See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334083646

CFD ANALYSIS OF A HIGH ALTITUDE LONG ENDURANCE UAV WING

Conference Paper · June 2019

CITATIONS READS
0 164

5 authors, including:

Mohammad Sakib Hasan Jelena Svorcan

University of Belgrade University of Belgrade
4 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    23 PUBLICATIONS   86 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Aleksandar M Simonovic
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Serbia, Belgrade
47 PUBLICATIONS   397 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design of a High Altitude Long Endurance UAV View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Sakib Hasan on 28 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

7th
International Congress of Serbian Society of Mechanics
Sremski Karlovci, Serbia, June 24-26, 2019

CFD ANALYSIS OF A HIGH ALTITUDE LONG ENDURANCE UAV WING

Mohammad Sakib Hasan1, Jelena Svorcan1, Aleksandar Simonovic1, David Daou1, Bojan
Peric1
1
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Belgrade, Kraljice Marije 16, 11120 Belgrade 35
e-mail:sakibhsasn89@yahoo.com, jsvorcan@mas.bg.ac.rs, asimonovic@mas.bg.ac.rs,
arleydesson@gmail.com, bperic@mas.bg.ac.rs

Abstract:

The aerodynamic performance of an airfoil provides specific information on wing design of

HALE UAV and is considered as eminent for enhancing its flight conditions. In this paper,
numerical investigation of a wing is conducted to predict its preliminary aerodynamic quality. A
concise comparison of lift and drag curve obtained from numerical analysis conducted in two
different programs, will be the scope of this research. Preliminary aerodynamic performance
study including 12 different wings were previously performed in Fortran program ‘GLAUERT-
trapezoidal wing. From those 12 wings, one wing was selected which has the best aerodynamic
performance at an operational altitude of 15000 m. Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) software
package, ANSYS Fluent is used for numerical analysis of the selected wing. Two different
turbulence models were simulated in this work. Lift and drag coefficients were calculated
respectively by varying angle of attacks. Hence, the resulted lift and drag curve generated in
GLAUERT were compared with those obtained from ANSYS FLUENT. Additionally, other
parameters like flow separation, pressure and velocity contours obtained by different turbulent
models were also discussed.

Key words: Turbulent model, Fluent, Glauert, Lift and Drag, Wing

1. Introduction

In the history of aviation, Unmanned Arial Vehicle (UAV) as their name indicates are
powered vehicles that do not carry with them any pilot and are more suitable to be expended; are
either operated autonomously or remotely. UAVs can also carry different types of payload
varying from lethal to nonlethal payload. In addition, UAVs are generally used for Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), but can also be armed with Hellfire laser-guided missiles
as one could notice the MQ-1 Predator in 2001 though that was not the first intend of UAVs [1].
UAVs can be classified according to their type varying from Nano air vehicles (NAV) to high-
altitude long-endurance (HALE) that can stay in the air for more than 24 hours [2-3]. For this
work the focus is drawn towards wing of HALE UAV.
Knowing that the requirements for these types of aircrafts are more evolutionary and more
challenging, therefore one must be very careful in choosing their geometric parameters. In this

1
M.S. Hasan, J. Svorcan, A. Simonovic, D. Daou, B.Peric CFD Analysis of A High Altitude Long Endurance UAV Wing

study, a wing has been selected starting with a competitive study through weight estimation, wing
area estimation, airfoil selection, aerodynamic characteristics of the wing geometry to the
conclusion of the wing with aspect ratio AR=22 and taper ratio λ=0.6, a more detailed review can
be found in literature [2].
A good 3D model was conceived for finite volume analysis, since the wing skin is critical for
aerodynamic performance, using a NACA airfoil. One can notice that the shape of an airfoil
depends on many criteria, requirement of maximum lift, position of transition to turbulent flow,
Reynold’s number and structural stiffness [4]. NACA 4415 airfoil was selected due to its very
satisfactory 2D aerodynamic performance. Numerical study of NACA 4415 airfoil for different
turbulence model is carried out in [5]. However, in order to obtain a more precise estimation of
aerodynamic performances of a 3D wing, it is necessary to perform a complete computational
study by CFD methods/finite volume method. There are several models in ANSYS FLUENT that
can be used for the closure of Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations. To get a more
complete prediction of the fluid flow around the designed wing, different turbulence model
should be tested. Spalart Allmaras and SST K-ω have shown good results for flow over wing
surface.
Aerodynamic studies were carried on the wing using the finite volume method in the ANSYS
fluent by altering different angles of attack in order to obtain the corresponded lift and drag
coefficient. Consequently, lift curve is generated then compared with that analyzed in Fortran
program ‘GLAUERT-trapezoidal wing’, which consists the first part of this study [6]. First, the
linear domain of lift curve is observed in both cases. In the second part the focus is shifted on the
nonlinear domain of lift curve. Knowing that the stall area can’t be plotted with GLAUERT,
therefore, stall region will be observed from the results of ANSYS fluent. Finally, an illustrated
discussion about boundary layer, velocity magnitude and pressure coefficient have been made.

2. Methodology

An untwisted wing with aspect ratio of 22 and taper ratio of 0.6 is selected in preliminary
design process using Fortran program ‘GLAUERT-trapezoidal wing [2]. As shown in figure 1,
the computational steps in this project consist of three stages. The project started with
preprocessing stage of geometry setup and grid generation. Computational simulation by
FLUENT solver was the second stage of our project and finally aerodynamics characteristics of
the wing were found in the post-processing stage.

Fig. 1. The three stages of the project

Figure 2 shows a wing which is created using CATIA V5-6R2016. NACA 4415 airfoil was
used for both root and tip of the wing. Table 1 shows the geometry parameters of the wing.

2
M.S. Hasan, J. Svorcan, A. Simonovic, D. Daou, B.Peric CFD Analysis of A High Altitude Long Endurance UAV Wing

Fig. 2. Geometry of wing in CATIA

Half Wing span (b/2) 27.709 m

Root chord 3.148 m
Tip chord 1.889 m
Aspect Ratio of wing (AR) 22
Taper ratio of wing 0.6

Table 1. Geometry parameters of the wing

2.1 Domain details

After creating the geometry in CATIA, grid was generated in ANSYS Meshing. A
rectangular domain is created around the wing of root chord length c as shown in figure 3. The
inlet is 5c in front of the leading edge of the wing and outlet is kept at a distance of 20c from the
leading edge. The domain is extended 5c above and below the wing and 2b from tip of the wing.

Fig. 3. Mesh around the wing.

Different edge sizing was used for the wing mesh sizing. For root and tip airfoil, edge sizing
parameter of 50 number of divisions and bias factor of 10 were set. Same number of divisions
were used for leading and trailing edge with bias factor of 5. Figure 4 shows 2 edge sizing used
for our wing.

Fig. 4. Edge sizing

Inflation of 20 layers with growth rate of 1.2 was used for fine meshing around the wing.
Face meshing also used for the upper and lower surface of the wing. Figure 5 shows a close view

3
M.S. Hasan, J. Svorcan, A. Simonovic, D. Daou, B.Peric CFD Analysis of A High Altitude Long Endurance UAV Wing

around the airfoil. Total number of elements of the mesh is 408068. Although this is not a
particularly fine mesh, it can be considered adequate for the preliminary design phases of the
wing.

Fig. 5. Close view of meshing around airfoil

2.2 Boundary condition

Pressure- Based Steady state considering incompressible fluid was used in ANSYS
simulation software to carry out the analysis. Spalart- Allmaras and SST K-ω turbulence scheme
are implemented to check which is most effective to capture the flow behavior. SST K-ω
turbulence model has been well proven and designed for aerodynamic application. SIMPLE
pressure velocity coupling is performed and the simulation is carried out for 2nd order of accuracy.
The input parameters such as pressure, density and viscosity are considered at operating
condition (h=15000m). Simulation is performed from -4˚ to 18˚ Angle of Attack (AOA). The
inlet velocity is kept at 97.22 m/s. Front, top, bottom and side walls of the rectangular domain are
assigned as the inlet, outlet is located behind the trailing edge and symmetry wall located at the
root of the wing.

3. Turbulence Modeling

3.1 Spalart Allmaras

One-equation Spalart Allmaras turbulence model is designed for aerospace implementation. It

is quite powerful and functional in modeling the flow over a wing, with adverse pressure
gradients in the boundary layer [7,8].
The transport equation for the modified turbulent viscosity ~ is
 
2

~  v   C  v 
 ~ ~ ~
    ~ui   Gv  1       v  b2 


  Yv  S v~ ,
t xi  v~  x j  x j   x j  
 
(1)
where Gv is the production of turbulent viscosity, and Yv is the destruction of turbulent
viscosity [9,10].
The turbulent viscosity is computed from
  v~f
t v1

The viscous damping function is

3 ,
f v1 
 3  Cv31

4
M.S. Hasan, J. Svorcan, A. Simonovic, D. Daou, B.Peric CFD Analysis of A High Altitude Long Endurance UAV Wing

~
where    . Modal constant Cv1  7.1 .

3.2 SST K-ω

The Menter SST K-ω is a combination of the Wilcox K-ω and the standard K-ε model [8].
The standard K-ε model is transformed to K-ω model in this formulation. [11].

  k 
k    kui     k
 x 
  Gk  Yk  S k (2)
t xi x j  j 

  
    kui     k k   G  Y  S  D  S (3)
t xi x j  x j 
Gk represent the generation of turbulent kinetic energy and Gω is the specific dissipation rate.
Diffusivity is given by Γω and Γk. Dissipation is given by Yω and Yk. Sk and Sω are the source
terms. The extra cross diffusion term Dω is the blending function for the standard K-ε model and
standard K-ω model.
1 k 
D  2 (1  F1 )  2
 x j x j
For additional information of SST K-ω model can be found in ANSYS FLUENT Theory
Guide [9].

4. Results and Discussion

In this section, detail analysis of the numerical results is discussed for different turbulence
models. The lift and drag curve obtained from CFD analysis are compared to the lift and drag
curve from GLAUERT. The discussions were focused on the aerodynamics characteristics which
include drag coefficient CD and lift coefficient CL. In addition, the velocity magnitude contours
and pressure coefficient will also be observed and studied. The CFD simulation was carried out
for various AOA, , at 97.22 m/s. But simulation in Fortran program ‘GLAUERT-trapezoidal
wing’ was performed for lift coefficient CL =0.1 1.372 [2]. NACA 4415 unsymmetrical airfoil
was used for both tip and root airfoil.

4.1 Lift and drag coefficient comparison

Table 2. shows the lift and drag coefficient changes with respective angles of attack,  for our
model wing at operating velocity for both turbulence models and in GLAUERT we got different
angles of attack for given lift coefficient.
Spalart Alarmas k-ω sst GLAUERT
α CL CD CL CD CL α CD
-4 -0.01399 0.022972 -0.02176 0.02298 0 -4 0.01841
-2 0.16711 0.021637 0.158532 0.021393 0.1 -2.87 0.01857
0 0.353768 0.022394 0.339487 0.022033 0.2 -1.74 0.01903
2 0.530069 0.026256 0.508333 0.025734 0.3 -0.61 0.01982
4 0.730322 0.034876 0.709628 0.033977 0.4 0.52 0.02091
6 0.906303 0.042989 0.882161 0.043547 0.6 2.77 0.02403
8 1.072839 0.056465 1.041928 0.055683 0.7 3.9 0.02606
10 1.216579 0.070233 1.180806 0.069953 0.8 5.03 0.02841
12 1.366808 0.09358 1.316888 0.088537 0.9 6.16 0.03106
14 1.433203 0.120746 1.385168 0.121672 1 7.29 0.03403
16 1.451464 0.157132 1.416269 0.164241 1.2 9.55 0.0409
18 1.430237 0.206634 1.34143 0.205797 1.3 10.67 0.04481
20 1.405075 0.249907 1.303178 0.254439 1.372 11.49 0.04781

Table 2. Lift and Drag coefficient comparisons

5
M.S. Hasan, J. Svorcan, A. Simonovic, D. Daou, B.Peric CFD Analysis of A High Altitude Long Endurance UAV Wing

Figure 6. shows lift coefficient for different angles of attack. From figure 6. we can see that
the linear curve which we got from the GLAUERT matches with the curve from FLUENT.
GLAUERT only gives us linear curve from where we cannot get the idea about critical angle of
attack whereas from FLUENT we can also know at which angle of attack wing will stall.

Fig. 6. Lift coefficient versus angle of attack

Figure 7. shows variation of drag coefficient with respect to angle of attack. Both turbulence
models have very similar drag coefficient which increase rapidly at higher angle of attack. We
must bear in mind that the Fortran program ‘GLAUERT-trapezoidal wing’ is based on the theory
of idealized, incompressible, inviscid flow where total drag coefficient does not include the
viscous part which becomes significant with increased angles-of-attack. Therefore, values of drag
coefficient obtained by simpler model are much less than by other two tested turbulence models.
For this reason, CFD program like ANSYS FLUENT is always advised for obtaining a more
reliable picture of fluid flow around a wing surface.

Fig. 7. Drag coefficient versus angle of attack

6
M.S. Hasan, J. Svorcan, A. Simonovic, D. Daou, B.Peric CFD Analysis of A High Altitude Long Endurance UAV Wing

4.1 Contours of velocity magnitude

Static pressure increases at the lower surface of the airfoil with increasing angles of attack
while reversely velocity magnitude increases at the upper surface as illustrated by contours of
velocity magnitude in Figure 8. A laminar boundary layer is formed at the leading edge of the
wing. Thickness of the boundary layer grows towards the trailing edge. Both Spalart Allmaras
and SST K-ω model show a small area of flow separation at 6° that become dominant for higher
AOA. Flow separation for SST K-ω model change rapidly from angle of attack 14°.

(a) 0° angle of attack

(b) 6° angle of attack

(c) 14° angle of attack

7
M.S. Hasan, J. Svorcan, A. Simonovic, D. Daou, B.Peric CFD Analysis of A High Altitude Long Endurance UAV Wing

(d) 18° angle of attack

Fig. 8. Contours of velocity magnitude for Spalart Allmaras and SST K-ω.

4.1 Pressure Coefficient vs Position of Chord Length Curve

Figure 9 shows pressure coefficient for AOA of 10° and 14° for Spalart Allmaras and SST K-
ω respectively. The negative pressure at lower surface is higher than pressure in upper surface of
the wing. The area of negative pressure for SST K-ω model is higher than the other model.

Fig. 9. Pressure coefficient vs position of chord length curve at 15 m from the symmetry for different
Angles of Attack (Spalart Allmaras and SST K-ω).

5. Conclusions

The paper presents a preliminary study of aerodynamic performances of a 3D wing designed

specifically for an unmanned HALE UAV. Since the wing is designed/planned to cruise at a
height of 15000 m for a long time, its geometry is smooth, long and thin (of high span b and
aspect ratio AR). Well known and tested airfoil NACA 4415 is adopted at both wing root and tip.
Initially, wing lift and drag curves were estimated by a simple, Glauert lifting line
aerodynamic model that offers quite good preliminary results for smaller angles-of-attack.
However, in order to obtain a more precise prediction of the wing drag and stall characteristics, as
well as flow visualizations, a full CFD RANS equations closed by two different turbulence
models were employed. The computations were performed in a commercial software package
ANSYS FLUENT on computational grids of moderate quality. Flow was considered as steady
and incompressible. Although, performed numerical studies can be additionally improved in later

8
 M.S. Hasan, J. Svorcan, A. Simonovic, D. Daou, B.Peric CFD Analysis of A High Altitude Long Endurance UAV Wing

phases of conceptual design, they offer a more realistic estimation of the drag polar which is
particularly important for an adequate choice of required thrust force. While all three models offer
similar results at lower angles-of-attack, their differences become particularly obvious at higher
AOA. In the stall region, SST K-ω model provides the lowest values of lift, as well as the widest
wake/separation region behind the wing. Although the performed study cannot answer which
turbulent model is more applicable to the problem in question without additional numerical and/or
experimental testing, it certainly proves the significance of a comparative study that provides
insight into the expected ranges of lift and drag.
Some of the most important computed aerodynamic properties (qualifiers) of the designed
wing are:
 maximal finesse is higher than 20, (CL/ CD)max > 20, leaving a sufficient reserve for the
whole aircraft (usual values for aerodynamically clean configurations are in the range [9-
12]),
 zero lift drag coefficient (as well as the minimal drag coefficient) is approximately CDo ≈
0.02 which is very satisfactory given that the corresponding value for the airfoil usually
lies in the range [0.008, 0.012] and for the modern GA in the range [0.025, 0.035],
 Oswald efficiency factor is around e ≈ 0.38 which correlates well to the statistical value
of 0.48 estimated for the adopted value of aspect ratio AR = 22,
 wing loading of W/S ≈ 26 kg/m2 at cruising regime is close to the typical value for
sailplanes of 30 kg/m2.

References

[1] E. Sepulveda, H. Smith, Technology challenges of stealth unmanned combat aerial vehicles,
Royal Aeonautical Society 2017.
[2] Mohammad Sakib Hasan, Jelena Svorcan, Ivan Kostic, Aleksandar Simonovic, Srdan Kostic,
Toni Ivanov, Preliminary Aerodynamic Performance Estimation of Hale UAV Wings, 8th
International scientific conference on defensive technologies OTEH 2018.
[3] Dr Pascual Marqués, Dr Andrea Da Ronch, Advanced UAV Aerodynamics, Flight Stability
and Control, 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
[4] Christian Bak, Nicholas Gaudern, Frederik Zahle, Tomas Vronsky, Airfoil design: Finding
the balance between design lift and structural stiffness, Journal of Physics: Conference Series
524 (2014) 012017.
[5] Aftab S. M. A., Rafie A. M., Razak N. A., and Ahmad K. A., “Turbulence Model Selection
for Low Reynolds Number Flows”, PloS one, vol. 11, no. 4, p. e0153755, 2016
[6] I. Kostic, Applied Aerodynamics - handouts, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University
of Belgrade, 2015.
[7] Spalart P. R. and Allmaras S. R., A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows,
AIAA, vol. 092, no. 0439, 1992.
[8] Versteeg H. K. and Malalasekera W., An introduction to computational fluid dynamics: the
finite volume method, Pearson Education, 2007
[9] FLUENT Ansys, Theory Guide Release 16.1, Ansys Inc, 2015.
[10] FLUENT Ansys, User’s Guide Release 16.1, Ansys Inc, 2015.
[11] Menter F. R., Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications,
AIAA journal, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1598–1605, 1994.

View publication stats