xz 0.60000581 0.58185048 0.58270739

XH -0.00013 0 0

Xat 0.04962963 0.04962963 0.04962963

SSM 0.05049382 0.00295702 0.06755515

stable stable stable

Figure 6.50: SSM wing with endplate and tail, h/c= 0.06 - 0.3 he/c = 0.06c

137

take-off Trimaran WIG model with rectangular-dihedral reverse wing NACA 6409,

aspect ratio (AR) 1.25, with various ground clearance (h/c) = 0.06, 0.1, 0.2,0.3,

various angle of attack (AOA) 2 o,4 o,6 o,8 o

with endplate he/c = 0.06c, and tail

NACA 0012 A/R = 5. Figure 6.51 show Short Period Pitch Oscillation (SPPO)

perturbation every ground clearance (h/c) with constant angle of attack (2 deg).

Figure 6.52 show Short Period Pitch Oscillation (SPPO) perturbation every angle of

attack (AOA) with constant ground clearance (h/c=0.2). The magnitude of SPPO

perturbation decreases with increment of ground clearance (h/c), otherwise SPPO

perturbation increases with increment of angle of attack (AOA).

Figure 6.51: Short Period Pitch Oscillation (SPPO) Trimaran WIG every ground

clearance (h/c) during take-off

138

Figure 6.52: Short Period Pitch Oscillation (SPPO) Trimaran WIG every angle of

attack (AOA) during take-off

Figure 6.53 show Long Period Pitch Oscillation (Phugoid) perturbation every

ground clearance (h/c) with constant angle of attack (2 deg). Figure 6.54 show Long

Period Pitch Oscillation (Phugoid) perturbation every angle of attack (AOA) with

constant ground clearance (h/c=0.2). The magnitude of Phugoid perturbation

decreases with increment of ground clearance (h/c), otherwise Phugoid perturbation

increases with increment of angle of attack (AOA). From both figure we can see all

perturbation back into the equilibrium, regarding Tulapukara statement [0], an object

system is said to be dynamically stable if it eventually returns to the original

equilibrium position after being disturbed by a small disturbance. Also in these cases

the system while returning to the equilibrium position goes beyond the undisturbed

state towards the negative side and smaller than the original disturbance and it

(amplitude) decreases continually with every oscillation. And finally, the system

returns to the equilibrium position. So, dynamic stability Trimaran WIG in stable

condition and in damping oscillation. However we must check its dynamic quality to

be accepted for public transportation.

139

Figure 6.53: Long Period Pitch Oscillation (Phugoid) Trimaran WIG every ground

clearance (h/c) during take-off.

Figure 6.54: Long Period Pitch Oscillation (Phugoid) Trimaran WIG every angle

of attack (AOA) during take-off

140

(CAP)

(detail simulation can bee see at Appendix H) and free running test, where from that

images are in a stable condition in visualization. Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion

and Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) have been used to analyze dynamic

stability numerically Trimaran WIG during take-off. Detail calculation for Routh-

Hurwitz Stability Criterion can be used program at Appendix E, Short period

damping ratio should be bigger than 0.35 and less than 1.3, and Phugoid damping

ratio should be bigger than 0.4.

Flightgear Simulation and Free Running Test

Table 6.44 shows Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion for SPPO every ground

clearance (h/c), where all SPPO in stable condition. The magnitude of Eigen value

increases with increment of ground clearance (h/c).

141

Table 6.44: Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion for SPPO every ground clearance

(h/c)

Routh Hurwitz

h/c Equilibrium Eigen Value

criterion

-0.2989 s - 11.03

0.06 --------------------------------- -8.68e-002 +- 9.20e-001i accepted

s^3 + 9.063 s^2 + 2.399 s + 7.599

-0.2989 s - 11.03

0.1 --------------------------------- -7.50e-002 +- 9.22e-001i accepted

s^3 + 9.039 s^2 + 2.188 s + 7.599

-0.2989 s - 11.03

0.2 ------------------------------- -1.55e-001 +- 9.12e-001i accepted

s^3 + 9.198 s^2 + 3.606 s + 7.6

-0.2989 s - 11.03

0.3 --------------------------------- -1.21e-001 +- 9.17e-001i accepted

s^3 + 9.131 s^2 + 3.003 s + 7.599

Table 6.45 shows Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for SPPO every

ground clearance (h/c), where at h/c: 0.06-0.1 SPPO in not stable condition,

otherwise at h/c: 0.2-0.3 SPPO in stable condition. The magnitude of damping ratio

SPPO increases with increment of ground clearance (h/c), otherwise the magnitude

of natural frequency SPPO decreases with increment of ground clearance (h/c).

Table 6.45: Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for SPPO every ground

clearance (h/c).

h/c Equilibrium natural freq

ratio check) freq check)

-0.2989 s - 11.03

---------------------------------

0.06 1.31E-01 9.25E-01 no accepted accepted

s^3 + 9.131 s^2 + 3.003 s +

7.599

-0.2989 s - 11.03

-------------------------------

0.1 1.67E-01 8.73E-01 no accepted accepted

s^3 + 9.198 s^2 + 3.606 s +

7.6

-0.2989 s - 11.03

---------------------------------

0.2 8.11E-01 6.56E-01 accepted accepted

s^3 + 9.039 s^2 + 2.188 s +

7.599

-0.2989 s - 11.03

---------------------------------

0.3 9.39E-01 4.67E-01 accepted accepted

s^3 + 9.063 s^2 + 2.399 s +

7.599

142

ground clearance (h/c), where all Phugoid in stable condition. The magnitude of

Eigen value decreases with increment of ground clearance (h/c).

Table 6.46: Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion for Phugoid every ground clearance

(h/c).

11.03 s^2 + 3.207 s + 0.02067

------------------------------------------

0.06 -1.48e-002 +- 1.34e-001i accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2402 s +

0.1387

11.03 s^2 + 2.458 s + 0.017

------------------------------------------

0.1 -1.48e-002 +- 1.25e-001i accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2381 s +

0.1207

11.03 s^2 + 1.709 s + 0.01334

0.2 --------------------------------------- -1.48e-002 + 1.14e-001i accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2358 s + 0.1

11.03 s^2 + 1.447 s + 0.01206

------------------------------------------

0.3 -1.48e-002 +- 1.04e-001i accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.234 s +

0.08391

Table 6.47 shows Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for Phugoid every

ground clearance (h/c), where all Phugoid in stable condition. The magnitude of

damping ratio Phugoid increases with increment of ground clearance (h/c), otherwise

the magnitude of natural frequency Phugoid decreases with increment of ground

clearance (h/c).

143

Table 6.47: Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for Phugoid every ground

clearance (h/c).

CPT

damping CPT (natural

h/c Equilibrium natural freq (damping

ratio freq check)

check)

11.03 s^2 + 3.207 s + 0.02067

------------------------------------------

0.06 1.09E-01 1.35E-01 accepted accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2402 s +

0.1387

11.03 s^2 + 2.458 s + 0.017

------------------------------------------

0.1 1.17E-01 1.26E-01 accepted accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2381 s +

0.1207

11.03 s^2 + 1.709 s + 0.01334

---------------------------------------

0.2 1.29E-01 1.15E-01 accepted accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2358 s +

0.1

11.03 s^2 + 1.447 s + 0.01206

------------------------------------------

0.3 1.41E-01 1.05E-01 accepted accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.234 s +

0.08391

Table 6.48 shows Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion for SPPO every angle of

attack (AOA), where all SPPO in stable condition. The magnitude of Eigen value

increases with increment of every angle of attack (AOA).

Table 6.48: Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion for SPPO every angle of attack

(AOA)

-0.2989 s - 11.03

2 --------------------------------- -3.92e-001 +- 8.37e-001i accepted

s^3 + 9.674 s^2 + 7.833 s + 7.604

-0.2989 s - 11.03

4 --------------------------------- -3.59e-001 +- 8.53e-001i accepted

s^3 + 9.606 s^2 + 7.229 s + 7.603

-0.2989 s - 11.03

6 --------------------------------- -3.25e-001 +- 8.66e-001i accepted

s^3 + 9.538 s^2 + 6.625 s + 7.603

-0.2989 s - 11.03

8 -------------------------------- -2.91e-001 +- 8.78e-001i accepted

s^3 + 9.47 s^2 + 6.022 s + 7.602

144

Table 6.49 shows Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for SPPO every

angle of attack (AOA), where at AOA: 2o - 6o SPPO in stable condition, otherwise at

AOA: 8o, SPPO in not stable condition. The magnitude of damping ratio SPPO

decreases with increment of every angle of attack (AOA), otherwise the magnitude

of natural frequency SPPO increases with increment of every angle of attack (AOA).

Table 6.49: Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for SPPO every angle of attack

(AOA)

AOA Equilibrium natural freq

ratio check) check)

-0.2989 s - 11.03

---------------------------------

2 4.24E-01 9.25E-01 accepted accepted

s^3 + 9.674 s^2 + 7.833 s +

7.604

-0.2989 s - 11.03

---------------------------------

4 3.88E-01 9.50E-01 accepted accepted

s^3 + 9.606 s^2 + 7.229 s +

7.603

-0.2989 s - 11.03

---------------------------------

6 3.51E-01 9.76E-01 accepted accepted

s^3 + 9.538 s^2 + 6.625 s +

7.603

-0.2989 s - 11.03

--------------------------------

8 3.14E-01 9.87E-01 no accepted accepted

s^3 + 9.47 s^2 + 6.022 s +

7.602

Table 6.50 shows Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion for Phugoid every angle

of attack (AOA), where all Phugoid in stable condition. The magnitude of Eigen

value decreases with increment of every angle of attack (AOA).

145

Table 6.50: Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion for Phugoid every angle of attack

(AOA)

11.03 s^2 + 8.451 s + 0.04632

-----------------------------------------

2 -1.48e-002 + 1.99e-001i accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2585 s +

0.302

11.03 s^2 + 7.702 s + 0.04265

------------------------------------------

4 -1.48e-002 + 1.91e-001i accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2559 s +

0.2787

11.03 s^2 + 6.953 s + 0.03899

------------------------------------------

6 -1.48e-002 +- 1.85e-001i accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2539 s +

0.2607

11.03 s^2 + 6.204 s + 0.03532

------------------------------------------

8 -1.48e-002 + 1.78e-001i accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2518 s +

0.2427

Table 6.51 shows Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for Phugoid every

angle of attack (AOA), where all Phugoid in stable condition. The magnitude of

damping ratio Phugoid increases with increment of ground clearance (h/c), otherwise

the magnitude of natural frequency Phugoid decreases with increment of ground

clearance (h/c).

Table 6.51: Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for Phugoid every angle of

attack (AOA)

damping CPT (damping CPT (natural

AOA Equilibrium natural freq

ratio check) freq check)

11.03 s^2 + 8.451 s + 0.04632

-----------------------------------------

2 7.41E-02 1.99E-01 accepted accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2585 s +

0.302

11.03 s^2 + 7.702 s + 0.04265

------------------------------------------

4 7.72E-02 1.92E-01 accepted accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2559 s +

0.2787

11.03 s^2 + 6.953 s + 0.03899

------------------------------------------

6 7.98E-02 1.85E-01 accepted accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2539 s +

0.2607

11.03 s^2 + 6.204 s + 0.03532

------------------------------------------

8 8.27E-02 1.79E-01 accepted accepted

0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2518 s +

0.2427

146

Figure 6.56 shows comparison pitch amplitude between simulations and free

running test (see appendix G for detail experiments), where speed increase with

increment throttle, where from that images trend line simulation look similar with

experiment, but have difference outcome (-2.2% - 9.7%). Regarding that picture

pitch amplitude decrease with increment time, pitch angle looks larger at the

beginning of simulation, with a difference of about 0.5 deg from last simulation.

Very clear, the changing of phase during take-off really gives an effect in the pitch

motion Trimaran WIG model.

Figure 6.57 shows comparison heave amplitude between simulations and free

running test (see appendix G for detail experiment) where speed increase with

increment throttle, where from that images trend line simulation look similar with

experiment, but have very significant difference outcome (-7.2% - 98.7%).

Regarding that picture heave amplitude increase with increment time, heave

amplitude looks lesser at the beginning of simulation, with a difference of about 1.5

cm. Very clear, the changing of phase during take-off really gives a effect in the

heave motion Trimaran WIG model.

147

CHAPTER 7

7.1 Conclusion

Finally, the longitudinal stability and dynamic motion Trimaran WIG during

take-off was investigated. Regarding scope of work and methodology this research,

initial design trimaran WIG was made. A computational aerodynamic characteristic

of wing with endplate or without endplate was studied by VLM simulation.

Hydrodynamic WIG was investigated and was compared with commercial software.

Numerical was compared with experimental and commercial software. New

configuration Static Stability Margin (SSM) WIG trimaran model during take-off has

been created and validated. New configuration dynamic motion and longitudinal

dynamic stability Trimaran WIG during take-off was derived and solved. Detailed

conclusions from this research can be viewed as follows:

i. The traditional Vortex Lattice Method (VLM) has been modified by using

much complex Flat Wing Theory and then Wieselsberger Ground Effect

Theory has been used to calculate lift coefficient In Ground Effect (IGE).

VLM results were validated with the CFD calculation and experimental

data other researchers, where VLM results near experimental result. The

149

experimental results for Angle of Attack (AOA) larger than 2 deg for

different Aspect Ratio (AR) and Ground Clearances. The magnitude of

drag coefficient increases with increment of aspect ratio, angle of attack,

and ground clearance. Drag coefficients of VLM at almost all angle of

attack more accurate than CFD results, where CFD far away to

experimental results. Researchers suggest this procedure can be followed

for initial estimation of Lift Coefficient for complex wing platform WIG.

ii. The problem of drag faced by WIG during take-off has been tried to be

solved by adopting sweep back step planing hull. Savitsky method has

been used to calculate planing hull and was enhanced with Hadler, Fox &

Blond, and clement formula. The calculation was validated using

commercial software .Results show difference about 8 7%.

iii. Trimaran WIG design has been made with new concept wing

Rectangular-Dihedral (ratio 50-50) Wing with aspect ratio (AR) 1.25 with

endplate (he/c) 0.06c, taper 0.8 with dihedral angle 13o at dihedral

reverse wing.

iv. The numerical aerodynamic Trimaran WIG model with and without

endplate has been calculated using modify VLM. The lift coefficient and

drag coefficient varied with angle of attack (0o, 2o, 4o, 6o, 8o, 10o), and

varied with ground clearances (from h/c = 0 until h/c = 0.15). The

magnitude of lift coefficient decreases with increment of ground

clearance, otherwise lift coefficient increase with increment angle of

attack. Lift coefficients wing with endplate increase around 14.5%. The

magnitude of drag coefficient increases with increment of ground

clearance, and drag coefficient increase with increment angle of attack.

Drag coefficients wing with endplate decrease around 25.17%.

150

experimental at wind tunnel test LST-UTM. Lift coefficients of VLM at

0o - 8o angle of attack bigger than experimental results. The differences

that occur are 27.7% - 37.4% at 0o, 15.11% 15.9% at 2o, 7.55% - 8.9 %

at 4o, 2.3% - 4.55% at 6 o, 0.04% - 0.8% at 8 o. Drag coefficients of VLM

approximately at 0o angle of attack bigger than experimental results. But

at 2 o - 8 o angle of attack less than experimental results, difference case

occur at h/c= 0.15 almost drag coefficient VLM result like experimental

results. The differences that occur are 2.9% - 6.45% at 0 o, -0.3% -1.5%

at 2 o, -2.7% -17.3 % at 4 o, -16.3% 2.8% at 6 o, -4.08% - 8.9% at 8 o.

Results from experimental has been correction with blockage effect

correction and reduce experiment result approximately 0.01% - 4.7%.

vi. Hydrodynamic Trimaran WIG with step and without step has been

calculate and was validated with free running test. Trend line from free

running test really different with trend line from SM with step, but looks

similar with without step. Its mean no more effect stepped hull in this

model, because step in this model very small. So in this moment we

assume Trimaran WIG model without stepped hull. At 0 5 knot

numerical result (SM without step) near with experimental (free running

test) result (not planing hull phase), but from 6-24 knot experimental

result bigger than numerical result (SM without step). This phenomena

was happens because of aerodynamic drag (air drag wing and fuselage)

began to affect of experiment results, because numerical result (SM

without step) only for the hydrodynamic drag, and therefore need to be

added aerodynamic drag on the numerical results. From 24 28 knot

numerical results (SM without step) bigger than experimental results (free

running test). This moment was occurred because draft fuselage Trimaran

WIG was changed or all body Trimaran WIG was began fly (take off

condition).

151

vii. New configuration Static Stability Margin (SSM) WIG during take-off

has been created and validated with three criteria, first, the position

Aerodynamic centre in Pitch (ACP) should be located downstream of the

position Aerodynamic Centre in Height (ACH) , second, the position of

center of gravity (COG) of the craft should be located upstream of the

aerodynamic center of pitch (ACP) and third, the position Aerodynamic

Centre in Height (ACH) should be located upstream of Hydrodynamic

center in Pitch (HCP).

rectangular-dihedral reverse wing NACA 6409 Trimaran WIG has been

done. There is not a stable phase during take-off. To overcome instability

during the takeoff, tail added (NACA 0012, AR = 5) at the trimaran

design WIG. SSM become stable in all condition.

ix. New configuration dynamic motion WIG during take-off has been created

and solved. The classical aircraft motion has been modified by calculating

the aerodynamic force, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces, using a

small perturbation assumption the full equations of motion WIG during

takeoff are derived and solved.

during take-off have been calculated with several angle of attack and

ground clearance. The magnitude of Short Periodic Pitch Oscillation

(SPPO) perturbation decreases with increment of ground clearance (h/c),

otherwise SPPO perturbation increases with increment of angle of attack

(AOA). The magnitude of Phugoid perturbation decreases with increment

of ground clearance (h/c), otherwise Phugoid perturbation increases with

increment of angle of attack (AOA). Trimaran WIG in stable condition

and in damping oscillation.

152

(CAP) have been used to analyze dynamic stability numerically Trimaran

WIG during take-off. A Trimaran WIG during take-off almost in stable

condition every angle of attack and ground clearance. There are not

accepted conditions at ground clearance 0.06 and 0.1, where those ground

clearances are take-off phase. Also not accepted condition at 8 deg AOA.

Finally, this Trimaran WIG design needs more improvement to be

accepted and used for public transportation.

xii. The changing of phase during take-off really gives very significant effect

in pitch and heaves amplitude.

7.2 Recommendation

In this thesis, there are still many shortcomings due to the limited time and

knowledge. In the future are expected to conduct research as follows:

ii. Conducting the research with many variations rectangular-dihedral wing

composition.

iii. Conducting the research with many variations angle and position of swept

back step planing hull.

iv. Find solution to reduce spray coming out from planing hull.

v. Optimizing the procedure free running test to obtain aerodynamic

characteristics and hydrodynamic characteristics directly.

vi. Find other solution to solve unstable condition during take-off

153

used for public transportation.

viii. Create a new concept design marine transportation more effective, more

futuristic and environmental-friendly.

REFERENCES

The Present State of Research in Aero-and Hydrodynamics of

Ekranoplans. RTO AVT Symposium on Fluid Dynamics Problem of

Vehicles Operating Near or in The Air-Sea Interface, held in

Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 5-8 October 1998, and published in

RTO MP-15.

Arthur W. Carter (1961). Effect Ground Proximity On The Aerodynamic

Characteristics Of Aspect- Ratio-1 Airfoil With and Without

Endplates. NASA,TN-D-970.

B. Leon (2007). Wing in Ground Effect (WIG) Aircraft Aerodynamic. Project

assessment Scholl Of Mechanical engineering The University of

Adelaide, Australia.

Blount & Fox (1976). Small Craft Power Prediction, Marine Technology.

BPPT (2007). Inter Island Transportation. Annual report BPPT.

Couser P.R (1997). Calm Water Powering Prediction for High Speed

Catamaran. Fast '97,Sydney, Australia.

Collu, M., Patel, M. H. & Trarieux, F (2007). Unified Mathematical Model

For High Speed Hybrid (Air and Water-Borne) Vehicles. 2nd

International Conference on Marine Research and Transportation,

Ischia, Naples, Italy, 28-30.

D. Savitsky (1985). Chapter IV Planing Craft of Modern Ships and Craft.

Naval Engineers Journal.

D.Savitsky (1964). Hydrodynamic design of Planing Hull. SNAME.

D.Savitsky, M.F.Delorme, Raju Datla (2007). Inclusion Whisker Spray Drag

In Performance Prediction Method For High Speed Planing Hulls.

Marine Technology Vol 44 No.1.

Elliot GR (1937). Full Scale of Investigation Ground effect, NACA, Rep-

265.

E. P. Clement and J. D. Pope (1959). Graphs for predicting the resistance of

Large Stepless Planing hulls at High Speeds. DTMB Report 1318.

155

Eugene P.Clement and James D.Rope (1961). Stepless and Stepped Planing

Hull Graph for Performance Prediction and Design. DTMB,

Report-1490.

Eugene P.Clement (2006). A Configuration for a Stepped Planing Boat

Having Minimum Drag (Dynaplane Boat). This publication is available

on the web site of the International Hydrofoil Society:

http://www.foils.org.

Halloran M, O'Meara S (1999). Wing in Ground Effect Craft Review. DSTO

Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, Australia.

H. Ghassemi, M. Ghiasi (2007). A Combined Method for the Hydrodynamic

Characteristics of Planing Crafts. Ocean engineering Journal,

2007,doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.

H.H. Chun and C.H. Chang (2002). Longitudinal Stability and Dynamic

Motions of a Small Passenger WIG Craft. Elsevier journal of ocean

engineering, vol. 29, p. 1145-1162.

H.H Chun and C.H. Chang (2003). Turbulence flow simulation for wings in

ground effect with two ground conditions: fixed and moving ground.

International Journal of maritime engineering, p.211-227.

Hiromichi Akimoto, Syozo Kubo and Motoki Tanaka (2004). Investigation

of the Canard Type Wing In Surface Effect Ship. The 2nd Asia Pacific

Workshop on Hydrodynamics, Bussan, Korea.

http://www.se-technology.com/ (1996). Wing in Ground Effect

Aerodynamics.

Irodov R.D (1970). Criteria of Longitudinal Stability of Ekranoplan.

Ucheniye Zapiski TSAGI, 1 (4), 63-74.

I. S. Ishak, S.Mat, T.M.Lazim, M.K.Muhammad, S.Mansor, M.Z.Awang

(2006). Estimation of Aerodynamic Characteristic of A Light

Aircraft. Jurnal Mekanikal No. 22, 64-74.

J.B.Hadler (1966). The Prediction of Power Performance of Planing Craft.

SNAME.

Kumar P.E (1968). An Experimental Investigation into the Aerodynamic

Characteristics of a Wing with and without Endplates in

Ground Effect. College of Aerodynamics, Cranfield, England, Rept.

Aero 201, 1968.

156

Forward Motion. Aeronautical Quarterly, 18, 4152.

K.V. Rozhdestvensky (1998). Theoretical Analysis of Dynamics of A WIG

Vehicle in Extreme Ground Effect. RTO AVT Symposium on Fluid

Dynamics Problem of Vehicles Operating Near or in The Air-Sea

Interface, held in Amsterdam, Netherlands, 5 - 8 October 1998, and

published in RTO MP-15.

K.V. Rozhdestvensky (2000). Aerodynamics of a Lifting System in Extreme

Ground Effect. Springer, Moscow.

K.V. Rozhdestvensky (2006). Wing-in-ground effect vehicles, Progress in

Aerospace Sciences. 42, (3), 211-283.

Kwang Hyo Jung, Ho Hwan Chun, Hee Jun Kim (2008). Experimental

Investigation of Wing-in-Ground Effect with a NACA 6409 Section.

Springer Jasnoe.

Kyoungwoo P. and J. Lee (2009). Optimal Design of 2-Dimensional Wings

in Ground Effect Using Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm.

Manuscript Ocean Engineering.

Maurizio Collu, Minoo H. Patel and F. Trarieux (2010). The Longitudinal

Static Stability of an Aerodynamically Alleviated Marine Vehicle, a

Mathematical Model. Proc. R. Soc. A 2010 466, 1055-1075 first

published online 2 December 2009, doi: 10.1098/rspa.2009,0459.

M. Adi, P.Agoes, S. Noverdo, S.Ike, Mobasser, J. Saeed (2010).

Investigation on the Stability of a Trimaran wing in Ground Effect

(WIG) Craft with Endplate. International Conference on Marine

Technology (MARTEC 2010). The Department of Naval

Architecture and Marine Engineering (NAME), Bangladesh

University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka, 11-12

December.

Nicola de Divitiis (2009). Performance and Stability of Winged in Ground

Effect. ArXiv: 0912.3355v1.

N. Kornev (2003). Complex Numerical Modeling of Dynamics and Crashes

of Wing in Ground Vehicles. 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and

Exhibit, Reno, Nevada.

157

Paul E. Hemke (1927). Drag Of Wing With End Plates. NACA, Rep 267.

Prandtl, Ludwig (1920). Theory of Lifting Surface. NACA, TN 09.

Rae, William H. Jr., Pope, Alan (1984). Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing. John

Wiley & Sons.

Richard J. Margason and John E. Lamar (1971). Vortex Lattice Fotran

Program for Estimating Subsonic Aerodynamic Characteristic of

Complex Planforms. NASA TN D-6142.

R. Savander Brant & Hyung Rhee Shin (2003). Steady Planing

Hydrodynamics: Comparison of Numerical and Experimental

Results. Presentation outline Fluent Users Group Manchester, NH.

Rozhdestvensky K.V (1996). Ekranoplans The GEMs of Fast Water

Transport. Trans ImarE, Vol 109, Part 1, pp 47-74.

Saaed J., S. Noverdo (2010). Effect Ground Effect for Environmental. 3rd

International Graduate Conference on Engineering, Science and

Humanities (IGCESH 2010) UTM, Malaysia, November 2 4.

Saunders H.E (1957). Hydrodynamics in Ship Design. Vol. 1. The Society of

Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New York.

S.C Rhodes and A.T Sayers (2009). Experimental Investigation: Stability

criteria of an Uncambered Airfoil in Ground Effect. R & D Journal

of the South African Institution of Mechanical Engineering 2009, 25.

S. Noverdo, Mobasser (2010). Effect of Stepped Hull on Wing in Ground

Effect (WIG) Craft during Takeoff. 3rd International Graduate

Conference on Engineering, Science, and Humanities (IGCESH

2010) UTM, Malaysia, November 2 4.

Staufenbiel RW and Schlichting UJ (1988). Stability of Airplanes in Ground

Effect. Journal of Aircraft, 25, (4), 289-294.

Staufenbiel R and Kleineidam G (1980). Longitudinal Motion of Low-

Flying Vehicles in Nonlinear Flowfields. Proceedings of the

Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences,

Munich, 293308.

Suhaimi (2008). Low Speed Wind Tunnel. Specification LST UTM Facility.

Takinaci A.C, Atlar M, Korkut E (2002). A Practical Surface Panel Method

to Predict Velocity Distribution around a Three-Dimensional

158

ocean engineering, PII: S00 29 -8018(02)00015-X.

Todd E. Whalen (2002). Optimal Deadrise Hull Analysis and Design Space

Study of Naval Special Warfare High Speed Planing Boats. Masters

thesis Department Master of Science in Naval Architecture and

Marine Engineering and Master of Science in Civil and

Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Tulapurkara E.G (2008). Flight Dynamics-I (Performance Analysis).

Department. of Aerospace Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai-

600036, India.

V.I. Korolyov (1998). Longitudinal Stability of Ekranoplans and Hydrofoils

Ships. RTO AVT Symposium on Fluid Dynamics Problem of

Vehicles Operating Near or in The Air-Sea Interface, held in

Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 5-8 October 1998, and published in

RTO MP-15.

Wieselsberger C (1921). Wing Resistance near the Ground, NACA, TM-

77.

Zhang, Zerihan, Ruhrmann (2002). Tip vortices generated by wing in

ground effect. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on

Applications of Laser Techniques to Fluid Mechanics, Portugal.

Zhukov V.I (1974). Some matters of Longitudinal Stability of Ekranoplans.

Trudy TSAGI.

159

APPENDIX A

A. 1 Preliminary Design

Displacement 4.7 kg

LPP 1200 mm

Lwl (hull +wing) 1082.8 mm

Beam wl 858.4 mm

Volume 4543826.4 mm^3

Draft to Baseline 60 mm

Immersed depth 58.9 mm

WSA 303388.2 mm^2

Max cross sect area 9613.8 mm^2

Waterplane area 138566.7 mm^2

160

161

162

HYDROSTATICS

Draft Amidsh. cm 6.508

Displacement kg 5.4

Heel to Starboard degrees 0

Draft at FP cm 6.141

Draft at AP cm 6.875

Draft at LCF cm 6.522

Trim (+ve by stern) cm 0.735

Trim (+ve by stern) deg 2.776

WL Length cm 112.5

WL Beam cm 85.69

Wetted Area cm^2 3637

Waterpl. Area cm^2 1423

Prismatic Coeff. 0.445

Block Coeff. 0.391

Midship Area Coeff. 0.879

Waterpl. Area Coeff. 0.679

LCB from Amidsh. (+ve fwd) cm 0

LCF from Amidsh. (+ve fwd) cm -1.81

KB cm 4.332

KG cm 6.031

BMt cm 77.68

BML cm 200.5

GMt cm 75.98

GML cm 198.8

KMt cm 82.01

KML cm 204.9

Immersion (TPc) tonne/cm 0.001

MTc tonne.m 0

RM at 1deg = GMt.Disp.sin(1)

kg.cm 7.16

Max deck inclination deg 0.5

Trim angle (+ve by stern) deg 0.5

163

APPENDIX B

AIRFOIL ANALYSIS

B.1 Introduction

These analyses have been done for choosing suitable foil for TRIMARAN

WIG using 2D potential flow. These analyses divided into two conditions, out

ground condition and in ground condition

In this simulation using NACA 6409 with angle of attack (AOA) 0o-6o out

ground condition.

164

165

Figure B.3 Pressure Coefficient distribution out ground condition NACA 6409

166

Figure B.5 Initial Lift Coefficient out ground condition NACA 6409

167

In this simulation using NACA 6409 with angle of attack (AOA) 0o-6o in

ground condition h/c= 0.1c.

168

169

170

APPENDIX C

AERO-HYDRO DERIVATIVES

second order Taylor expansion equation motion will be discussed in this chapter.

The hydrodynamic characteristic will concentrate for the wig planing hull form

instead the aerodynamic characteristic will concentrate for whole wig craft.

The force equation at equilibrium state for surge and heave can write as:

Z = -FLWcos FSWcos - DWsin (C.2)

171

Where FLW and FSW represent the hydrodynamic force and static buoyancy

force respectively which both perpendicular to the V direction, DW represent the

drag force due to resistance force parallel to the V direction.

The terms of force in equation (C.1) and (C.2) usually represent by

coefficient as the expression below:

CLW = FLW/(1/2wV2Sah)

CSW = FSW/(1/2wV2Sah)

CDW= DW/ (1/2wV2Sah)

buoyancy force and drag force respectively. While w is water density, Sah is planing

hull form reference area, V is the magnitude of flow velocity.

Z = -1/2wV2Sah (CLWcos + CSWcos - CDWsin) . (C.4)

From the literature study by apply small perturbation theory; the following

approximation can be made:

sin (C.5)

cos 1 (C.6)

172

Z = -1/2wV2Sah (CLW + CSW - CDW) (C.8)

= = cos 1 (C.10)

= = sin 0 (C.11)

= 0 (C.12)

= (C.13)

X=f (V, ), then apply the Chain rule. The Xu derivative with superscript h can be

expressed as below:

X uh = = = (C.14)

By standard approximation

= 0, 0,

0,

0,

0 (C.15)

173

X uh = = -wVSahCDw (C.16)

X uh = h g ( B h ) 2 (C.17)

Z=f (V, ), then apply the Chain rule. The Zw derivative as below:

Z wh = = (C.18)

Z wh = wVSah ( + + CDW) (C.19)

From the figure illustration, assume the distance between hydrodynamic centers to

center of gravity is lhx along X-axis and lhz along Z-axis. While the distance between

buoyancy center to center of gravity is assume lbx along X-axis and lbz along Z-

axis. The moment about the center gravity can express as below:

X wh =

(C.21)

174

X wh = wSah (CLw + CSw -

) (C.22)

hydrodynamic derivatives have summarized in this table;

X uh = h g ( B h ) 2 Z uh = h g ( B h ) 2 M uh = h g ( B h )3

X qh = h g ( B h )3 Z qh = h g ( B h )3 M qh = h g ( B h ) 4

X h. = h g ( B h )3 g / B h Z .h = h g ( B h )3 g / B h M h. = h g ( B h ) 4 g / B h

u u u

h 3 h 3

h h

X . = g(B ) g/B h h h

Z . = g(B ) g/B h

M h. = h g ( B h ) 4 g / B h

w w w

X h. = h g ( B h ) 4 g / B h Z h. = h g ( B h ) 4 g / B h M h. = h g ( B h ) 5 g / B h

q q q

h 3 h 3

h h

X .. = g ( B ) h h

Z .. = g ( B ) X .. = h g ( B h ) 4

h

u u u

w w w

h 4 h 4

h h

X .. = g ( B ) h h

Z .. = g ( B ) X ..h = h g ( B h )5

w w w

derivative. The different between two derivatives are the free body diagram and the

reference parameter applying in derivative such as the reference area, external force

acting on the wig craft.

The force equation at equilibrium state for surge and heave can write as:

Z = -FLAcos DAsin (C.24)

175

direction, DA represent the drag force due to resistance force parallel to the V

direction.

coefficient as the expression below:

2

CDA= DA/ (1/2AV Saw) (C.26)

Where CLA, CDA are coefficient of aerodynamic lift force and drag force

respectively. While A is air density, Saw is wig crafts main wing reference area, V

is the magnitude of flow velocity similar with the V in hydrodynamic derivative.

Although the concept of derivative are similar for both characteristic but the

Zq derivative is not exist in hydrodynamic. In order to Zq, the wig craft pitching

rate,q impart a downward velocity to the horizontal tail of magnitude WT, express as

WT = qlT, where lT is the tail arm. The downward velocity at the tail is assuming lead

to an additional force in Z-axis. This force, ZT express as below:

ZT = WT

= -1/2ASaw ( + ! ) qlT (C.27)

176

Z T C T

Z qa = T

= A S w ( LA + C DA )lT (C.29)

q

All derivative of aerodynamic can be found with previous method, and and

the results can be viewed as follows:

CD CL CM

X ha = Z ha = CL M ha =

(h / c) (h / c) (h / c)

CD C M ua = neglegible (0)

X ua = 2CD V Zua = 2CL + V L

V V

CD C CM

X wa = CL Z wa = CD L M wa =

a

C S L 2

X q = neglegible(0) C S L

Z ..a = LT T T M ..a = LT T T

w S c q Sc 2

2

X a. = neglegible(0) CLT ST LT

w M ..a =

w Sc 2

177

APPENDIX D

% Modified for

% DEVELOPMENT WING IN GROUND EFFECT TWO SETTER

% UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY MALAYSIA

% MODIFIED BY N.S

clc

fprintf('WIG 2 SETTER UTM\n')

clear all

close all

profile drag

airfoilstruct = readNACAairfoildata;

%Perform regression on airfoilstruct data at multiple Re

airfoildata = nacaRegression(airfoilstruct);

%Initialize GUI

InitializeGUI(airfoildata)

% parse the text file NACAdata.txt into a structure

fid = fopen('NACAdata.txt','r');

fclose(fid);

%Initialize finaldata

finaldata(1).airfoil = data{1}{1};

178

finaldata(1).Re = data{2}(1);

finaldata(1).a0 = data{3}(1);

finaldata(1).a1 = data{4}(1);

finaldata(1).a2 = data{5}(1);

finaldata(1).alphastall = data{6}(1);

for i = 2:length(data{1})

updated = 0;

for j = 1:length(finaldata)

%if we have already read in data about a certain airfoil,

append

%new data

if strcmp(finaldata(j).airfoil,data{1}{i})

finaldata(j).Re = [finaldata(j).Re; data{2}(i)];

finaldata(j).a0 = [finaldata(j).a0; data{3}(i)];

finaldata(j).a1 = [finaldata(j).a1; data{4}(i)];

finaldata(j).a2 = [finaldata(j).a2; data{5}(i)];

finaldata(j).alphastall = [finaldata(j).alphastall;

data{6}(i)];

updated = 1;

break

end

end

%if we have not already read in data about a certain airfoil,

create

%new entry

if updated == 0

finaldata(end+1).airfoil = data{1}{i};

finaldata(end).Re = data{2}(i);

finaldata(end).a0 = data{3}(i);

finaldata(end).a1 = data{4}(i);

finaldata(end).a2 = data{5}(i);

finaldata(end).alphastall = data{6}(i);

end

end

geo, Fu_bar, Fv_bar, Fw_bar)

%and the influence coefficients from the vortex lattice method

D6142)

v_U.c = 1/(4*pi)*Fv_bar*[gamma.c]'; %Eqn 23 in NASA paper (NASA

TN D6142)

w_U.c = 1/(4*pi)*Fw_bar*[gamma.c]';

u_U.alpha = 1/(4*pi)*Fu_bar*[gamma.alpha]';

v_U.alpha = 1/(4*pi)*Fv_bar*[gamma.alpha]';

w_U.alpha = 1/(4*pi)*Fw_bar*[gamma.alpha]';

179

for i = 1:geo.ns

for j = 1:geo.nc

if i == geo.ns %wingtip

DeltaGamma(i,j).c = gamma(i,j).c;

DeltaGamma(i,j).alpha = gamma(i,j).alpha;

elseif j == 1 %Leading edge

DeltaGamma(i,j).c = gamma(i,j).c-gamma(i+1,j).c;

DeltaGamma(i,j).alpha = gamma(i,j).alpha-

gamma(i+1,j).alpha;

else

DeltaGamma(i,j).c = DeltaGamma(i,j-1).c + gamma(i,j).c -

gamma(i+1,j).c;

DeltaGamma(i,j).alpha = DeltaGamma(i,j-1).alpha +

gamma(i,j).alpha - gamma(i+1,j).alpha;

end

end

end

NASA paper (NASA TN D6142)

l_t.alpha = 2/geo.S*[DeltaGamma.alpha]'.*[panel.cc]'.*[v_U.alpha];

%Eqn 24 in NASA paper (NASA TN D6142)

l_s.c = 2/geo.S*[gamma.c]'*2.*[panel.s]'.*((ones(size(u_U))-

[u_U.c])+[v_U.c].*tan([panel.sweep]'))*cos(geo.dih); %Eqn 28 in

NASA paper

l_s.alpha = 2/geo.S*[gamma.alpha]'*2.*[panel.s]'.*((ones(size(u_U))-

[u_U.alpha])+[v_U.alpha].*tan([panel.sweep]'))*cos(geo.dih); %Eqn

28 in -NASA paper

% reshape([l_t.c],geo.ns,geo.nc)

% reshape([l_t.alpha],geo.ns,geo.nc)

% reshape([l_s.c],geo.ns,geo.nc)

% reshape(((ones(size(u_U))-

[u_U.alpha])+[v_U.alpha].*tan([panel.sweep]')),geo.ns,geo.nc)

% reshape([panel.s],geo.ns,geo.nc)

% reshape([l_s.alpha],geo.ns,geo.nc)

% reshape([u_U.alpha],geo.ns,geo.nc)

% reshape([v_U.alpha],geo.ns,geo.nc)

% reshape([gamma.alpha],geo.ns,geo.nc)

% sum([gamma.c])

% geo.S

CL.c = 2*(sum([l_t.c])+sum([l_s.c]));

CL.alpha = 2*(sum([l_t.alpha])+sum([l_s.alpha]));

%asummsi CM 0.25c

CM.c = 2*((sum([l_t.c])*0.25)+(sum([l_s.c])*0.25)); %equation 29

nasa TN D6142

CM.alpha = 2*((sum([l_t.alpha])*0.25)+(sum([l_s.alpha])*0.25));

function [C,T,A]=naca4_3d(airfoil,y,nc)

180

if length(airfoil) == 4

m = str2num(airfoil(1))/100;

p = str2num(airfoil(2))/10;

t = str2num(airfoil(3:4))/100;

elseif length(airfoil) == 5

switch airfoil(1:3)

case '210'

m = 0.0580;

k1 = 361.4;

case '220'

m = 0.1260;

k1 = 51.64;

case '230'

m = 0.2025;

k1 = 15.957;

case '240'

m = 0.2900;

k1 = 6.643;

case '250'

m = 0.3910;

k1 = 3.230;

otherwise

end

t = str2num(airfoil(4:5))/100;

end

%% Constants

% nc % number of line segments describing top surface

% (= number of line segments describing bottom surface)

npc = nc+1; % number of points along mean camber line

nps = 2*nc+1; % number of points along surface

dx=1/nc; % x-direction increment (along chord)

C(:,2) = y;

T = zeros(nps,3); %skin

T(:,2) = y;

% dzcdx is the derivative of the mean camber line

% theta is the local angle of the mean camber line

% x=1:-dx:0; % order x locations starting at trailing edge, x=1

if length(airfoil) == 4

for i = 1:nc+1

if x(i)<p % leading edge

zc(i) = m/(p^2)*(2*p*x(i)-x(i)^2); %Eqn 6.4 Abbot

dzcdx(i) = m/p^2*(2*p-2*x(i));

theta(i) = atan(dzcdx(i));

else % trailing edge

181

Abbot

dzcdx(i) = m/(1-p)^2*(2*p-2*x(i));

theta(i) = atan(dzcdx(i));

end

end

elseif length(airfoil) == 5

for i = 1:nc+1

if x(i)<m % leading edge

zc(i) = 1/6*k1*(x(i)^3-3*m*x(i)^2+m^2*(3-m)*x(i)); %Eqn

6.6 Abbot

dzcdx(i) = 1/6*k1*(3*x(i)^2-6*m*x(i)+m^2*(3-m));

theta(i) = atan(dzcdx(i));

else % trailing edge

zc(i) = 1/6*k1*m^3*(1-x(i)); %Eqn 6.6 Abbot

dzcdx(i) = -1/6*k1*m^3;

theta(i) = atan(dzcdx(i));

end

end

end

axis convention

C(:,3)=-zc; %negative z due to axis convention

airfoils

for i=1:nc+1

zt(i) = t/0.2*[0.2969*x(i)^0.5-0.1260*x(i)-

0.3516*x(i)^2+0.2843*x(i)^3-0.1015*x(i)^4]; %Eqn 6.2 Abbott

end

%% Area

A=0;

for i=1:nc

da=dx*(zt(i)+zt(i+1)); %Take the average of zt(i) and zt(i+1)

and double it

A=A+da;

end

A;

%% Upper skin

for i=1:nc+1

xu(i) = x(i)-zt(i)*sin(theta(i)); %Eqn 6.1 Abbott

zu(i) = zc(i)+zt(i)*cos(theta(i)); %Eqn 6.1 Abbott

T(i,1) = -xu(i); %negative x due to sign convention

T(i,3) = -zu(i); %negative z due to sign convention

end

%% lower skin

% exclude point nc+1 at leading edge

% because it is included as the last point of the upper surface

182

for i=1:nc

xl(i) = x(i)+zt(i)*sin(theta(i)); %Eqn 6.1 Abbott

zl(i) = zc(i)-zt(i)*cos(theta(i)); %Eqn 6.1 Abbott

end

% reverse order so LE to TE

for i=nc+2:nps

T(i,1) = -xl(2*(nc+1)-i);%negative x due to sign convention

T(i,3) = -zl(2*(nc+1)-i);%negative z due to sign convention

end

%figure

%plot(xu,zu,'o')

%hold on

%plot(xl,zl,'or')

%axis equal

function PARAM(H0,SIG,B)

global A0 A1 A3

E=(H0-1.0)/(H0+1.0);

if(abs(SIG-pi/4.0)<=0.0001)

AL3=0.0;

else

E2=E*E;

C=4.0*SIG*(1.0-E2)/pi+E2;

D=-C/(C+3.0);

D2=sqrt(D*D-(C-1.0)/(C+3.0));

AL3=D+D2;

end

AL1=E*(AL3+1.0);

A0=B/(1.0+AL1+AL3);

A1=A0*AL1;

A3=A0*AL3;

%Determine center of pressure and spanwise loading

%due to bound vortices and trailing vortices.

BV = [panel.BV];

BV1 = [panel.BV1];

s = [panel.s]';

y_cp.alpha = sum([l_s.alpha].*BV(2,:)' +

[l_t.alpha].*BV1(2,:)')/(0.5*CL.alpha*0.5*geo.b); %Eqn 35 in NASA

paper

cl.alpha = ([l_s.alpha] +

[l_t.alpha])*geo.S./(CL.alpha*2*s*cos(geo.dih)*geo.c_av); %Eqn 37

in NASA paper

y_cp.c = sum([l_s.c].*BV(2,:)' +

[l_t.c].*BV1(2,:)')/(0.5*CL.c*0.5*geo.b); %Eqn 35 in NASA paper

cl.c = ([l_s.c] + [l_t.c])*geo.S./(CL.c*2*s*cos(geo.dih)*geo.c_av);

%Eqn 37 in NASA paper

else

y_cp.c = 0;

183

cl.c = zeros(size(cl.alpha));

end

%Read in altitude and output viscosity, density, and speed of sound

%Units:

%altitude as a string in ft

%density in kg/m^3

%speed of sound, a, in m/s

alt = str2num(alt)*0.3048;

g = 9.80665;

R = 287.1;

gamma = 1.4;

if alt < 11000

T1 = 288.16; %From Anderson, Introduction to Flight, 5 ed, pg

109

laps = -6.5e-3;

T = T1 + laps*(alt);

dens1 = 1.2250;

dens = (T/T1)^-(g/(laps*R)+1)*dens1;

elseif alt >= 11000 & alt < 25000

T1 = 216.66;

T = T1;

dens1 = 0.3640;

dens = exp(-g/(R*T)*(alt-11000))*dens1;

else

T1 = 216.66;

laps = 3e-3;

T = T1 + laps*(alt);

dens1 = 0.11;

dens = (T/T1)^-(g/(laps*R)+1)*dens1;

end

a = sqrt(gamma*R*T);

visc = 1.458e-6*T^1.5/(T+110.1); %Bertin, Aerodynamics for

Engineers, 4 ed, pg 5

function [gamma, Fu_bar, Fv_bar, Fw_bar]=VortexStrength(panel,phi)

%Input: panel geometry

%Output vortex strength (gamma)

%Influence coefficients (Fx_bar)

ns = size(panel,1);

nc = size(panel,2);

to controls points; second dimension points to horseshoe vortices;

% third dimension points to three dimensional coordinates

r0 = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc,3);

r1 = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc,3);

184

r2 = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc,3);

omega_bound = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc,3);

omega_a_inf = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc,3);

omega_b_inf = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc,3);

Fu = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc);

Fv = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc);

Fw = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc);

for i = 1:ns

for j = 1:nc

n=(j-1)*ns+i;

%Iterate through all bound vortices

for k = 1:ns

for p=1:nc

m=(p-1)*ns+k;

Engineers, ed.

%4, pg 263-266

r0(n,m,:)=panel(k,p).BV2-panel(k,p).BV1;

r1(n,m,:)=panel(i,j).CP-panel(k,p).BV1;

r2(n,m,:)=panel(i,j).CP-panel(k,p).BV2;

Fac1=shiftdim(cross(r1(n,m,:),r2(n,m,:)))/(norm(shiftdim(cross(r1(n,

m,:),r2(n,m,:)))))^2;

Fac2=dot(r0(n,m,:),(r1(n,m,:)/norm(shiftdim(r1(n,m,:)))))-

dot(r0(n,m,:),(r2(n,m,:)/norm(shiftdim(r2(n,m,:)))));

Fac1a(1,1)=0;

Fac1a(1,2)=(panel(i,j).CP(3)-

panel(k,p).BV1(3))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-

panel(k,p).BV1(3))^2+(panel(k,p).BV1(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);

Fac1a(1,3)=(panel(k,p).BV1(2)-

panel(i,j).CP(2))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-

panel(k,p).BV1(3))^2+(panel(k,p).BV1(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);

Fac2a=-1+((panel(i,j).CP(1)-

panel(k,p).BV1(1))/norm(shiftdim(r1(n,m,:)))); %'-1' due to change

in axes

Fac1b(1,1)=0;

Fac1b(1,2)=-(panel(i,j).CP(3)-

panel(k,p).BV2(3))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-

panel(k,p).BV2(3))^2+(panel(k,p).BV2(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);

Fac1b(1,3)=-(panel(k,p).BV2(2)-

panel(i,j).CP(2))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-

panel(k,p).BV2(3))^2+(panel(k,p).BV2(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);

Fac2b=(-1+((panel(i,j).CP(1)-

panel(k,p).BV2(1))/norm(shiftdim(r2(n,m,:)))));

omega_bound(n,m,:)=Fac1*Fac2;

omega_a_inf(n,m,:)=Fac1a*Fac2a;

omega_b_inf(n,m,:)=Fac1b*Fac2b;

185

Fu(n,m)=omega_bound(n,m,1)+omega_a_inf(n,m,1)+omega_b_inf(n,m,1);

Fv(n,m)=omega_bound(n,m,2)+omega_a_inf(n,m,2)+omega_b_inf(n,m,2);

Fw(n,m)=omega_bound(n,m,3)+omega_a_inf(n,m,3)+omega_b_inf(n,m,3);

%Performing identical operations on opposite wing

r0(n,m+ns*nc,:)=[panel(k,p).BV1(1) -

panel(k,p).BV1(2) panel(k,p).BV1(3)]'-[panel(k,p).BV2(1) -

panel(k,p).BV2(2) panel(k,p).BV2(3)]';

r1(n,m+ns*nc,:)=panel(i,j).CP-[panel(k,p).BV2(1) -

panel(k,p).BV2(2) panel(k,p).BV2(3)]';

r2(n,m+ns*nc,:)=panel(i,j).CP-[panel(k,p).BV1(1) -

panel(k,p).BV1(2) panel(k,p).BV1(3)]';

Fac1=shiftdim(cross(r1(n,m+ns*nc,:),r2(n,m+ns*nc,:)))/(norm(shiftdim

(cross(r1(n,m+ns*nc,:),r2(n,m+ns*nc,:)))))^2;

Fac2=dot(r0(n,m+ns*nc,:),(r1(n,m+ns*nc,:)/norm(shiftdim(r1(n,m+ns*nc

,:)))))-

dot(r0(n,m+ns*nc,:),(r2(n,m+ns*nc,:)/norm(shiftdim(r2(n,m+ns*nc,:)))

));

Fac1a(1,1)=0;

Fac1a(1,2)=(panel(i,j).CP(3)-

panel(k,p).BV2(3))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-panel(k,p).BV2(3))^2+(-

panel(k,p).BV(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);

Fac1a(1,3)=(-panel(k,p).BV2(2)-

panel(i,j).CP(2))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-panel(k,p).BV2(3))^2+(-

panel(k,p).BV2(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);

Fac2a=-1+((panel(i,j).CP(1)-

panel(k,p).BV2(1))/norm(shiftdim(r1(n,m+ns*nc,:))));

Fac1b(1,1)=0;

Fac1b(1,2)=-(panel(i,j).CP(3)-

panel(k,p).BV1(3))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-panel(k,p).BV1(3))^2+(-

panel(k,p).BV1(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);

Fac1b(1,3)=-(-panel(k,p).BV1(2)-

panel(i,j).CP(2))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-panel(k,p).BV1(3))^2+(-

panel(k,p).BV1(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);

Fac2b=(-1+((panel(i,j).CP(1)-

panel(k,p).BV1(1))/norm(shiftdim(r2(n,m+ns*nc,:)))));

omega_bound(n,m+ns*nc,:)=Fac1*Fac2;

omega_a_inf(n,m+ns*nc,:)=Fac1a*Fac2a;

omega_b_inf(n,m+ns*nc,:)=Fac1b*Fac2b;

Fu(n,m+ns*nc)=omega_bound(n,m+ns*nc,1)+omega_a_inf(n,m+ns*nc,1)+omeg

a_b_inf(n,m+ns*nc,1);

Fv(n,m+ns*nc)=omega_bound(n,m+ns*nc,2)+omega_a_inf(n,m+ns*nc,2)+omeg

a_b_inf(n,m+ns*nc,2);

Fw(n,m+ns*nc)=omega_bound(n,m+ns*nc,3)+omega_a_inf(n,m+ns*nc,3)+omeg

a_b_inf(n,m+ns*nc,3);

186

% calculate score and other outputs, post to the GUI

q = 1/2*geo.density*geo.V^2;

%Determine the stall angles of attack for root and tip airfoils

alpha_r = (geo.i_r + geo.alpha)*180/pi;

chord_r = geo.c_r;

thick_r = str2num(geo.root(end-1:end)); %Determine thickness of root

airfoil

Re_r = geo.V*geo.density*chord_r/geo.visc;

k = cell2mat(airfoildata{5}(geo.rootindex));

alpha_stall_r = k(1) + k(2)*log10(Re_r) + k(3)*log10(Re_r)^2;

chord_t = geo.c_r*geo.taper;

thick_t = str2num(geo.tip(end-1:end)); %#ok<ST2NM> %Determine thickness of

tip airfoil

Re_t = geo.V*geo.density*chord_t/geo.visc;

k = cell2mat(airfoildata{5}(geo.tipindex));

alpha_stall_t = k(1) + k(2)*log10(Re_t) + k(3)*log10(Re_t)^2;

eta = (2*(1:geo.ns)-1)/(2*geo.ns);

chord = chord_r + eta*(chord_t-chord_r);

alpha = alpha_r + eta*(alpha_t-alpha_r);

alpha_stall = alpha_stall_r + eta*(alpha_stall_t-alpha_stall_r);

thick = thick_r + eta*(thick_t-thick_r);

percentstalled = 0; %Tracks percentage of wing that is stalled

averagechord = 0; %Tracks average chord of stalled wing

averagealphapaststall = 0; %Tracks the average number of degrees past stall

averagethickness = 0; %Tracks the average thickness of the airfoil sections

past stall

averagestallalpha = 0; %Tracks the average stall angle

for i = 1:geo.ns

if alpha(i) > alpha_stall(i)

counter = counter + 1;

percentstalled = percentstalled + 1;

averagechord = averagechord + chord(i);

averagealphapaststall = averagealphapaststall + (alpha(i) -

alpha_stall(i));

averagethickness = averagethickness + thick(i);

averagestallalpha = averagestallalpha + alpha_stall(i);

end

end

percentstalled = percentstalled/geo.ns;

averagechord = averagechord/counter;

averagealphapaststall = averagealphapaststall/counter*pi/180; %Convert

to radians because stall model was developed in radians

averagethickness = averagethickness/counter;

averagestallalpha = averagestallalpha/counter;

end

%Determine lift while accounting for lift after the stall angle of attack

c = averagethickness/12; %Thickness coefficient

187

d = 100*c; %Determined by trial and error to closely model the shape and

behavior of the lift curve

k = 400*c;

CL_stall = sum(CL.c+CL.alpha*averagestallalpha*pi/180); %Average max lift

coefficient

%The following equation is the result of modeling the lift

%coefficient of the airfoil after the stall angle of attack as a

%2nd order ODE with initial position of CL_stall and initial

%velocity of CL_alpha. See Stall Model.nb for Mathematica

%derivation

if percentstalled == 0

stallcorrection = 1;

else

stallcorrection = exp(0.5*(-d-sqrt(d^2-

4*k))*(averagealphapaststall))*(-2*CL.alpha-CL_stall*d+CL_stall*sqrt(d^2-

4*k))/(2*sqrt(d^2-4*k))...

+exp(0.5*(-d+sqrt(d^2-

4*k))*(averagealphapaststall))*(2*CL.alpha+CL_stall*d+CL_stall*sqrt(d^2-

4*k))/(2*sqrt(d^2-4*k));

end

% Effect Ground

h_c = geo.alti/geo.c_av;

omega =(1-(1.32*h_c))/(1.05+(7.4*h_c)); %equation NASA TN D970 page 7 &

NASA TM 77

e_g =1/(sqrt(1-omega));

% EFFECT ENDPLATE

h_b = geo.endplate;

o_e =(1.66*2*h_b)/(1+(1.66*2*h_b)); %equation from Paul E.Hemke Drag of

Wing with Endplate equation 20

e_p = 1/(sqrt(1-o_e));

CL = ((1-

percentstalled)*(CL.c+CL.alpha*geo.alpha)+percentstalled*stallcorrection);

L = CL*q*geo.S;

CLind = CL*e_g*e_p;

Lind = CLind*q*geo.S;

CM = (CM.c+CM.alpha*geo.alpha);

M = CM*q*geo.S;

CMind = CM*e_g*e_p;

Mind = CMind*q*geo.S;

%fuselage from section 2.9.1 of Anderson, Aircraft Performance and Design

188

%The sum of these two terms represents the total skin friction drag on the

%wing body or the zero-lift drag

cda = CDi+(CD0 + geo.S_Sref*geo.cf);

Dind = CDi*q*geo.S;

Dprofile = (CD0 + geo.S_Sref*geo.cf)*q*geo.S;

d_g = 1-omega;

d_p = 1-o_e;

cdaind = cda*d_g*d_p;

Dindind = Dind*d_g*d_p;

Dprofileind = Dprofile*d_g*d_p;

%Set output

set(output.totaldrag,'String',num2str(round(Dtotal)));

set(output.inddrag,'String',num2str(round(Dind)));

set(output.profdrag,'String',num2str(round(Dprofile)));

set(output.lift,'String',num2str(L)); %Convert to lbf

set(output.CLaverage,'String',num2str(CL));

set(output.CDaverage,'String',num2str(cda));

set(output.Moment,'String',num2str(M));

set(output.CM,'String',num2str(-CM));

set(output.totaldrag2,'String',num2str(round(Dtotalind)));

set(output.inddrag2,'String',num2str(round(Dindind)));

set(output.profdrag2,'String',num2str(round(Dprofileind)));

set(output.lift2,'String',num2str(round(Lind))); %Convert to lbf

set(output.CLaverage2,'String',num2str(CLind));

set(output.CDaverage2,'String',num2str(cdaind));

set(output.Moment2,'String',num2str(Mind));

set(output.CM2,'String',num2str(-CMind));

189

APPENDIX E

%===================================================================

% Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion

%===================================================================

clc;

disp(' ')

D=input('Input coefficients of characteristic equation,i.e:[an an-1

an-2 ... a0]= ');

l=length (D);

disp(' ')

disp('----------------------------------------')

disp('Roots of characteristic equation is:')

roots(D)

%%=======================Program Begin==========================

--------

if mod(l,2)==0

m=zeros(l,l/2);

[cols,rows]=size(m);

for i=1:rows

m(1,i)=D(1,(2*i)-1);

m(2,i)=D(1,(2*i));

end

else

m=zeros(l,(l+1)/2);

[cols,rows]=size(m);

for i=1:rows

m(1,i)=D(1,(2*i)-1);

end

for i=1:((l-1)/2)

m(2,i)=D(1,(2*i));

end

190

end

for j=3:cols

if m(j-1,1)==0

m(j-1,1)=0.001;

end

for i=1:rows-1

m(j,i)=(-1/m(j-1,1))*det([m(j-2,1) m(j-2,i+1);m(j-1,1) m(j-

1,i+1)]);

end

end

% --------------------End of Bulding array--------------------------

------

Temp=sign(m);a=0;

for j=1:cols

a=a+Temp(j,1);

end

if a==cols

disp(' ----> System is Stable <----')

else

disp(' ----> System is Unstable <----')

end

%=======================Program Ends==========================

191

APPENDIX F

INPUT

B 0.129 metres 0.42 feet Beam

VCG 0.295 metres 0.97 feet VCG

6 kg 14.00 lbf Displacement

T 12.00 12.00 Deadrise @ transom

)0( 12.00 12.00 Deadrise @ amidships

L )0( 0.457 metres 1.500 feet Distance to amidships

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 Angle of thrust line

192

Vmin 1.3 kn 2.2 feet/s

for this analysis

Maximum speed valid

Vmax 28.4 kn 48.0 feet/s

for this analysis

Bmax 0.130 metres 0.42 feet Maximum beam

0.039 metres 0.13 feet Moulded depth of hull

HSS 0.147 metres 0.48 feet Height of house

BSS 0.123 metres 0.40 feet Breadth of house

2 2

ASS 0.018 m 0.20 feet Frontal area of house

Propulsion System

0.000 ( <= 1 ) 0.000 Span ratio

0.0 0.0 Deflection angle

t 0.000 metres 0.00 feet Thickness

2 2

Arudder 0.000 m 0.00 feet Area

feet Centrepoint

yc 0.000 metres 0.00 feet

l 0.000 metres 0.00 feet Length of shaft & hub

feet Centrepoint

yc 0.000 metres 0.00 feet

t 0.000 metres 0.00 feet Thickness

2

Astrut 0.000 m 0.00 Area

feet2 ****

xc 0.000 metres 0.00 feet

Centrepoint

yc 0.000 metres 0.00 feet

Sub BerekenTrim()

Dim trim As Double

193

Dim A(14), tijdelijk(14) As Double

Sheets("IO").Select

rij = 57

kolom = 4

j = -1

For i = 0 To 14 Step 1

Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = 0.0001

If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value > 0 Then j = i

Next i

For i = (j + 1) To 14 Step 1

For trim = 0.1 To 15.1 Step 1

Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = trim

If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value < 0 Then tijdelijk(i) =

Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value

If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value >= 0 Then Exit For

Next trim

Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = tijdelijk(i)

A(i) = tijdelijk(i)

Next i

For i = (j + 1) To 14 Step 1

For trim = A(i) To 15.1 Step 0.1

Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = trim

If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value < 0 Then tijdelijk(i) =

Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value

If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value >= 0 Then Exit For

Next trim

Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = tijdelijk(i)

A(i) = tijdelijk(i)

Next i

194

For i = (j + 1) To 14 Step 1

For trim = A(i) To 15.01 Step 0.01

Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = trim

If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value < 0 Then tijdelijk(i) =

Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value

If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value >= 0 Then Exit For

Next trim

Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = tijdelijk(i)

A(i) = tijdelijk(i)

Next i

For i = (j + 1) To 14 Step 1

For trim = A(i) To 15.001 Step 0.001

Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = trim

If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value < 0 Then tijdelijk(i) =

Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value

If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value >= 0 Then Exit For

Next trim

If Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = " > 13 " Then Exit For

Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = tijdelijk(i)

A(i) = tijdelijk(i)

Next i

For i = (j + 1) To 14 Step 1

For trim = A(i) To 15.0001 Step 0.0001

Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = trim

If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value >= 0 Then Exit For

Next trim

If Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = " > 13 " Then Exit For

Next i

If j <> -1 Then

For i = 0 To j Step 1

195

Next i

End If

For i = (j + 1) To 14 Step 1

If Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value > 15 Then Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = " > 15 "

Next i

End Sub

OUTPUT

V LCG D T

[kn] [ft] [metres] [] [lbf] [kN] [lbf] [kN]

3 1.500 0.457 - - - - -

4 1.500 0.457 3.38 2 0.0 2 0.0

5 1.500 0.457 3.59 2 0.0 2 0.0

6 1.500 0.457 3.87 2 0.0 2 0.0

8 1.500 0.457 4.48 2 0.0 2 0.0

10 1.500 0.457 4.65 3 0.0 3 0.0

12 1.500 0.457 4.29 3 0.0 3 0.0

14 1.500 0.457 3.76 3 0.0 3 0.0

16 1.500 0.457 3.24 4 0.0 4 0.0

18 1.500 0.457 2.79 4 0.0 4 0.0

20 1.500 0.457 2.41 5 0.0 5 0.0

22 1.500 0.457 2.10 6 0.0 6 0.0

25 1.500 0.457 1.73 7 0.0 7 0.0

26 1.500 0.457 1.63 8 0.0 8 0.0

28 1.500 0.457 1.45 9 0.0 9 0.0

196

APPENDIX G

craft during take-off involving thrust, motor RPM and control system. Motor

propeller has been selected to produce thrust during take-off, thrust meter to measure

the thrust force generated by the motor propeller, and the RPM sensor is selected to

compute the motor rotation per minute. Transmitter controller (remote control) is

used to control the movement of WIG craft model. Selection of telemetry receiver

also needs to receive signals from the transmitter controller and then sends a signal

to the servo motor to move the motor at the desired speed. The speed of the WIG

model during take off until it reaches and maintain in the air specifically controlled

by Electric Speed Control (ESC). Selection of the appropriate ESC is necessary in

order to properly process the signals and control the speed (timing) engine

RPM. Pitot tube is selected to a part of the instruments in this study because it

fulfills the criteria function to calculate the speed of the moving model. Based on the

performance of WIG craft model to be studied, such as speed, engine RPM, altitude,

and the take off distance, a data recorder has been selected for each of the readings

recorded during the take off and when it maintains in the air. Then, choosing the

second telemetry receiver has been made to receive all the data collected by the data

197

recorder so that it more easily to transfer to the laptop screen (PC). Telemetry

software should be installed first to the laptop before all the data can be read.

The selection of the instrument tools are due to what the expectation during

the flight test. For detail selection can be seen at Table G.1

instrument

Remote Control To control the moving of model Using Futaba 6EX

(Transmitter) by transfer the signal to the Transmitter with

telemetry receiver. the 2.4GHz FASST

system.

Very quickly

virtually

eliminating signal

conficts and

interruptions.

Easy Link system

features a unique

ID code in the

transmitter that

links to the

receiver.

198

(Receiver) remote control (transmitter). R607FS receiver.

Same frequency

with remote

control.

Powerful enough to

easily control giant-

scale models.

The R607FS uses

rubber grommets to

minimize stress on

the antennas.

dictated by the velocity Monitor Micro

command input. Sensor by Eagle

Generate a proportional error tree.

signal equal to the difference The servo amplifier

between the velocity will respond

command and the actual proportionally to

motor speed. changes in the

Also acting as a source of velocity-input

electric power and given command (a -10V

voltan to brushless motor. to +10V signal).

Using the analog

velocity command

to drive the

amplifier at any

speed from reverse

to forward.

199

Electronic Speed ESC is a device that controls the ESCs are sized by

Control (ESC) motor RPM. Begin with throttle the amperage and

inputs are received by the radio voltage needed by

receiver and then sent to the your motor and

ESC to increase or decrease the propeller/rotor/fan

motor RPM. combination.

Micro planes the

ESCs are rated very

small at around 3.7

volts, 5 amps or

less whereas giant

scale ESCs go all

the way up to 50

volts and over 140

amps.

model so that the model will motor producted by

move foward and fly. Maxx Product

The removable

intake ring enables

the ducted fan to be

installed inside the

model or mounted

on the surface; it

improves the units

efficiency.

Specification:

Input power: 1330

Watts.

Thrust: approx. 2.6 Kg,

5.7 lbs (92 oz).

200

Recorder/eLogger to Motor RPM Sensor

measure RPM via pulses V2.

from any two of the wires The sensor will not

leading from Electronic work on Brushed

Speed Controller (ESC) to motor RPM.

motor. Simply connect a

Figure below show the RPM wire to the power

sensor. supply line.

For USB Data

Recorder and

MicroPower E-

Logger (starting

Version 2.0). RPM

sensor

range from 100 up

to approx. 50.000

RPM.

Thrust meter Measure the motor thrust Using Tahmazo

without installing the motor Thurst Meter.

onto model. Can measure the

Determine the right motor, thrust in different

propeller and even S.I. units (kg, lb,

combination of both before oz) and up to a

installing them onto model. maximum weight

of 9.9kg.

A motor mounting

plate is included for

motors from 12mm

to 50mm in

diameter.

Airspeed micro The MicroSensor is a Airspeed

sensor and pitot precision instrument that MicroSensor V3

tube uses a Prandtl style pitot- from Eagle Tree

201

airspeed. choosing.

The Airspeed

Microsensor is

intended for use

exclusively in

model planes, boats

and cars.

It is extremely

unlikely that the

installation of the

MicroSensor will

affect the models

radio range or

control.

main component that picture of types of data

have their own function: recorder produced by

Onboard Flight Data Eagle Tree.

Recorder - this unit

collects the data from

built-in and external

sensors.

Onboard Telemetry

Transmitter - this unit

sends the data from the

Recorder to the

Dashboard

Seagull Dashboard

Telemetry Receiver - this

unit displays telemetry

202

when problems occur.

Temperature To measure temperature A device for

sensor of brushless motor and measuring sushu

humidity in the must have high

surrounding area when efficiency in terms

the flight test is of his senses.

conducted. For USB Data

Temperature and Recorder and Micro

humidity affect the Power E-Logger.

performance of the Temperature range

model during the flight up to 121C/250F.

test.This is due to air

pressure differences

result from differences in

moisture.

203

The calibration RIG has been done for measure the amount of thrust produced

by each DC motor. From this experiment will get data thrust for each RPM.

Calibration RIG is started by select base foundation, where in this experiment using

wood. This wood is used as a base to mount the motor and thrust meter. Thrust

meter and motor is also bound to the zinc before it is mounted on the surface of the

wood. The distance and radius of each hole was calculated in advance to ensure a

strong structure in addition to obtain the expected results of the experiment. The

distance between the holes in the wood represent the actual distance between the

thrust meter and the motor. The distance between the thrust meter and the motor in

this experiment is 10cm. This distance is suitable for wind power generated by the

motor will not be refracted too much. This can improve the accuracy of the thrust

meter readings. To ensure that the thrust meter can read the thrust force generated by

the motor as a whole, a zinc plate 1 along the 30cm and 21.5cm width has been

screwed in the pre-drilled holes thrust meter. The tahmazo thrust meter was mounted

on the zinc plate 1 with a size of 4mm diameter screw. The tahmazo thrust meter is

used because it is easy to mount and portable device that can measure the motor

thrust without installing the motor onto model.

ESC Pheonix ICE 75SB has been used to control some other component parts

according to specifications set. It has 6 series of wire that has different functions.

There are two wire + ve and -ve is connected to the pole + ve and -ve battery. This

process is actually done at the end after all the other devices already finished setup.

State of the battery must always be ON when you want to connect both the wire.

Meanwhile, a wire in the middle connected to a remote control (receiver). This wire

is plugged in the slot 3 from the upper. It also shows that ESC is able to receive

signals (data) from the remote control (transmitter) to increase the current flow rate

and the motor can rotate at higher speeds. Three wires (red, white, black) are

connected to the motor. The black wire on the ESC is connected to the red wire on

the motor. With this, the direction of motor rotation is clockwise, and this means that

the motor was like being in a state of breathing air from the forward direction and

remove them to back as the thrust. The thrust meter readings will show improvement

204

if the ESC is receiving signals from remote control (transmitter) to increase the

speed of motor rotation.

The Brushless Motor Sensor works with the Data Recorder/eLogger to

measure RPM via pulses from any two of the wires leading from Electronic Speed

Controller (ESC) to the motor. The sensor works with all known brushless motors.

There are two unconnected wires extending from the Sensor, labeled Wire 1 and

Wire 2. These wires need to be electrically connected to any 2 of the 3 wires

leading from ESC to the motor. The end of these wires can be soldered, clipped or

otherwise electrically connected to one of the motor wires. With most ESC/motor

combinations, the sensor should work correctly if only the Wire 1 wire is

connected, and the Wire 2 wire is left disconnected. To calibrate the RPM sensor,

its need to know the number of poles brushless motor has. The term poles refers

to the number of magnets in the motor (NOT the number of stator teeth, legs, or

hammerheads.) Brushless RPM sensor is connected to the connection between

ESC and motor.

First of all, before the ESC is connected to the motor, the RPM sensor wire is

inserted in the centre of the connection between ESC and motor. Wire 1 in the RPM

sensor wire is connected to the wire lead to motor (red) and ESC (black). Then it

was wrapped with plastic wrap to prevent current leakage while ensuring that the

RPM sensor can give the accurately reading with a maximum value of motor

rotation. For more detail Calibration RIG set up can be seen in Figure G.1- figure G

3.

205

206

Calibration servo is done to measure the angle of rudder and the output of

servo. It is done when the entire devices are installing to WIG model. It involved

three main components (battery, servo, multi meter) to check the performance of

servo and rudder. The servo is move smoothly left and right and the multi meter will

show up the transfer function (output) value for corresponding angle of rudder. The

multi meter is stopped when the rudder is in maximum deflection. The protector is

placed in between the space of rudder to measure the maximum angle of deflection.

The servo output is recorded at this state. The rudder then to be set for 0, 10,

20, 30, 40 and maximum is 50. For each angle, it will give the different for

value of servo output. The angle of rudder will affect the radial turning for WIG

model when the WIG model moves at the certain speed. During the flight test, the

performance of servo and rudder is recorded. Detail configuration can be seen at

Figure G.4

207

Telemetry data record system is a unit that sends the data from the Recorder to

the Dashboard. The Data Recorder is not powered when connecting the transmitter,

and the red wire of the transmitter cable is corresponds with the red dot on the port

label (to the right of the connector). The Seagull Transmitter cable is plugged into

the Expansion port on the transmitter is installed in the upper row of pins, as

shown in the figure. With the Telemetry Transmitter, the data obtained in this

experiment can be collected and sent online to the Dashboard. A transmitter antenna

position is determined in the vertical so that data can be transmitted easily without

any barriers and avoids errors.

208

209

210

APPENDIX H

SIMULATION PROGRAM

211

212

- ME2135E Fluid Mechanics Lab -2 Flow Past an AerofoilUploaded byLinShaodun
- Sec. 2.2 Theory of FlightUploaded bybenanthony_bagalihog
- Phd Thesis Without TearsUploaded bykhairulkamarudin
- LLM_FinalUploaded byBhagyashree Vaidya
- OTC-1263-MSUploaded bysark_1992
- Beamer2Thesis 2.2 English GuideUploaded byClaudio Fiandrino
- assAsUploaded byMukesh Bisht
- PhD Thesis Structure and ContentUploaded byrhgoudar
- Dissertation GuidelinesUploaded byAnkit Pandey
- Discovery Oral Notification 17 (1)Uploaded byRicky
- nes42999Uploaded byTongc Vothai
- Bonus TurbineUploaded bySubbu Prathipati
- English - Phd-borang Penyerahan Untuk PemeriksaanUploaded byAhmad Fazlizan Abdullah
- Bachelor Graduate Research Paper or Project AssessmentUploaded byDr. Abdullah Shaghi
- Beamer 2 ThesisUploaded byCharlie root
- Honors - Proposal GuidelinesUploaded byMin Besh
- reverse outline for wp2Uploaded byapi-302263676
- Thesis.pdfUploaded byMsxmmc HJsjdbaa
- Latin America DBQ 2016 2017Uploaded byJoshua Kennedy
- Biophysics of tooth.pdfUploaded bySonam Behl Kamboj
- Ian Shanahan - Karina Filipi MMus(Hons) Thesis ReportUploaded byIan Shanahan
- Essay Writing Help UK_Coursework WritingUploaded byTutors India
- Clinton Golding, Sharon Sharini, Ayelet Lazarovitch; What Examiners Do. What Thesis Students Should KnowUploaded byDženan Dautović
- GSD Thesis Dissertation BriefingUploaded bybrendan lanza
- Responsibilities and Qualities of a SupervisorUploaded byEditor IJTSRD
- Viva PreparationUploaded byMohammedAbdulAzeem
- rocket reportUploaded byapi-312558204
- Table of Content and Front PageUploaded byHope Shield
- 87022015-Fluid-Mechanics-2-Experiment-1-Aerofoil-test-in-wind-tunnel-at-different-angles-of-attack.docxUploaded byKasun Weerasekara
- Leaflet DissertationUploaded byRS

- Brake holding formulaUploaded byVinay Pratap Singh
- Upirjfb usbUploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- L7hig7f6vonif5cUploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- 27Uploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- Komod Rom Os 2014Uploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- 23166-70641-1-SM.pdfUploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- D5f7bjxtsubovuUploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- new doc 2019-06-11 08.28.08_20190611083304.pdfUploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- 07_Grubisic.pdfUploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- !$@ rstcvtUploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- Infeksi SSP Unila - Meningitis, Encephalitis, Polio, Tetanus- Juni 2019Uploaded byArdhya Ramadhanti
- GmnveAgnntxUploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- 494_Dispensasi Volunteer AGUploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- Laporan Bab 2Uploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- BAB II_2Uploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- vjsdkavndsaohdsvUploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- 2706f-8.75m-patrol-boat-saudi-.pdfUploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- hidrostatik jalskyUploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- Tbk II BonjeanUploaded byIhsanul Ridho

- About Hovercraft.docUploaded byrospazita
- BoeingGroupCaseStudy.docxUploaded byDoris Hill
- dcd013.pdfUploaded bybillstephens
- Ada 360979Uploaded byRogerio Guahy
- Wig ProjectUploaded byalp_alp
- Study of AerodynamicsUploaded byAnonymous CUPykm6DZ
- Abdul Azhim Abdul RahimUploaded byzack
- Aerodynamic Ground EffectUploaded byLev Sorkin
- RulesUploaded byJusak Sonang Siahaan
- Advanced Marine Surface CraftUploaded byGoutam Kumar Saha
- 05_high_speed_hulls_&_propulsors.pdfUploaded byChocolatebuon
- ISI-1b hj,Uploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- A STUDY ON CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF FUSELAGE FOR A SMALL SCALE WIG VEHICLE USING COMPOSITE MATERIALSUploaded bykats2404
- Estimation of Cost and main Characteristics of Air-Cushion Vehicles in the preliminary design stage.pdfUploaded byMaurizio Bernasconi
- 51083Uploaded byAhmmed Shakil
- 63282790-MITUploaded byAnno Fikri Ardito
- ( Vol VIII ),2006 Rules for Classification and Construction of WIG CRAFT,2006Uploaded byAnonymous ma0HXq2iX
- Microsoft Word - full chapter -revise after viva ok(1).pdfUploaded byIhsanul Ridho
- Ada 294979Uploaded byRogerio Guahy
- Daftar Pustaka Ship MotionUploaded byAris Munandar
- Ada 294980Uploaded byRogerio Guahy
- High Speed Marine Transportation 2008 9Uploaded byRichard Leonel Vasquez Meza
- Ground Effect VehiclesUploaded bySaptarshi Basu
- WIG StructuresUploaded bysilahgan
- Numerical and Experimental Studies on Wing in Ground Effect (1)Uploaded byarash501
- Boon ThesisUploaded byMark Evan Salutin
- Marine vheichlesUploaded byChakma Nhiki
- RozhdestvenskyUploaded byAlvin Goh
- Hull Form and Propulsor Technology for High Speed Sealift.pdfUploaded bymalex_g
- Surface Piercing, HydrofoilUploaded byMaurizio Bernasconi

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.