Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 51, No. 2, June 2007, pp.

182–186

A Study of Water Surface Deformation Due to Tip Vortices of a

Wing-in-Ground Effect

Tracie J. Barber
University of New South Wales, Australia

The accurate prediction of ground effect aerodynamics is an important aspect of

wing-in-ground (WIG) effect vehicle design. When WIG vehicles operate over water,
the deformation of the nonrigid surface beneath the body may affect the aerodynamic
performance of the craft. The likely surface deformation has been considered from a
theoretical and numerical position. Both two-dimensional and three-dimensional
cases have been considered, and results show that any deformation occurring on the
water surface is likely to be caused by the wing tip vortices rather than an increased
pressure distribution beneath the wing.

1. Introduction The aim of the present work is to calculate the deformation of

the surface beneath an airfoil flying at conditions comparable to a
WHEN A LIFTING BODY flies close to the ground, in general the modern WIG craft, and to determine if this effect has a significant
lift increases and the drag decreases, increasing the efficiency of impact on the aerodynamic properties of the vehicle.
the body. The main advantage claimed of wing-in-ground effect
(WIG) craft is their ability to be significantly more aerodynami-
cally efficient than aircraft, while moving at a much greater speed 2. Problem definition
than ships. WIG flight is therefore of great interest, and the aero-
Particular difficulties associated with a free-surface calculation
dynamics of these craft are of particular importance.
are explained by Standingford and Tuck (1996): “There is a strong
Ground effect aerodynamics investigations generally assume a
nonlinear coupling between aerodynamics and hydrostatics, since
rigid surface, while the surface beneath WIG craft is usually water.
the deformation of the water surface affects the air flow and vice
Rozhdestvensky (1995) notes that “even purely static consider-
versa.” It is expected that a higher than atmospheric pressure in the
ations show that the water surface should ‘sag’ under the vehicle,
region below the airfoil will depress the water surface. As ground
resulting in variation of aerodynamic coefficients.”
effect flight produces greater lift than free flight, due to the high
As noted by Barber et al. (2002), in the area of ground effect
pressure found in the region between the wing lower surface and
research, “published results are frequently found to conflict and
the “ground,” it is expected that this high pressure will cause a
modeling procedures (in both computational and experimental
deformation on the water surface.
situations) vary.” Determining the effect of the free surface de-
If a typical ground effect situation is considered (Barber 2000)
formation beneath a wing-in-ground effect will remove a potential
(Fig. 2a), this high-pressure region can be noted. Considering the
source of uncertainty in ground effect analyses for vehicles flying
vectors representing the velocity field (Fig. 2b), it can be seen that
over water.
although a high pressure field may exist in the region beneath the
Physical evidence from existing WIG vehicles has been gener-
wing, the flow is directed mainly along the line of the freestream
ally inconclusive—often such effects as takeoff aids and ram-wing
velocity (i.e., parallel to the “ground” surface).
devices (propulsive units located in front of the wing and directing
It is important to note that in numerical and wind tunnel situ-
thrust beneath the wing surface) obscure the potential aerody-
ations, the case is body centered. While for real life flight, the
namic effects (Fig. 1).
vehicle is moving at the freestream velocity and the air (and water)
is stationary, if we consider the body-centered simulation situa-
Manuscript received at SNAME headquarters March 2004; revised manu- tion, the vehicle is now stationary and the air (and water) is mov-
script received June 2006. ing at the freestream. Viscous effects, such as the boundary layer

182 JUNE 2007 0022-4502/07/5102-0182$00.35/0 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH


Fig. 1 Orlyonok and SM6 ekranoplans in cruising flight
build-up if the ground surface is not moving, can have large ef-
fects on the final results. And correct boundary conditions for the
ground must be carefully implemented (Barber et al. 2002).
One of the difficulties in modeling the free surface effects in-
volves the matching of the aerodynamic and hydrodynamic pa-
rameters. For a standard aerodynamic wind tunnel test, it is usual
to match only the Reynolds number Re=␳UL/µ (where ␳ is the
fluid density, U is the fluid velocity, L is the characteristic length,
and µ is the fluid viscosity). However, for this problem both Re
and Froude number Fr=U/(gL)1/2 are important, but both cannot
be satisfied simultaneously for a scale model problem. For this
reason, the application of computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
modeling is of particular use, as geometric constraints are not as
restrictive as for model testing, and therefore the test cases used in
this investigation can relate to actual WIG vehicles and their op-
erating conditions.
The dynamic case of a pressure distribution moving over a
deformable surface has been the subject of a number of studies by
Tuck. In 1975, Tuck demonstrated that classical water-wave
theory, which assumes there is no coupling between air and water
motion, is valid only if the dynamic pressure contributions are
comparable. However, for ground effect flight, we find that al-
though the air is slowed from the freestream beneath the wing, it
is typically only by about a third—clearly not enough for the
dynamic pressure contributions to be comparable, given the large
density variation between the two fluids. Tuck shows the resulting
surface depression found for the case when air of a relatively high
velocity flows over stationary water, noting its relevance to hov-
ercraft without forward motion.
In 1984, Tuck developed a one-dimensional theory to calculate
the free-surface disturbance. Simplifying assumptions are made,
with the result that the solution reduces to a simple expression for
CL increase in free-surface conditions, compared to solid-surface
conditions. Larger deformations are found as Froude number in-
creases. In 1986, Grundy extended this work to include hydrody-
JUNE 2007
Fig. 2 Ground effect flight: ␣ = 6.4 deg, Re = 8 × 106, h/c = 0.05. (a)
pressure coefficient contours, (b) nondimensionalized velocity contours
namic effects; Tuck had neglected the motion of the water result-
ing from the disturbance. Tuck’s assumption had been based on
the observation that as Froude number approaches zero, the hy-
drodynamic effects may be neglected. Grundy gives results for
simple airfoil shapes. However, no conclusive results regarding a
general trend when comparing hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
models are found. Grundy concludes, however, that for high
Froude numbers (>2), the free surface is always very close to the
undisturbed interface. In 2001, Scullen and Tuck extended the
application to find the free-surface deformation resulting from a
three-dimensional moving pressure distribution, with a length-
based Froude number of 0.7.
In 1970, Huang and Wong used linearized water wave theory to
calculate the free surface resulting from a moving pressure distri-
bution. A constant pressure distribution with rectangular planform
is used and free-surface displacements are found for Froude num-
bers of 0.64 and 2.12. Results show good agreement with those of
Lamb (1932), who first detailed the theoretical approach to cal-
culating the surface waves resulting from a “travelling distur-
bance” in 1932. It is interesting to note the variations in free-
surface shapes for the two Froude numbers: for the low Froude
number, surface deformations (at the centerline of the three-
dimensional distribution) show significant depression; for the high
Froude numbers, the surface deformation is minimal, and a small
rise is found for the leading edge half of the surface.
Kataoka et al. (1991) considered the effect of an airfoil on the
free surface and found negligible aerodynamic effects from the
resulting deformation. The airfoil was represented by sources and
vortices and the water surface as sources. Froude numbers of 0.5
to 10 were investigated. Similarly, Masuda and Suzuki (1991)
used a combination of a panel method and Cauchy’s integral theo-
rem to analyze the effect on the free surface. The authors found
that the resulting deformation “does not matter much in the real
world since the quantity is less than 2mm.” However, a compari-
son between the results of the two papers shows large discrepan-
cies.
Adler and Coopersmith (1995) extended the use of a panel
method to include hydrodynamic free-surface effects, for the case
JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH 183
where the water has zero velocity relative to the flying body. The The model was validated against published results for a hydrofoil
authors found significant changes in aerodynamic characteristics case (Lungu & Mori 1994). Results (Fig. 3) show the free-surface
for the free-surface case, compared to the rigid ground plane location for the hydrofoil. The current results compare very well to
model. They argued that if a finite velocity exists between the those found by Lungu and Mori.
water and the body, these effects would be less significant, and Although the results for the airfoil over the water surface would
they reason that as vehicle speed increases, the deformation due to show the effect of Froude number variation, lower Froude number
the pressure field will decrease. cases are useful for theoretical interest only. At this velocity, the
If we examine the typical flight conditions of a WIG vehicle in vehicle would not generate enough lift to support itself and could
cruise, the relative importance of the assumptions made in the not be at the modeled height over the water surface.
previous research becomes apparent. For a large Ekranoplan type It was found that for low Froude numbers (Fr < 1), the surface
WIG vehicle (here values are used for the Lun), Froude number deformation was a small depression of the surface beneath the
based on wing chord is approximately 15 and Reynolds number airfoil, with the maximum depression of just 3 mm (0.0003%
(again based on wing chord) is 83 × 106. For a smaller eight-seater chord) found at Froude number ⳱ 0.5.
vehicle (here values are used for the FS8 Flightship), the Froude As the Froude number was increased, the deformation remained
number is approximately 8 and the Reynolds number is approxi- small. However, a change in the shape of the deformation was
mately 13 × 106. observed. At a Froude number of 14 the surface was not a depres-
Clearly, Froude numbers are significantly higher than those sion, but rather a rise beneath the airfoil. This interesting result
used in most of the previous studies considering deformation ef- followed the trends shown by Grundy (1986).
fects by moving pressure distributions. Further, several of the
studies have suggested that higher Froude numbers will result in
less deformation being produced.
4. Three-dimensional investigation
However, physical evidence has not disproved the existence of The evidence appears to show that at WIG vehicle operating
a surface deformation caused by a WIG vehicle, and while a conditions, the water surface is unlikely to depress due to the
further investigation of the effect of a moving pressure distribution pressure distribution found beneath the wing. At low Froude num-
at high Froude numbers is considered beneficial, it is also advan- bers, a depression may occur. However, the vehicle will not be
tageous to consider other possibilities for any cause of surface creating enough lift force or a great enough pressure distribution
deformation. at this velocity. At higher velocities, when a greater lift force and
pressure distribution is found, the Froude number is large enough
3. Two-dimensional studies of surface deformation to prevent any deformation wave from occurring.
However, as noted earlier, physical evidence has not disproved
Previous work by the author (Barber et al. 1998) used a CFD
the existence of a surface deformation when a WIG vehicle flies
code (finite volume solution of the Navier Stokes equations) to
over the water surface. Could a deformation then be caused by
consider a two-dimensional case of a wing flying over a deform-
some other means?
able water surface.
In order to determine the effect of wing tip vortices on the water
The volume of fluid (VOF) method (Hirt & Nichols 1981) was
surface, the CFD model was extended to three dimensions, and a
used to determine the resulting deformation for a range of Froude
NACA 4412 wing of aspect ratio 2 without endplates was mod-
numbers, based on chord length. This multiphase model assumes
eled. Without endplates, the effect of wing tip vortices is expected
that the solution fields for each phase are identical except for the
to be larger than if the wing had endplates as most WIG vehicles
volume fractions that are found by solving separate continuity
possess.
equations for each phase. This computational method allows the
A computational grid of 1.9 million elements was used, and grid
water to deform during the solution, starting from an initial un-
convergence studies indicated that this gave an accurate represen-
disturbed (flat) position. The volume fractions were enforced at
tation of the surface deformation and resulting aerodynamic
the inlets and outlets. This forced the outlet boundary condition to
forces. Approximately 200 grid points form the two-dimensional
be the same volume fraction as the inlet, which meant any wave
formation was removed at the outlet. To ensure this would not
adversely affect the solution in the region of the airfoil, the aft
boundary was extended 20 chord lengths downstream.
A wing section of 10 m chord and the NACA 4412 section was
selected, based on typical large Ekranoplan characteristics. The
H/c (height of trailing edge over chord) value considered was 0.10,
and the angle of attack was 10 deg.
The use of wing endplates on many WIG craft was considered
justification for the use of two-dimensional cases, as endplates
constrain the flow across the wing to be of uniform character
across the wingspan. The boundary conditions on the wall surfaces
(for example, wing surfaces) have been modeled as no-slip, with
the standard logarithmic law wall model implemented for the tur-
bulence models.
The Froude number was varied from 0.25 to 14, with the Rey- Fig. 3 Hydrofoil results comparing the calculated free-surface contours
nolds number changing accordingly from 1.9 × 106 to 1.0 × 108. for Lungu and Mori and the current results

184 JUNE 2007 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

airfoil shape. Relevant functionals (e.g., lift force, drag force,
surface deformation at three locations) were monitored as the
solution progressed to ensure that convergence of these important
values had been reached, and approximately 5,000 iterations were
generally required for adequate convergence. The realizable k-␧
turbulence model was used for closure of the set of equations, and
higher-order discretization was used for all equations solved. The
cases were run as steady state, using the implicit VOF model to
determine the interface, as with the two-dimensional models (Bar-
ber et al. 1998). Again, the volume fractions were enforced at the
inlets and outlets.
A plane of symmetry was used along the midplane of the wing.
The downstream boundary extended 10 chord lengths, the up-
stream boundary six chord lengths, and boundaries were located
six chord lengths above and below. The lower boundary was mod-
eled as a wall, and the upper boundary was modeled as an opening.
A Froude number of 10 was considered where the characteristic
length used was the wing chord. The height to chord ratio was kept
constant at 10% and the angle of attack set at eight degrees. The
water and air were both set to the same onset flow condition, with
the wing held stationary. This meant a realistic boundary condition
was set for the free surface, with no boundary layer development
on the water surface, as would be expected.
While no surface deformation was found for the two-
dimensional cases, even though a range of Froude numbers was
considered, for the three-dimensional case, a surface deformation
clearly exists in the simulation.
Figure 4 shows the free-surface location, compared with its
location at the initial condition, for various locations below and
downstream of the wing. Locations are indicated by the small
Fig. 4 Surface deformations at various locations as indicated by the
arrow, compared with initial surface location
JUNE 2007
diagram in the bottom left of each figure, representing locations at
0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 chord from the leading edge. The free surface is
found to depress aft of the wing, with rises in the surface away
from the wing tips. A small rise is seen along the centerline.
Further numerical studies and also an examination of the flow
show that this is not a result of using the symmetry boundary
condition, but a realistic representation of the actual surface de-
formation.
By examining the velocity vectors and also pathlines released
from the wing tips, the wing tip vortices can be clearly seen.
Figure 5a shows the velocity vectors in the yz plane (i.e., no
component in the freestream for clarity), and this shows the di-
rection of the airflow, which is closely following the depression in
the water surface. The depression is likely to be caused by the
downward component of the velocity, and the rises seen on either
side of the depression may be caused by the upward component of
the velocity from the two wing tip vortices. As no significant
depression was observed in the two-dimensional cases, it can be
concluded that the present deformation is a three-dimensional phe-
nomenon and therefore likely caused by the wing tip vortices. A
depression of this dimension is likely to have an effect on the wing
aerodynamic forces, even considering the location of the depres-
sion being downstream.
The path lines from the wing tip vortices show where the core
of the vortex travels. This indicates that there may be implications
for the resulting induced drag-in-ground effect flight over water,
as the vortices may be constrained by the depression in a way that
they may not be in ground effect flight over a rigid surface.
However, the use of endplates, as found on most WIG craft, will
limit the movement of the wing tip vortices and are likely to result
in vortices that will not decrease the surface to the extent shown
here for the squared off wing tip. This appears in agreement with
the images shown of operational WIG craft in Fig. 1, where the
surface disturbance seems qualitatively similar to that shown in
Fig. 5, but of lesser magnitude.
Fig. 5 Surface deformation and (a) vectors in the yz plane and (b) path
lines released from the wing tips
JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH 185

Fig. 6 Endplate geometry and grid
To further investigate this effect, the wing was again modeled,
this time with small endplates protruding both above and below
the wing (Fig. 6). The results from this part of the investigation
give further evidence as to the causes of the surface depression
found in ground effect flight. A reduction in surface deformation
when the endplates are added indicates that the reduction in wing
tip vortex strength affects the water surface.
The same flight conditions were modeled: a Froude number of
10, an angle of attack of 8 deg, and a height to chord ratio of 10%.
Only minimal deformation was found to occur beneath the wing
when endplates were added. Figure 7 shows the free-surface de-
formation beneath the wing, at a plane two chord lengths down-
stream from the leading edge. In this view, the deformation cannot
be seen due to the minimal magnitude. By zooming in on the
region along the centerline, a small depression can be observed.
The centerline region is where the highest pressure occurs, and
this depression is likely to be caused by the pressure distribution,
as seen in the two-dimensional studies.
5. Conclusions
Previous studies had indicated that at high Froude numbers, as
expected for WIG vehicle operating conditions, the pressure dis-
tribution beneath a wing-in-ground effect may not cause a large
free-surface deformation, due to the speed with which that distri-
Fig. 7 Endplate wing surface deformation, also showing zoomed-in
region beneath wing. The plane is two chord lengths from the leading
edge.
186 JUNE 2007
bution is moving across the surface. Two-dimensional CFD results
showed that the deformations were negligible. At low Froude
numbers, a depression may occur; however, the vehicle will not be
creating enough lift force or a great enough pressure distribution
at this velocity. At higher velocities, when a greater lift force and
pressure distribution are found, the Froude number is large enough
to prevent any deformation wave from occurring. However, physi-
cal evidence from actual WIG vehicles has not disproved the
existence of a surface deformation when a WIG vehicle flies over
the water surface, and therefore another means of creating the
deformation was investigated. Three-dimensional CFD simula-
tions were conducted for a wing flying at a Froude number of 10,
at 10% chord height above the water surface. The water surface
was found to deform behind the wing, and the results showed that
this deformation appeared to be the result of wing tip vortices
originating from the wing tips. However wing endplates, as com-
monly used on WIG vehicles, minimize this disturbance.
References
ADLER, C., AND COOPERSMITH, R. 1995 An Investigation Using an Aerody-
namic Panel Code, of a Special Case of a Wing Flying in Close Proximity
to a Water Surface, AIAA Paper 95–1845.
BARBER, T. 2000 A Study of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of Ground
Effect Flight, Ph.D. thesis, University of New South Wales, Australia.
BARBER, T. J., LEONARDI, E., AND ARCHER, R. D. 1998 Free surface defor-
mation caused by a wing in ground effect over water, Wise up to Ekranoplan
Gems Workshop, June, Sydney, Australia, 90–101.
BARBER, T., LEONARDI, E., AND ARCHER, R. D. 2002 Causes for discrep-
ancies in ground effect analyses, The Aeronautical Journal, 106, 1066,
653–667.
GRUNDY, I. 1986 Airfoils moving in air close to a dynamic water surface,
Journal of the Australian Math Society Series B, 27, 3, 327—345.
HIRT, C. W., AND NICHOLS, B. D. 1981 Volume of fluid (VOF) method for
the dynamics of free boundaries, Journal of Computational Physics, 39,
201–225.
HUANG, T., AND WONG, K. 1970 Disturbance induced by a pressure distri-
bution moving over a free surface, JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH, 14, 3,
195–203.
KATAOKA, K., ANDO, J., AND NAKATAKE, K. 1991 Free surface effect on
characteristics of 2D wing (in Japanese), Transactions of the West Japan
Society of Naval Architects, 83, 21–30.
LAMB, H. 1932 Hydrodynamics, 6th ed., The University Press, Cambridge.
LUNGU, A., AND MORI, K. 1994 Applications of composite grid method for
free-surface flow computations by finite difference method, Journal of the
Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 175, 1–10.
MASUDA, S., AND SUZUKI, K. 1991 Simulation of hydrodynamic effects of
two-dimensional WIG moving near the free surface (in Japanese, translated
into English at UNSW), Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan,
170, 83–92.
ROZHDESTVENSKY, K. 1995 Nonlinear aerodynamics of Ekranoplan in
strong ground effect, Proceedings, 3rd International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation (FAST95), September 25–27, Lubeck-Travemunde, Ger-
many.
SCULLEN, D., AND TUCK, E. 2001 Free surface elevation due to moving
pressure distributions in three dimensions (available as pdf file on Adelaide
University website: http://internal.maths.adelaide.edu.au/people/etuck/).
STANDINGFORD, D., AND TUCK, E. 1996 Optimal rectangular end plates,
Journal of Aircraft, 33, 3, 623–625.
TUCK, E. 1975 On air flow over free surfaces of stationary water, Journal
of the Australian Mathematical Society, 19, Series B, 66–80.
TUCK, E. 1984 A simple one-dimensional theory for air-supported vehicles
over water, JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH, 28, 4, 290–292.
JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH