Aerodynamics of a Morphing Airfoil

Adam Niksch
Senior, Aerospace Engineering
Texas A&M University
The purpose of this research is to develop a MATLAB model which can calculate the aerodynamics, such
as lift, drag, and pressure, on an airfoil as it changes shape. This model needs to be computationally
efficient and should have reasonable accuracy. A constant strength doublet panel code, which takes
thickness and camber distribution as inputs, is used to model the aerodynamics. This code has the ability
for thickness and camber to change, which effectively allows the airfoil to morph.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

The purpose of this research is to develop a
computational model with which to
calculate the aerodynamics on a morphing
airfoil. One of the major requirements for
this model is that it be computationally
efficient. Some error is allowable, but the
model must be reasonably accurate and must
produce the correct shapes for lift and drag
plots.
There are many possible ways to implement
this model. One way is to use thin airfoil
theory. The drawbacks to using thin airfoil
theory are the assumptions that must be
made, namely that the airfoil must be thin.
Another possible approach is to use
conformal mapping, which is an exact
method using complex variables. A third
possibility is to use a panel method.
However, high order panel methods can be
very computationally inefficient.
During this research, both conformal
mapping and a doublet panel code were
attempted and each had its advantages and
disadvantages. The doublet panel code was
chosen in the end because it works for both
symmetric and asymmetric airfoils without
too much modification required. This panel
code is able to accurately predict the
pressure distribution on any airfoil. The
panel code did have some problems, but it
proved to be the best option in the end.
A MATLAB code is developed to model the
aerodynamic changes an airfoil would
encounter as it changes its shape. This code
accepts thickness and camber distribution
for the airfoil as inputs, not specified points
as in some panel codes. This gives the user
the ability to easily change these parameters,
which causes the airfoil to morph.
This MATLAB code is a powerful tool in
that it allows thickness, camber, chord, and
angle-of-attack all to vary. If a simple ‘for’
loop were to be placed around the function
with all of these parameters varying, the
code could simulate morphing the shape of
the airfoil using 4 degrees of freedom. The
reason this code is so versatile is that it was
designed to be a subprogram in a larger
reinforcement learning program, which is a
branch of artificial intelligence. With the
combination of these two programs running,
an aircraft will learn how to change the
shape of its own airfoil for control purposes
rather than use current control mechanisms.
One of the assumptions made when writing
this code is that the flow is incompressible.
This assumption is valid because current
interests lie in the realm of micro air
vehicles, which fly at speeds less than Mach
0.3.
Since the final model uses a panel method to
calculate the aerodynamics, it is very
sensitive to the grid, or location of the
panels, and the number of panels created.
The grid must be a sinusoidal spaced grid in
the x direction, which puts more points at
the trailing edge of the airfoil. This is
necessary because many aerodynamic
changes occur near the trailing edge. If the
number of panels used were to decrease, the
accuracy of the model would also decrease.
The code also assumes inviscid flow, and
thus it is only valid for the linear range of
airfoils, or angles-of-attack prior to stall.
RESEARCH PLAN
Since thin airfoil theory required too many
assumptions be placed on the airfoil, it was
almost immediately decided not to use that
approach. The first attempted model was a
MATLAB code which used conformal
mapping to calculate the aerodynamics. A
symmetric airfoil is modeled and only its
thickness is allowed to change. The model
produced very accurate results when
compared to wind tunnel data in Ref. 1. The
basic equations for conformal mapping are
listed below in equations 1-3 [3].
However, once camber was integrated into
the model, the process became extremely
complex and required complicated
numerical analysis. Conformal mapping was
no longer a feasible approach given the
scope of this research and was abandoned.
A constant strength doublet panel method
replaced conformal mapping as the
modeling tool. This code required no
changes to be made if the airfoil is
asymmetric. Since it is a low order panel
method, it is computationally efficient. The
equations for the velocity on each panel are
listed as equations 4 and 5 [3] where x and z
are in the local panel coordinate system.
Since these equations require panel
coordinates, a transformation from the
global coordinate system to the local panel
coordinate system must be made. This
transformation is listed as equation 6 [3].
The panel code is based on the no
penetration condition, which states that the
flow cannot cross the solid boundary of the
airfoil, thus the velocity normal to the
surface is 0 in the global coordinate system.
Equation 7 is used to transform the
velocities from equations 4 and 5 into the
global coordinate system. [3].
Now it is possible to solve for the doublet
strengths using equations 4-7. These doublet
strengths can be used to find the tangential
velocities at each point. Once the tangential
velocities are calculated, the pressure
coefficient can be calculated using
Bernoulli’s equation which, when modified,
produces equation 8 [2].
The pressure coefficient can be broken up
into normal and axial forces using simple
integration. These forces can also further be
broken up into lift and drag using simple
trigonometry. These equations are listed as
equations 9-12.
RESULTS
The first airfoil to be modeled using the
constant strength doublet panel method was
a NACA 0012. This airfoil was chosen first
because of its symmetric shape, which
makes finding errors within the code easier.
There is also proven experimental data for
the NACA 0012 as can be seen in Ref. 1.
Figure 1: Plot of Cp for a NACA 0012 at zero
angle of attack
After accurately calculating the pressure
distribution on a symmetric airfoil, an
asymmetric airfoil was chosen next,
specifically a NACA 4412. As with the
NACA 0012, there is proven experimental
data with which to compare the results of the
code. This allowed for quick and easy
verification of the code’s operation.
Figure 2: Plot of Cp for a NACA 4412 at zero
angle of attack
Figures 1 and 2 show that the code
accurately models both symmetric and
asymmetric airfoil shapes. The pressure
distributions predict no lift on the symmetric
airfoil and positive lift on the cambered
airfoil, which agrees with accepted theory
and proven experiments on airfoils [1].
Figure 3: Lift vs. Angle of Attack for a NACA
0012
Figure 3 checks model accuracy. The model
was compared to proven experimental airfoil
data taken from Ref. 1. Since the code is
only able to model the linear range of the
airfoil, the angles-of-attack tested ranged
from -5 to 5 degrees. When compared to
those from Ref. 1, there was some
inaccuracy, but it was within tolerance for
this problem.
An .avi file for Windows Media Player was
also created in order to better understand
how the code works. In this video, the user
is able to watch as the airfoil starts as a
NACA 0006, then morphs into a NACA
4418. After the airfoil has successfully
morphed into a NACA 4418, it morphs back
to its original NACA 0006 shape. The video
also shows the airfoil sweeping through a 5
degree angle-of-attack as it changes its
shape. The user is also able to observe how
the pressure distribution changes across the
airfoil as it changes shape and angle-of-
attack.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The original objectives of this research were
to model the aerodynamics of an airfoil as it
changes its shape. The model was required
to be computationally efficient and have a
reasonable amount of accuracy. The
constant strength doublet panel method
accomplishes these objectives. The
MATLAB code takes a negligible amount of
time to run using as many as 400 panels
along the airfoil. The code produces
reasonably accurate results.
One unexpected problem which arose
concerned the trailing edge of the airfoil. In
order to accurately model the trailing edge,
the Kutta Condition ought to be enforced by
inserting a wake panel. The problem was
discovered when rather high values for the
pressure coefficient were seen. It was
determined that the best way to deal with
this problem was to remove these unrealistic
values. Once these values were removed, the
results became much more accurate.
CONCLUSIONS
The doublet panel code is able to efficiently
model the aerodynamic changes on an airfoil
as it changes shape. It is also more accurate
than expected for airfoils within the linear
range.
One of the main things learned from this
research is conformal mapping is not a
realistic option for morphing airfoils. The
process becomes extremely complex and
therefore becomes very inefficient.
Also, if the final two or three values from Cp
were removed, then the overall accuracy of
the model increased.
This code is developed primarily to be used
as a tool for future research. Structural
effects will be added to the model later using
basic Euler-Bernoulli beam theory so the
model can also predict how the morphing
process will affect the physical object. This
model will also be used as the basis for the
morphing 3-D finite delta wing in the future.
Also, as previously mentioned, a
reinforcement learning program will use this
model to learn the optimal airfoil shapes for
a range of flight conditions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank Dr. John Valasek
and Amanda Lampton of the Aerospace
Engineering Department at Texas A&M
University for their guidance and assistance
throughout this research. The author also
acknowledges the Texas A&M Flight
Simulation Laboratory for all of their help
and assistance.
This Research Experience for
Undergraduates Site is sponsored by the
National Science Foundation Grant No.
0453578, the Air Force Office of Scientific
Research, U.S. Air Force, Department of
Defense and NASA Cooperative Agreement
No. NCC1-02038.
REFERENCES
[1] Abbot, Ira and Von Doenhoff, Albert.
Theory of Wing Sections. Dover
Publications, 1959.
[2] Anderson, John D. Fundamentals of
Aerodynamics Third Edition. McGraw-Hill,
2001.
[3] Katz, Joseph, and Plotkin, Allen. Low-
Speed Aerodynamics Second Edition.
Cambridge University Press, 2001.
 APPENDIX A - LIST OF EQUATIONS

z = x + i y (1)
A = B + i C (2)
1 (3)
A = z +
z
µ z z
up =− − (4)
2π (x−x1)2 +z2 (x−x2)2 +z2
µ x−x1 x−x2
wp = −
2π (x−x1)2 +z2 (x−x2)2 +z2 (5)

x cos(α i ) − sin(α i ) x − x0
=
z p
sin(α i ) cos(α i ) z − z0 (6)

u cos(α i ) sin(α i ) up
= (7)
w − sin(α i ) cos(α i ) wp

u2 + w2
Cp = 1− (8)
V ∞2
c
Cn =
1
c 0
(C p lo w e r −C pupper )dx (9)

1
c
d y upper d y lo w e r
Ca = C pupper −C p lo w e r dx (10)
c 0
dx dx
C l = C n c o s ( α ) − C a s in ( α ) (11)

C d = C n s in ( α ) + C a c o s ( α ) (12)