Copyright ©1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA Meeting Papers on Disc, January 1997

A9715824, AIAA Paper 97-0822

Investigation of a three-dimensional power-augmented ram wing in ground effect

Nobuyuki Hirata
Ship Research Inst., Mitaka, Japan

Takanori Hino
Ship Research Inst., Mitaka, Japan

AIAA, Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, 35th, Reno, NV, Jan. 6-9, 1997

A numerical investigation was conducted to determine the aerodynamic phenomena and performance characteristics of a
power-augmented ram wing in ground effect (PAR-WIG), where lift is enhanced by using the airflow of a thruster to create a
high-pressure region under the wing. The Navier-Stokes solver used was a MUSCL-type third-order accurate upwind
differencing, finite-volume, artificial compressibility code based on a multiblock grid approach. In order to understand the
mechanism of the power-augmentation effect, two boundary conditions on the ground were considered: (1) a moving belt
ground plane condition; and (2) a fixed ground plate condition corresponding to a wind-tunnel test. Thrust was represented
using prescribed body-force distributions. The flow around a rectangular wing with end-plates and propellers which were
placed forward of the wing and blew under the wing, were computed by the solver with different trailing edge heights.
Results are compared with the measured data and the aerodynamic characteristics are discussed. (Author)

Page 1

INVESTIGATION OF A THREE-DIMENSIONAL
POWER-AUGMENTED RAM WING IN GROUND EFFECT
Nobuyuki Hirata*
Ship Research Institute, Mitaka, Tokyo 181, JAPAN
Abstract
A numerical investigation was conducted to deter-
mine the aerodynamic phenomena and performance
characteristics of a power-augmented ram wing in
ground effect(PAR-WIG). A PAR-WIG is a wing
designed to operate in ground effect, whose lift is
enhanced by using aeroflow of a thrUster to create
a high-pressure region under the wing. The Navier-
Stokes solver used was a MUSCL-type third-order
accurate upwind differencing, finite-volume, artifi-
cial compressibility code based on a multi-block grid
approach. In order to understand the mechanism of
the power-augmentation effect, two boundary con-
ditions on the ground were considered: (1) a moving
belt ground plane condition; and (2) a fixed ground
plate condition corresponding to a wind-tunnel test.
Thrust was represented using prescribed body-force
distributions. The flow around a rectangular wing
with end-plates and propellers which were placed
forward of the wing and blew under the wing, were
computed by the solver with different trailing edge
heights. Results were compared with the measured
data and the aerodynamic characteristics were dis-
cussed.
1 Introduction.
In recent years, a wing in ground effect(WlG) ve-
hicle is expected to be one of the promising super
high-speed craft in the next generation, since it has
an exceptionally high lift to drag ratio performance
at low altitude. However, to design a full-scale ve-
hicle with an extraordinary performance is very dif-
ficult owing to the need for low speed take off and
landing on the sea. High speed take off and land-
ing from water require an excessive structural weight
and engine power because of the large wave impact
*Senior Technical Officer, Ship Performance Division,
Member AIAA.
^ Chief, Ship Performance Division.
Copyright ©1997 by the American Institute of Aeronau-
tics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
AIAA-97-0822
and Takanori Hino^
loads and the water resistance. One of the possi-
ble solutions to this problem is a power-augmented
ram(PAR) concept, wherein propulsors are placed
in front of the wing and the efflux from the propul-
sors is directed under the wing to generate a high
lift force at low speed. This concept can reduce the
take off and landing speeds, thus reducing impact
loads and also allows much higher wing loading.
Aerodynamic characteristics of PAR-WIGs have
mostly been studied, using experimental methods.
At the David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and
Development Centre, from 1975 to 1978, experimen-
tal and analytical studies were systematically con-
ducted [1] . They measured the PAR performance
both statically and/or at forward speed, over a solid
surface and/or water in various sea states[2, 3, 4].
They also predicted the static lift and drag perfor-
mance using two-dimensional incompressible poten-
tial theory[5, 6, 7]. Recently in Japan, some ex-
perimental studies[8, 9, 10] and theoretical analysis
taken forward speed into considerationfll] have been
conducted. Nevertheless, no flow computation has
been performed except CFD simulations by Hirata
[12, 13].
In the present study, the aerodynamic character-
istics of a three-dimensional power-augmented ram
wing in ground effect are examined with CFD pro-
cedures and wind-tunnel test results. The Navier-
Stokes solver used is based on the MUSCL-type
third-order accurate upwind differencing, finite-
volume, artificial compressibility method with an
algebraic turbulence model to close the system of
equations. Because of the geometric complexity of
the configuration, a multi-block grid approach is
introduced[14]. In order to understand the mech-
anism of the power-augmentation effect, two bound-
ary conditions on the ground are considered: (1)
the velocity is equal to the uniform flow; and (2)
the no slip condition. They correspond to an actual
operating condition and a wind-tunnel test with a
fixed ground plate, respectively. Thrust is repre-
sented by prescribed body force distributions pro-
posed by Hough and Ordway [15]. Results with dif-
ferent trailing edge heights are compared with the
measured data and the aerodynamic characteristics
are discussed.
2 Wind-Tuimel Tests

2.1 Model Configuration

A rectangular wing model with end-plates was de-
signed and fabricated at the Ship Research Institute.
The test model specifications are listed in Table 1. Fig.l Wing model and coordinate system.
The wing, as shown in Fig.l, has two features of
PAR-WIG. First the aspect ratio is very small com-
pared with that of conventional aeroplanes. The rea-
sons for such a small aspect ratio are: a large effec-
tive aspect ratio can be obtained from the ground ef-
fect; and the PAR performance is not fully effective
with a wing of large span. In addition, the model
has end-plates so as to sustain a high pressure re-
gion under the wing. The base line of the end-plate
is parallel to the ground and the reference height is
FtoOTOtwkxJ tunnel
defined as that of the wing at the trailing edge.
Fig.2 Apparatus of experiments with a ground plate.
Table 1 Specifications.

Model. 2.2 Apparatus and Tests

Wind-tunnel test investigation of ground effect is
chord length: 0.5m
usually approached, using one of the following three
span length: 0.3m
testing techniques:
aspect ratio: 0.15
1) moving belt ground plane
wing setting angle: 6°
2) image wing with respect to a fictitious ground
wing section: NACA6409
rectangular
3) boundary layer removal from a ground plate
planform:
thickness of end-plates: 1mm The moving belt technique provides the best sim-
ulation of the real flow but is very expensive to build,
Propeller.
operate and maintain the equipment. When small
ground clearances are required, problems occur in
propeller radius: 90mm maintaining a, smooth belt surface under the wing,
hub radius: 8.5mm because of the difficulty of providing guides. The
number of blades: 2 image wing technique has a disadvantage of cost
rotation: inward since an additional wing is required. Furthermore,
the method is very difficult to simulate PAR effect
Ground plate. accurately. The third method involves controlling
the boundary layer over the ground plate, sucking
forward plate length: 1.23m through slots to replace the momentum lost by the
slot width: 40mm boundary layer. The method is cheap and easy
slot angle: 45° to implement and only a ground plate method was
rear plate length: 2.0m adopted in the present PAR measurements. In the
plate thickness: 36mm case of the measurements without PAR, an image
position of L.E. of rear plate: x = —0.865m wing method was also used.
height from the floor: 0.567m The wind-tunnel is a Gottingen type with work-
ramp height: 0.155m ing section dimensions of 3m x 2m x 15m (width
 x height x length) in the Ship Research Institute. 8.0
The freestream turbulence intensity is generally less
than 0.34% and the freestream velocity is kept to be
within O.lm/s of a normal reference value. 7.0

The apparatus of the experiments and the defini-

tion of nomenclature are shown in Fig.2. A ground 150mm(x/c—1.43) -a
plate had a smooth leading edge spanning the width 6.0 550mm(x/c—0.63) -+
I000mm(x/c-0.27) -H-
of the wind-tunnel and was positioned above the l/7th power law —
tunnel floor. In order to remove the boundary layer
developed over the ground plate, a 45° slot cut across 5.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
the plate was set upstream of the wing model [16]. Ground heightfmm]
The dimensions of the ground plate are listed in Ta-
ble 1. The flow beneath the plate was accelerated Fig. 3 Measured velocity profiles on a ground plate.
by a ramp, hence the slot provided the required suc-
tion. However, since we did not use a moving belt, 3 Computational Method
a boundary layer still remained on the plate. The Navier-Stokes solver used in the present study
The velocity profiles on the plate were measured is the upwind finite-volume method with global con-
by a pitot-static tube, as depicted yi Fig.3. The servation and based on a multi-block grid approach
l/7th power law profile was also plotted for com- because of the geometric complexity of the configu-
parison. The experments were conducted at an ration. For details, see Hirata and Kodama [14].
average freestream speed of 7.0m/s. The bound-
3.1 Navier-Stokes Solver
ary layer profiles were measured at three positions
150mm, 550mm and 1000mm behind the down- The governing equations are the artificial com-
stream edge of the slot, respectively. At 150mm pressibility forms of the three dimensional Navier-
from the slot(142()mm from the leading edge), the Stokes equations with body force terms. They are
momentum defict of the boundary layer is greatly written in conservation form as:
reduced. The profile at x/c = 0.27(approximately
the position of the 1/4 chord), is very close to the ,)x + (F + F,)y + (G
l/7th power distribution suggesting fully turbulent
flow condition. The boundary layer height at, the
wing was about 25mm(=:0.05c). The outer flow ref- where (x,y,z) are the Cartesian coordinates. The
erence velocity f/o at the wing was accelerated to dependent variables q, the inviscid flux vectors
7.45m/s, because of the displacement effect of the K,F,G, the viscous flux vectors EV,FV,GV and the
ground plate apparatus, the blockage of the wing body force vector H are written as:
and the traverse. The Reynolds number based on
the chord length c and the velocity f/o was 2.4 x 10s.
I + p VU WU
The power-augmentation was simulated by means
v uv v2 + p wv
of a pair of model-aeroplane propellers placed up-
w
, IE F G] = uw vw w ~\~ p
stream of the wing, as listed in Table 1. The pro-
peller position relative to the wing was kept constant P flu J3v pw
with the changes of the ground height.
Lift, drag and pitching moment about the 1/4
chord were measured by a six-component force
gauge. Forces on both propellers were measured to- (Ev F, Gv] = -v
gether by a two-component force gauge and thrust is 0 0
denned as a resultant force in the x— and z— direc-
tions. Surface-pressure on the lower side of the wing
was also measured by the differential pressure gauge.
Forces, thrust and moment are non-dimensionalized fty
H =- (2)
by tpU02Sw, ^pU02Sv, and \pUo~1 cSWl where p and f",
Sw are the density of air and a wing area. 0
 where (u,v,w) are the velocity components, p is the
pressure, /? is a positive constant of artificial com-
pressibility, Re is the Reynolds number and vt is the
kinematic eddy viscosity determined from the tur-
bulence model.
The governing equations are discretized by an im-
plicit cell-centred finite-volume scheme. Thus, the
dependent variables and the kinematic eddy viscos-
ity are placed at the centre of each grid cell and the
grid cell is treated as a control volume.
The finite-volume discretization requires the eval-
uation of numerical fluxes at the cell faces. In the
present scheme, a third-order accurate upwind nu-
merical flux using the MUSCL approach is adopted
in the conventional Roe's scheme. Viscous terms are
discretized in the second-order central differencing
scheme based on the Gauss integral theorem.
The Padc time differencing form is used for time
integration with Euler implicit. In the inviscid terms
of the unsteady part, the first-order upwind differ-
encing is used. This does not affect the steady-state
part, that is, the converged inviscid part has third-
order accuracy. For space integration, IAF method
is used.
3.2 Turbulence Model
The closure of the system of equations is achieved
by introducing an algebraic two-layer turbulence
model proposed by Baldwin-Lomax with a minor
modification [17]. Because of the geometric com-
plexity of the configuration, the model is modified
in the region where multiple turbulent length scales
arc present, such as around the wing, the end-plates
and the ground. Generally, one structured cell has
the possibility to be affected by a maximum of six
boundary surfaces of the solution domain: in the
upstream, downstream, left, right, top and bottom
directions. The following formulation is taken as the
linear combination of the effects from the multiple
surfaces.
"tm
——
ym /^/ (3)
m=l
where i/m is the normal distance from the solid
wall/ground and vtm is the corresponding kinematic
eddy viscosity calculated by a conventional Baldwin-
Lomax procedure neglecting the presence of the
other solid walls /ground. When the m-th bound-
ary surface of the solution domain is not the solid
wall/ground, ym and vtm is treated as infinity and
zero, respectively.
3.3 Propeller Model
The propeller effect is represented using pre-
scribed body force distributions proposed by Hough
and Ordway [15] as follows:
fbx — F.,1 cos Op — F$ cos if> sin 8P
fby = F+ sin ^ (4)
fbf — —Fxi sin 6P + F,f, cos <j>cosSp
where
F,=A,r\
- Yh)r
105
CT
= r
. 105 (5)
At =
,
1— Rp
where <t>,6p,CT, KQ,J,SP, V,R, Rh, Rp are the tan-
gential coordinate, the downward angle of the pro-
peller, thrust coefficient, torque coefficient, advance
coefficient, single propeller area, control volume, ra-
dial coordinate whose origin is the centre of the pro-
peller, a hub radius and a propeller radius, respec-
tively.
3.4 Multi-Block Grid Approach
In the present scheme, the flow-field consists of
several blocks of grids. Each block is a rectangular
parallelepiped in computational coordinates. The
solver handles boundary conditions and connectiv-
ity informations according to the input data. Thus
boundary conditions, number of blocks and the way
that the blocks are connected can be easily changed.
Boundary informations are given on each bound-
ary surface of a block. Several kinds of boundary
informations are available, as listed in Table 2. In
the case where a block is connected to another block,
the neighboring block number and the relative loca-
tion are given at the boundary surface.
On the interface of the blocks, discontinuity of
grid points is not allowed, that is, grid point lo-
cations must be matched at block interfaces. This
puts some constraints on the grid, but inaccuracies
associated with mismatched grid interpolation are
avoided, since the block to block cells can be treated
exactly the same was as the interior cells. Moreover,
sweeps for the IAF procedure through whole the so-
lution domain are possible and the efficiency of the
calculation can be kept to the level of a single grid.
Figure 4 depicts the schematic view of block topol-
ogy for a WIG. The flow field consists of 18 blocks.
A uniform flow comes from the left side in the figure.
Boundary informations for block No.5 are given in
Table 3. Similar data are given on all surfaces of all
blocks.

Table 2 Available boundary informations.

B.I.No boundary information
Fig.5 Computational grid at h/c = 0.05.
-ibc connection to other block,
where ibc is the connected block number.
1 (u, v, w,p, ut} '• dirichlet cond.
3.5 Computational Domain and Grid
2 (u, v, w, m) : dirichlet cond., p : ncumann cond.
3 (u, v, w, f t ) : neumann cond., p : dirichlet cond. Figure 5 illustrates the computational grid and
4 (u, vt w, p, f t } '• neumann cond. the wing configuration at a height of 5% of the chord
5 x-symmetry cond. length. The thickness of the end-plates is set to zero.
6 y-symmetry cond. To minimize computer resources, symmetry is as-
7 z-symmetry cond. sumed about the vertical plane at the mid span po-
solid wall corid. sition. The computational grid is body fitted to fa-
ground cond. cilitate the implementation of boundary conditions.
(u, v, w, ut) — (1,0, 0, U), p: neumann cond. The mesh contains 75 planes streamwisely, 35 lat-
10 free-surface cond. erally and 55 vertically. The minimum spacings are
0.005, 0.005 and 0.0001 in the streamwise, the lat-
eral and the vertical directions. The grid points are
clustered near the wing, the ground and the sym-
metry plane. The solution domain extends 5 chord
lengths upstream from the leading edge of the wing
Right and an equal distance downstream from the trailing
edge of the wing. The far-field boundaries in both
lateral and vertical directions are 4 chord lengths
from the end-plate and the upper side of the wing,
respectively.

3.6 Computational Conditions

The computations were carried out with three
trailing edge heights, h/c of 0.02, 0.05 and 0.10.
As a boundary condition on the ground, two meth-
Fig.4 Schematic view of block topology for a WIG. ods are considered as shown in Table 4. Case-1 is
a very common type and similar to an actual op-
erating condition. Case-2 corresponds to a wind
Table 3 Boundary informations for block No.5. tunnel test with a fixed ground plate. Solid wall
condition on the rear plate (behind the slot) and
boundary information B.I.No. z-symmetry condition otherwise are implemented,
upstream connect to block No.4 -4 that is the boundary layer developed upstream of
downstream connect to block No.6 -6 the slot is ignored. Propeller effect was given using
left y-symmetry cond. 6 prescribed body force distributions from Eqs.4 & 5
right solid wall cond. 8 and the magnitude, location and downward angle of
bottom connect to block No. 2 -2 the propellers are listed in Table 4. The Reynolds
top solid wall cond. 8 number was set at 2.4 x 105.
 Table 4 Boundary conditions. minimum pressure peak is formed. Comparison of
measured and computed u- and w- velocity profiles
On ground. along the horizontal line at (x/c,z/c) = (—0.8,0.4),
computation experiment are shown in Fig.8. Although the measured data
case-1 (u,v, w) - (1,0,0) image wing method are scattered owing to the intensive unsteady state
i/t : z-symmetry (un-augmented case) of the wake, the computed results show good agree-
case- 2 ( u , t i , w , i / t ) = (0,0,0,0) ground plate method ment with the experimental data.
,-1.73 < x/c < 2.27 1.0
z-syrnmetry ,otherwise *ffr^ measured O
0.8 - jfp^ computed —— .
zero pressure gradient is implemented.
0.6
Other boundaries.
0.4
f
boundary (u, v,w) P ft
inflow (1,0,0) aero gradient 0
0.2
outflow zero gradient 0 zero gradient
outer zero gradient zero gradient zero gradient 0.0
symmetry symmetry symmetry symmetry 0.()0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.
body (0,0,0) zero gradient. 0 h/c
Fig.6 Comparison of velocity profiles at a position of
Propeller conditions. tOOOmm behind a slot(z/c = 0.27).

position of centre: (xp/c, J/p/c, Zp/c) =

(-1.0, ±0.188, /i/c + 0.31)
downward angle: 6P = 33°
coefficient of thrust: CT = 2.9
coefficient of torque: Kq/J2 = 0.3 _______ ___

4 Results and Discussions

4.1 Comparison of Computed and Measured
Results
Prior to the actual test program, the effective-
ness of the slot was investigated. Figure 6 shows -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
y/c
the comparison of measured and computed veloc-
ity profiles on the plate at x/c of 0.27 without the Fig.7 Velocity vectors and pressure contour maps at
wing. Computed results can almost reproduce the x/c = -0.8(Contour interval is 0.1(7P.).
measured profile. It was found that the slot pro- 4.0
vided the required suction and the boundary layer
u(computed) ——
developed upstream of the slot could be ignored. 3.0 (measured) *
w(computed) ••••••
Next, in order to determine the value of the co- 2.0 (measured) •*•
efficient A'g/J 2 in Eq.5, a calibration of the pro-
pellers in a uniform flow were conducted without 1.0
the wing, since we did not measure the torque.
The propellers were placed at (xp/c,yp/c,zp/c) — 0.0
(-1.0, ±0.188, 0.4) and the downward angle Sp was
0°, namely parallel to the ground. The thrust coef- -1.0
ficient CT was set at, 2.9 and the torque coefficient 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
y/c
was fixed at 0.3 from several numerical tests.
Fig.8 Comparison of measured and computed u- and
Figure 7 depicts the computed velocity vectors w- velocity profiles along the horizontal line
and pressure contour maps at x/c = —0.8. The flow at (r/c,z/c) = (-0.8,0.4) .
is swirling around the centre of the propeller and the
 2y/b-0.000 10.0
measured(case-l:Ct-0.0) —
8.0 (case-2:Ct-0.0) —
(case-2:Ct-2.9) -----
computed(case-I:Ct-0.0) Q
6.0 (case-2:Ct-0.0) +
d 4.0
(case-l:Ct-2.9) Q
(case-2:Ct-2.9) X
"fi.
2.0

0.0
1.0

8 0-5

0.0
0.0

5 -1.0

.-•IS
-2.0
30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
1.0

* 0.5

Fig. 9 Comparison of measured and computed snrface- 0.0

pressure distributions on a wing at h/c=0.02
for case-2.
Figure 9 depicts the comparison of measured and
computed surface-pressure distributions on the wing
at h/c of 0.02 for case-2. Computed results agree
well with the measured data on the lower side of the
wing. The pressure on the lower side of each section
holds a nearly constant high value. This state uti-
lizes the power-augmentation well and can produce
a high lift force. The data does not change very
much in the spanwise direction. This suggests that
the flow near the wing is mostly two-dimensional.
Thus, the end-plates are found to be quite effective.
Figure 10 shows the comparison of measured and
computed aerodynamic characteristics. Computed
results agree very well with corresponding experi-
mental data for all characteristics through the whole
range of the ground heights. The lift coefficient in-
creases as the wing moves close to the ground. This
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
h/c
Fig.10 Comparison of measured and computed
aerodynamic characteristics.
trend is similar to the results obtained using only
the ground effect. However the increase in rate with
the addition of PAR is very large and at h/c of 0.02,
the lift of PAR-WIG is approximately seven times
as large as that of an un-augmented WIG.
In an un-augrnented case at h/c of 0.02, a differ-
ence between case-1 and case-2 is clear[14]. However,
the difference with power-augmentation can not be
seen. The possible reasons will be discussed in the
next subsection.
The drag coefficient without augmentation is al-
most constant with the ground height but that
with power-augmentation increases as the wing ap-
proaches the ground, similarly to the lift coefficient.
 Wc-0.02(casc-l)
without PAR

LLLAJJ
Wc=0.02(case-2)
without PAR

•*• h/c-O.02(cose-l)
with PAR

- Wo-0.02(cnse-2)
with PAR

Fig.11 Enlarged view of the computed velocity Fig.12 Enlarged view of the computed pressure
vectors at y/c=0.188. distributions at y/c=0.188
ACP = 0.05/0.25(with/without PAR).

Wc-O.02(case-l) Wc-0.02(case-l)
without PAS with PAR

i i • iii%mmu.immmii t
a— _i_ 5 5 -iniiirf"" i LUiiiiiSSSSSj-i - 5_

Wo>0.02(case-2)
without PAR withPAR

I f f f <

I i § * i ii \ iMi
—j—j—i _
Fig.13 Computed velocity vectors at z/c=0.01 Fie.14 Computed velocity vectors at z/c=0.01
without PAR. with TAR.
 h/c-0.02(case-l)
Wc-0.05(case-l)
h/c-0.10(caso-l)
Fig.IS Computed velocity vectors at y/c=0.188
with PAR.
Owing to the increased lift, the pitching moment
coefficient about the 1/4 chord tends towards the
nose down direction as the wing moves close to the
ground. The lift to drag ratio increases as the ground
height becomes small, however, the ratio is inferior
to that without augmentation. The position of the
centre of pressure shifts forward as the ground height
decreases.
4.2 Effects on Ground Boundary Condition
and Ground Height
Figures 11 & 12 depict the computed velocity vec-
tors and pressure distributions with/without aug-
mentation at y/c of 0.188, containing the centre of
the propeller. First we compare case-1 and case-
2 with un-augmentation. In case-2, the boundary
layer on the plate separates and reattaches to the
plate. This causes a local blockage in the flow and
hence alters the pressure distribution on the wing
causing the reduction of the lift coefficient [14]. But
in case-2 with augmentation, flow separations can
not be observed.
Figures 13 fc 14 show the computed velocity vec-
tors at z/c of 0.01. In case-2 without augmentation,
the flow upstream of the wing has little lateral ve-
locity component. Hence, a large two-dimensional
flow separation occurs over the plate because of an
adverse pressure gradient on the non-slip condition.
h/c-0.02(oase-l)
Fig.16 Computed pressure distributions at y/c=0.188
with PAR(ACP = 0.25).
On the other hand, in case-2 with power-
augmentation, owing to the swirling efflux from the
propulsors, the flow forward of the wing has a large
lateral velocity component to the outside. As a re-
sult, the air does not separate over the plate and
flows smoothly under the wing with almost two-
dimensional through the effects of the end-plates.
The swirling flow is thought to avoid the separation
and the reduction of lift coefficients.
Secondary, we compare ground height effects. Fig-
ures 15 fc 16 show the computed velocity vectors and
pressure distributions with different trailing heights.
As the wing moves close to the ground, the blockage
under the wing increases. At higher altitude, the air
flows smoothly under the wing. The flow above the
wing does not change very much with the ground
height except in the vicinity of the upper side of the
wing. The difference is due to the flow spilling over
the wing from the propulsors. As the wing is close to
the ground, the momentum flux of the flow spilling
over the wing increases. Thereby, the pressure of the
upper side of the wing becomes small as the ground
height decreases.
Figure 17 shows the computed surface-pressure
distributions on the ground at y/c of 0.188. When
the wing is close to the ground, the pressure becomes
high. The result at h/c of 0.10 shows a small pres-
sure hump, upstream of the leading edge. This is the
impingement point of the efflux from the propulsors.
h/c-0.02(case-l) -e—
Figure 18 depicts the computed surface-pressure (casc-2) ~H—
distributions on the wing at y/c of 0.188. As the h/c-0.05(case-l) ••••••••
10.0 h/c-0.10(case-l) ——
wing becomes close to the ground, the pressure on
the lower side becomes high. The results correspond 4!
to the pressure distribution on the ground(Fig.lT).
5.0 .
The result at h/c of 0.02 indicates that the pressure
coefficient on the lower side of the wing is an almost
constant high value. This is very close to the ideal ^-~___
power-augmentation performance. 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.
Figure 19 shows the computed spanwise distribu- y/c
tions of the lift coefficient. Because of the presence of Fig. 19 Computed spanwise distributions of lift
the end-plates, high pressure exists under the wing coefficient.
and the flow is very similar to the two-dimensional
1.0
case. Thus at lower altitude, the end-plates are quite
case-1 (frictional) -«—
effective. (pressure ) ->—
case-2(frictional) -H—•
Figure 20 depicts the components of the computed (pressure ) -x—
drag coefficients. The frictional component is nearly
constant with the ground height, as a result, the 8 0-5
increase of the drag is derived only from the pressure
drag.

n- -B-
h/c-0.02(case-l) 0.0
(case-2) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
h/c-0.05(case-l) h/c
,h/c=0.10(case-l)
Fig.20 Components of computed drag coefficients.

5 Conclusions
Flows around
a three-dimensional power-augmented ram wing in
ground effect with end-plates were computed by a
Navier-Stokes solver so as to clarify the aerodynamic
interference between the wing, the ground and the
Fig. 17 Computed surface-pressure distributions on the
ground at y/c =0.188. propulsors. Because of the geometric complexity of
the configuration, a multi-block grid approach was
introduced. As a ground boundary condition, two
-12.0
methods were examined: case-1) the velocity is equal
h/c-0.02(case-l) -0— to the uniform flow; and case-2) the no slip con-
-8.0 (case-2) H—
h/c-0.05(case-l) ••-- dition. They corresponded to an actual operating
-4.0 h/c-0.10(case-l) —— condition and wind-tunnel tests with a fixed ground
plate respectively. Propulsors were represented us-
CJ 0.0
ing prescribed body-force distributions. The results
4.0 obtained were as follows:
8.0 •
1. Results simulated with different ground heights
12.0 showed good agreement with wind-tunnel tests
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 data in terms of the aerodynamic characteristics
x/c
for the ground heights of 0.02 ~ O.lOc.
Fig.18 Computed surface-pressure distributions on the
wing at y/c =0.188. 2. A further decrease in the ground height raised
the lift coefficient, drag coefficient and lift to
10
 drag ratio. However, the lift to drag ratio was
inferior to that without augmentation, because
of the increase of the drag coefficient.
3. In the present case, distributions of surface-
pressure on the lower side of a wing and two-
dimensional lift coefficient were a nearly con-
stant high value in the spanwise direction.
Thus, the end-plates were found to be effective,
as in the un-augmented condition.
4. The difference of ground conditions did not con-
siderably affect the aerodynamic characteristics
in the present case. The possible reasons is that
the swirling efflux augments the flow to the out-
side and the air does not separate over the plate
and flows smoothly under the wing.
References
[1] Krause.F.H., Gallington.R.W., Rousseau.D.G.
and Kidwell,G.H. , "The Current Level
of Power-Augmented-RAM Wing Technol- [12] Hirata,N., "Simulation on Viscous Flow around
ogy", AlAA/SNAME Advanced Marine Vehi-
cles Conference, San Diego, 1978.
[2] Rousseau,D.G. and Gallington.R.W., "Per-
formance Prediction Method for a Wing-In-
Ground Effect Vehicle with Blowing under the [13] Hirata,N., "Numerical Study on the Aerody-
Wing", DTNSRDC Report ASCD 379, 1977.
[3] McCabe,E.F.Jr., "Assessment of Load Allevia-
tion Devices Installed on a Power-Augmented-
Ram Wing over Irregular Waves", DTNSRDC
Report. ASCD 383, 1977.
[4] Krause,F.H.,
"Evaluation of a Power-Augmented-Ram Wing
Operating Free in Heave and Pitch over Water",
DTNSRDC Report ASCD 385, 1977.
[5] Gallington,R.W., "Sudden Deceleration of a
Free Jet at the Entrance of a Channel",
DTNSRDC Report ASCD 350, 1976.
[6] Gallington.R.W. and Chaplin,H.R., "Theory of
Power Augmented Ram Lift at Zero Forward
Speed", DTNSRDC Report ASCD 365, 1976.
[7] Srnithey.W.J.H., Papadales,B.S.Jr. and Chap-
lin,II.R., "Effect of Turbulent Jet Mixing on the
Static Lift Performance of a Power-Augmented-
Ram Wing", DTNSRDC Report ASCD 389,
1977.
[8] Matsubara.T., Tashimo.M., Kure.F., Yam-
aguchi,N. and Ohwaki,T., "Lift Enhancement
of Ground-Effect Wing(2nd Report, Experi-
mental Investigation of the Power Augmented
Ram Wing in Ground Effect through the Wind
Tunnel)", J. of the Japan Soc. of Mech. Eng.,
B-58-55S, 1992(in Japanese).
[9] Nagamatsu,T. and Kure,F., "Experimental
Study on Aerodynamic Characteristics on
PAR-WIG" , /. of the Kansai Soc. of Naval
Architects, Japan, vol.322, 1994(in Japanese).
[10] Hori,T., Hirata,N., Tsukada.Y. and Fuwa.T.,
"A Study on the Surface Effect Phenomena
and Characteristics of WISES", Abstract of the
6/,th General Meeting of Ship Research Insti-
tute, 1994(in Japanese).
[11] Murao,R., Hirohama.T. and Hori.T., " A Mo-
mentum Flux Model on PAR-WIG", Proceed-
ings of the 33rd Aircraft Symposium, 1995(in
Japanese).
Two-Dimensional Power-Augmented
Ram Wing in Ground Effect", J. of the Soc.
of Naval Architects of Japan, vol.174, 1993(in
Japanese).
namic Characteristics of a Three-Dimensional
Power-Augmented Ram Wing in Ground Ef-
fect", /. of the Soc. of Naval Architects of
Japan, vol.179, 1996.
[14] Hirata.N. and Kodama,Y., "Flow Computation
for Three-Dimensional Wing in Ground Effect
Using Multi-Block Technique", J. of the Soc. of
Naval Architects of Japan, vol.177, 1995.
[15] Stern,F., Kim.H.T., Patel.V.C. and Chen.H.C.,
"A Viscous-Flow Approach to the Computation
of Propeller-Hull Interaction", /. of Ship Re-
search, vol.32, No.4, 1988.
[16] Sowdon.A. and Hori,T., "An Experimental
Technique for Accurate Simulation of the Flow-
Field for Wing-In-Surface-Effect Craft", Aero-
nautical Journal', 1996.
[17] Huband.G.W., Rizzetta.D.P. and Shang.J.J.S.,
"Numerical Simulation of the Navier-Stokes
Equations for an F-16A Configuration", J. of
Aircraft, vol.26, No.7, 1989.
11