This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Aerodynamics
Lecture 4:
Panel methods
G. Dimitriadis
Introduction
• Until now we’ve seen two methods for
modelling wing sections in ideal flow:
– Conformal mapping: Can model only a few
classes of wing sections
– Thin airfoil theory: Can model any wing
section but ignores the thickness.
• Both methods are not general.
• A more general approach will be
presented here.
2D Panel methods
• 2D Panel methods refers to numerical methods
for calculating the flow around any wing
section.
• They are based on the replacement of the wing
section’s geometry by singularity panels, such
as source panels, doublet panels and vortex
panels.
• The usual boundary conditions are imposed:
– Impermeability
– Kutta condition
Panel placement
• Eight panels of length S
j
• For each panel, s
j
=0S
j
.
• Eight control
(collocation) points
(xc
j
,yc
j
) located in the
middle of each panel.
• Nine boundary points
(xb
j
,yb
j
)
• Normal and tangential
unit vector on each
panel, n
j
, t
j
• Vorticity (or source
strength) on each panel
j
(s) (or
j
(s))
Problem statement
• Use linear panels
• Use constant singularity strength on each
panel,
j
(s)=
j
(
j
(s)=
j
).
• Add free stream U at angle .
• Apply boundary conditions:
– Far field: automatically satisfied if using source or
vortex panels
– Impermeability: Choose Neumann or Dirichlet.
• Apply Kutta condition.
• Find vortex and/or source strength distribution
that will satisfy Boundary Conditions and Kutta
condition.
Panel choice
• It is best to chose small panels near the leading
and trailing edge and large panels in the
middle:
x
c
=
1
2
cos +1 ( ), = 0 2
Notice that now x/c
begins at 1, passes
through 0 and then goes
back to 1.
The usual numbering
scheme is: lower trailing
edge to lower leading
edge, upper leading
edge to upper trailing
edge.
1
2
3
9
15
16
17
29
30
Panel normal and tangent
• Consider a source panel on an airfoil’s
upper surface, near the trailing edge.
• In the frame x+xc
i
,y+yc
i
, n is a linear
function:
• So that
(xc
i
,yc
i
)
(xb
i
,yb
i
)
(xb
i+1
,yb
i+1
)
n
i
t
i
x+xc
i
y+yc
i
i
i
n =
x
n
x, n =
y
n
y
x
n
= cos
2
i
= sin
i
,
y
n
= cos
i
NACA four digit series airfoils
• The NACA 4digit series is defined by four digits, e.g. NACA
2412, m=2%, p=40%, t=12%
• The equations are:
• Where t is the maximum thickness as a percentage of the chord,
m is the maximum camber as a percentage of the chord, p is the
chordwise position of the maximum camber as a tenth of the
chord.
• The complete geometry is given by y=y
c
+y
t
.
y
t
=
t
0.2
0.2969 x  0.126x  0.35160x
2
+0.2843x
3
 0.1015x
4
( )
y
c
=
m
p
2
2px  x
2
( )
for x < p
m
1 p
2
( )
1 2p ( ) +2px  x
2
( )
for x > p
NACA 4digit trailing edge
• It should be stressed that the NACA 4digit
thickness equation specifies a trailing edge
with a finite thickness:
Actual trailing edge
Modified trailing edge
The equation
can be
modified so
that y
t
(1)=0
Gap because of
finite thickness
Zero thickness
no gap
NACA 4digit with
thin airfoil theory
• Thin airfoil theory solutions for NACA four
digit series airfoils can be readily obtained.
• The camber slope is obtained by
differentiating the camber line and
substituting for =cos
1
(12x/c):
dz
dx
=
m
p
2
2p 1+ cos
( )
for
p
dz
dx
=
m
1 p
( )
2
2p 1+ cos
( )
for
p
A
0
=
1
dz
dx
0
d
A
n
=
2
dz
dx
cosn
0
d
Substitute
these in:
NACA 4digit with
thin airfoil theory
• To obtain:
• Which are easily substituted into:
A
0
= o ÷
m
rp
2
2p ÷1 ( )û
p
+ sinû
p
( )
+
m
r 1÷ p ( )
2
2p ÷1 ( ) r ÷ û
p
( )
÷ sinû
p
( )
]
]
]
]
A
1
=
2m
rp
2
2p ÷1 ( )sinû
p
+
1
4
sin2û
p
+
û
p
2

.
`
·
÷
2m
r 1÷ p ( )
2
2p ÷1 ( )sinû
p
+
1
4
sin2û
p
÷
1
2
r ÷ û
p
( )

.
`
·
c
l
= 2A
0
+ A
1
Source panel airfoils
• Consider an airfoil idealized as m linear
source panels with constant strength.
• The potential induced at any point (x,y)
in the flowfield by the jth panel is:
• Including the free stream and summing
the contributions of all the panels, the
total potential at point (x,y) is:
j
x, y ( ) =
j
2
ln x x
j
s
j
( ) ( )
2
+ y y
j
s
j
( ) ( )
2
0
S
j
ds
j
x, y ( ) = U x cos + y sin ( ) +
j
2
ln x x
j
s
j
( ) ( )
2
+ y y
j
s
j
( ) ( )
2
0
S
j
ds
j
j =1
m
Source panel airfoils
• As the panels are linear, then
• So that the total potential becomes:
• There is no obvious expression for this
integral…
x
j
s
j
( )
=
xb
j +1
xb
j
S
j
s
j
+ xb
j
= cos
j
s
j
+ xb
j
y
j
s
j
( )
=
yb
j +1
yb
j
S
j
s
j
+ yb
j
= sin
j
s
j
+ yb
j
x, y ( ) = U x cos + y sin ( ) +
j
2
ln x xb
j
cos
j
s
j
( )
2
+ y yb
j
sin
j
s
j
( )
2
0
S
j
ds
j
j =1
m
Boundary condition
• Try the Neumann boundary condition:
• This condition is applied on the control
point of each panel so that:
• Notice that: and then
n
= 0
oo xc
i
, yc
i
( )
on
i
= U
ox
on
i
coso +
oy
on
i
sino

.
`
·
+
o
j
2r
o
on
i
ln xc
i
÷ xb
j
÷ cosû
j
s
j
( )
2
+ yc
i
÷ yb
j
÷ sinû
j
s
j
( )
2

.
`
·
0
S
j
l
ds
j
j =1
m
¯
x
n
i
= sin
i
,
y
n
i
= cos
i
o
j
2r
o
on
i
ln xc
i
÷ xb
j
÷ cosû
j
s
j
( )
2
+ yc
i
÷ yb
j
÷ sinû
j
s
j
( )
2

.
`
·
0
S
j
l
ds
j
j =1
m
¯
= Usin û
i
÷o
( )
Differentiation
• Carrying out the differentiation in the
integral:
o
on
i
ln xc
i
÷ xb
j
÷cosû
j
s
j
( )
2
+ yc
i
÷ yb
j
÷sinû
j
s
j
( )
2 
.
`
·
=
1
2
o
on
i
xc
i
÷ xb
j
÷cosû
j
s
j
( )
2
+ yc
i
÷ yb
j
÷sinû
j
s
j
( )
2
( )
xc
i
÷ xb
j
÷cosû
j
s
j
( )
2
+ yc
i
÷ yb
j
÷sinû
j
s
j
( )
2
=
2 xc
i
÷ xb
j
÷cosû
j
s
j
( )
ox
on
i
+ 2 yc
i
÷ yb
j
÷sinû
j
s
j
( )
oy
on
i
xc
i
÷ xb
j
÷cosû
j
s
j
( )
2
+ yc
i
÷ yb
j
÷sinû
j
s
j
( )
2
=
xc
i
÷ xb
j
÷cosû
j
s
j
( )
cosû
i
÷ yc
i
÷ yb
j
÷sinû
j
s
j
( )
sinû
i
xc
i
÷ xb
j
÷cosû
j
s
j
( )
2
+ yc
i
÷ yb
j
÷sinû
j
s
j
( )
2
Integration
• After this differentiation, it is now
possible to evaluate the integral.
• The boundary condition becomes:
Where:
o
j
2r
÷
C
ij
F
ij
2
+ D
ij
G
ij

.
`
·
j =1
m
¯
= Usin û
i
÷ o
( )
A
ij
= ÷ xc
i
÷ xb
j
( )
cosû
j
÷ yc
i
÷ yb
j
( )
sinû
j
B
ij
= xc
i
÷ xb
j
( )
2
+ yc
i
÷ yb
j
( )
2
C
ij
= sin û
i
÷û
j
( )
, D
ij
= cos û
i
÷û
j
( )
, F = ln 1+
S
j
2
+ 2A
ij
S
j
B
ij

.
`
·
E
ij
= xc
i
÷ xb
j
( )
sinû
j
÷ yc
i
÷ yb
j
( )
cosû
j
, G
ij
= tan
÷1
E
ij
S
j
A
ij
S
j
+ B
ij

.
`
·
÷
C
ii
F
ii
2
+ D
ii
G
ii
= ÷r
System of equations
• Therefore, the problem of choosing the
correct source strengths to enforce
impermeability has been reduced to:
• Or, in matrix notation, D
n
=Usin()
• Where D
n
=(CF/2+DG)/2
• Which can be solved directly for the
unknown .
o
j
2r
÷
C
ij
F
ij
2
+ D
ij
G
ij

.
`
·
j =1
m
¯
= Usin û
i
÷ o
( )
Tangential Velocities
• The velocities tangential to the panels
are given by:
• So that:
• As usual:
oo xc
i
, yc
i
( )
ot
i
= U
ox
ot
i
coso +
oy
ot
i
sino

.
`
·
+
o
j
2r
o
ot
i
ln xc
i
÷ xb
j
÷ cosû
j
s
j
( )
2
+ yc
i
÷ yb
j
÷ sinû
j
s
j
( )
2

.
`
·
0
S
j
l
ds
j
j =1
m
¯
v
t
i
= Ucos û
i
÷ o
( )
÷
o
j
2r
D
ij
F
ij
2
+ C
ij
G
ij

.
`
·
j =1
m
¯
c
p
i
=1
v
t
i
U
2
Cartesian velocities
• For plotting the velocity field around the
airfoil, the cartesian velocities, u, v are
needed.
• These can be obtained from the normal
and tangential expressions:
• for
i
=0.
u = Ucos û
i
÷ o
( )
÷
o
j
2r
D
ij
F
ij
2
+ C
ij
G
ij

.
`
·
j =1
m
¯
v = ÷Usin û
i
÷ o
( )
+
o
j
2r
÷
C
ij
F
ij
2
+ D
ij
G
ij

.
`
·
j =1
m
¯
Example:
• NACA 2412 airfoil at 5
o
angle of attack
• 50 panels
Full flowfield Near trailing edge
Discussion
• The usual problem: the Kutta condition
was not enforced. The flow separates
on the airfoil’s upper surface.
• Additionally, the lift must be equal to
zero, since there is no ciurculation in the
flow. But is it?
• Calculate
c
x
= c
p
dx
c
y
= c
p
dy
Lift definition
• Lift is the force perpendicular to the free
stream
F
y
F
x
L
D
Therefore: L=F
y
cosF
x
sin
D=F
y
sin+F
x
cos
Or: c
l
=c
y
cosc
x
sin
c
d
=c
y
sin+c
x
cos
Pressure distribution
Stagnation point
Very high velocity
at trailing edge.
Hence very low pressure.
c
l
=0.1072
c
d
=0.0082
The aerodynamic
forces are not zero.
Stagnation point
Increasing number of panels
• Increasing the
number of
panels also
increases the
accuracy.
• The forces move
very slowly
towards 0.
• The problem is
the infinite
velocity at the
trailing edge.
Enforcing the Kutta condition
• The number of equations was equal to the
number of unknowns
• Therefore, the Kutta condition could not be
enforced anyway, it would have been an
additional equation.
• More equations than unknowns means a
least squares solution.
• Conclusion: we need an additional
equation (Kutta condition) and an
additional unknown.
Vortex panels
• Vortex panels with exactly the same
geometry as the source panels are
added.
• If there are m source panels, there will
now be additionally m vortex panels.
• The vorticity on all the panels is equal.
Only one new unknown is introduced, .
• The potential equation becomes:
o x, y ( ) = U x coso + y sino ( ) +
o
j
2r
ln x ÷ xb
j
÷ cosû
j
s
j
( )
2
+ y ÷ yb
j
÷ sinû
j
s
j
( )
2
0
S
j
l
ds
j
j =1
m
¯
÷
y
2r
tan
÷1
y ÷ yb
j
÷ sinû
j
s
j
x ÷ xb
j
÷ cosû
j
s
j

.
`
·
0
S
j
l
ds
j
j =1
m
¯
Boundary condition
• The Neumann impermeability boundary
condition is still:
• So that, now:
• The tangential velocity is:
n
= 0
o
j
2r
÷
C
ij
F
ij
2
+ D
ij
G
ij

.
`
·
j=1
m
¯
÷
y
2r
D
ij
F
ij
2
+ C
ij
G
ij

.
`
·
j=1
m
¯
=Usin û
i
÷ a
( )
v
t
i
= Ucos û
i
÷o
( )
÷
o
j
2r
D
ij
F
ij
2
+ C
ij
G
ij

.
`
·
j =1
m
¯
+
y
2r
C
ij
F
ij
2
÷ D
ij
G
ij

.
`
·
j =1
m
¯
Kutta condition
• The Kutta condition can be applied to
this flow by enforcing that the pressures
just above and just below the trailing
edge must be equal
Stagnation streamline
c
pu
c
pl
If the two pressures are not equal, then the stagnation
Streamline will wrap itself around the trailing edge.
Kutta condition (2)
• Therefore,
• And
• So that:
c
p
m ( ) = c
p
1 ( )
v
t
m ( ) = v
t
1 ( )
o
j
2r
j=1
m
¯
D
mj
F
mj
2
+ C
mj
G
mj

.
`
·
+
D
1 j
F
1 j
2
+ C
1 j
G
1 j

.
`
·
]
]
]
÷
y
2r
C
mj
F
mj
2
÷ D
mj
G
mj

.
`
·
+
C
1 j
F
1 j
2
÷ D
1 j
G
1 j

.
`
·
]
]
]
j=1
m
¯
=U cos û
1
÷o
( )
+ cos û
m
÷o
( ) ( )
System of Equations
• The impermeability boundary conditions
on the panels and the Kutta condition
make up m+1 equations with m+1
unknowns (m source strengths and 1
vorticity).
• The complete system of equations
becomes: A
n
q=R
• where:
A
n
=
1
2r
÷
C
ij
F
ij
2
+ D
ij
G
ij

.
`
·
÷
D
ij
F
ij
2
+ C
ij
G
ij

.
`
·
j=1
m
¯
D
mj
F
mj
2
+ C
mj
G
mj

.
`
·
+
D
1 j
F
1 j
2
+ C
1 j
G
1 j

.
`
·
]
]
]
÷
C
mj
F
mj
2
÷ D
mj
G
mj

.
`
·
+
C
1 j
F
1 j
2
÷ D
1 j
G
1 j

.
`
·
]
]
]
j=1
m
¯
]
]
]
]
]
]
R=
Usin û
i
÷o
( )
U cos û
1
÷o
( )
+ cos û
m
÷o
( ) ( )
]
]
]
, q =
o
i
y
]
]
]
Example:
• NACA 2412 airfoil at 5
o
angle of attack
• 50 panels
Full flowfield Near trailing edge
Pressure distribution
T.E. Stagnation point
L.E. Stagnation point
Minimum pressure point
c
l
=
2
cU
S
i
i=1
m
For calculating the
lift use Kutta
Joukowski:
c
l
=0.8611
c
d
=0.0003
Discussion
• This is a typical pressure distribution for
attached flow over a 2D airfoil.
• The c
p
values at the two stagnation points
are not exactly 1.
– The leading edge stagnation point is
somewhere on the bottom surface, not
necessarily on a control point
– The trailing edge stagnation point is on the
trailing edge, certainly not on a control point.
• The drag is still not exactly zero.
Increasing number of panels
• This is a nice
situation:
– The lift is almost
constant with
number of panels
– The drag is high
for few panels but
drops a lot for
many panels
– It remains to
decide which
number of panels
is acceptable
Higher order accuracy
• The panel methods shown here have a
constant strength (source or vortex) on
every panel.
• Higher orders of accuracy can be obtained
if the singularity strength is allowed to
vary.
• For example, an airfoil can be modeled
using vortex panels only with linearly
varying vorticity.
Linearly varying vortex panels
Now there are m+1
unknowns,
i
, with m
boundary conitions
and one Kutta
condition.
The Kutta condition
states that the vorticity
at the trailing edge
must be zero, i.e.
m+1
+
1
=0.
Example
Trailing edge
control points.
The pressure
coefficient is
closer to 1
• NACA 2412 airfoil at 5
o
angle of attack
• 50 panels
Observations
• Panel methods allow the modeling of any airfoil
shape, as long as the coordinates of the airfoil are
known.
• As they are numerical methods, their results
depend on parameters, such as the number, order
and choice of panels.
• Second order panels, i.e. panels with quadratically
varying singularity strength are even more
accurate.
• Panel methods are supposed to be fast and easy
to implement:
– Increasing the order and increasing the number of panels
too much will render these methods so computationally
expensive that their main advantage, speed, is lost.
Comparison with thin
airfoil theory – NACA 2412
• The zerolift
angles are
identical
• The liftcurve
slopes are
different
• Thin airfoil
theory cannot
account for
thickness
effects
Comparison with thin
airfoil theory – NACA 2404
• The liftcurve
slopes are
much more
similar
• Clearly, 12%
thickness is too
much for thin
airfoil theory.
• At 4%
thickness, the
thin airfoil
theory is much
more
representative
XFOIL
• XFOIL is a free panel method software
developed by Mark Drela at MIT.
• Website:
http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/xfoil/
• It can model the flow around any 2D airfoil
using panel methods. It can also:
– Perform corrections for viscosity
– Perform corrections for compressibility
– Design an airfoil given specifications
NACA 2412 at 5
o
Introduction
• Until now we’ve seen two methods for modelling wing sections in ideal flow:
– Conformal mapping: Can model only a few classes of wing sections – Thin airfoil theory: Can model any wing section but ignores the thickness.
• Both methods are not general. • A more general approach will be presented here.
2D Panel methods
• 2D Panel methods refers to numerical methods for calculating the flow around any wing section. • They are based on the replacement of the wing section’s geometry by singularity panels, such as source panels, doublet panels and vortex panels. • The usual boundary conditions are imposed:
– Impermeability – Kutta condition
Panel placement
• Eight panels of length Sj • For each panel, sj=0Sj. • Eight control (collocation) points (xcj,ycj) located in the middle of each panel. • Nine boundary points (xbj,ybj) • Normal and tangential unit vector on each panel, nj, tj • Vorticity (or source strength) on each panel j(s) (or j(s))
Problem statement • Use linear panels • Use constant singularity strength on each panel. • Apply Kutta condition. • Find vortex and/or source strength distribution that will satisfy Boundary Conditions and Kutta condition. j(s)= j ( j(s)= j). . • Add free stream U at angle . • Apply boundary conditions: – Far field: automatically satisfied if using source or vortex panels – Impermeability: Choose Neumann or Dirichlet.
c 2 =0 2 17 16 15 9 Notice that now x/c begins at 1. The usual numbering scheme is: lower trailing edge to lower leading edge. passes through 0 and then goes back to 1.Panel choice • It is best to chose small panels near the leading and trailing edge and large panels in the middle: x 1 = (cos + 1). upper leading edge to upper trailing edge. 29 3 30 2 1 .
y = cos n i . near the trailing edge. n = i (xbi+1.ybi+1) n y • So that x = cos n 2 = sin i .Panel normal and tangent • Consider a source panel on an airfoil’s upper surface.ybi) (xci. n is a linear function: x y n= n x. y+yci (xbi.yci) i ni ti x+xci i • In the frame x+xci.y+yci.
35160x 2 + 0.0. The complete geometry is given by y=yc+yt . t yt = 0. p=40%. NACA 2412. p is the chordwise position of the maximum camber as a tenth of the chord. m is the maximum camber as a percentage of the chord.0.1015x 4 0.2 p) + 2 px .2843x 3 .2969 x .0. e.x 2 ) for x > p (1 p2 ) ( ) . t=12% • The equations are: • • Where t is the maximum thickness as a percentage of the chord. m=2%.x 2 ) for x < p p2 yc = m ((1.126x .2 m (2 px .g.NACA four digit series airfoils • The NACA 4digit series is defined by four digits.
NACA 4digit trailing edge • It should be stressed that the NACA 4digit thickness equation specifies a trailing edge with a finite thickness: The equation can be modified so that yt(1)=0 Gap because of finite thickness Zero thicknessno gap Actual trailing edge Modified trailing edge .
• The camber slope is obtained by differentiating the camber line and substituting for =cos1(12x/c): dz m = 2 (2 p 1+ cos ) for dx p m dz = 2 (2 p 1+ cos ) for dx (1 p) p p Substitute these in: A0 = An = 2 1 0 dz d dx 0 dz cos n d dx .NACA 4digit with thin airfoil theory • Thin airfoil theory solutions for NACA fourdigit series airfoils can be readily obtained.
NACA 4digit with thin airfoil theory • To obtain: A0 = 2m A1 = 2 p m 2 (2 p 1) p ( p + sin p )+ p (1 p m p) 2 ((2 p 1)( ( ) p ) sin p ) (2 p 1) sin (1 2m p) 2 p 1 + sin2 4 p + 2 p (2 p 1) sin 1 + sin2 4 1 2 p • Which are easily substituted into: c l = 2 A0 + A1 .
• The potential induced at any point (x.y) in the flowfield by the jth panel is: j ( x.Source panel airfoils • Consider an airfoil idealized as m linear source panels with constant strength. y ) = U ( x cos + y sin ) + 2 0 j 2 ln (x x j sj ( )) + ( y 2 y j sj ( )) ds 2 j j =1 . y ) = j Sj 0 • Including the free stream and summing the contributions of all the panels. the total potential at point (x.y) is: m 2 2 S j ln ( x x j ( s j )) + ( y y j ( s j )) ds j ( x.
Source panel airfoils • As the panels are linear. then xb j +1 xb j x j sj = s j + xb j = cos j s j + xb j Sj yb j +1 yb j y j sj = s j + yb j = sin j s j + yb j Sj ( ) ( ) • So that the total potential becomes: ( x. y ) = U ( x cos + y sin )+ m j =1 2 j Sj 0 ln (x xb j cos j s j ) + (y 2 yb j sin j s j ds j ) 2 • There is no obvious expression for this integral… .
Boundary condition • Try the Neumann boundary condition: • This condition is applied on the control point of each panel so that: ( xc i . = cos ni ni cos j s j i and then sin j s j ni ln ( xc i xb j ) + ( yc 2 i yb j ) 2 ds j = U sin( i ) . yc i ) = U ni + m j =1 j n =0 x y cos + sin ni ni Sj 0 2 ni ln ( xc i xb j cos j s j ) + ( yc 2 i yb j sin j s j ) 2 ds j • Notice that: m j =1 2 j Sj 0 x y = sin i .
Differentiation • Carrying out the differentiation in the integral: ni ln ( xc i xb j cos j s j ) + ( yc i 2 2 yb j sin j s j ) 2 2 = ( xc i xb j cos j s j ) + ( yc i yb j sin j s j ) 1 ni 2 ( xc i xb j cos j s j ) 2 + ( yc i yb j sin j s j ) 2 2( xc i xb j i ( )= = i cos j s j ) ( xc ( xc i xb j xb j ( xc i cos j s j ) cos xb j cos j j cos j s j ) + ( yc i 2 i 2 x + 2( yc i ni yb j yb j sin j s j ) sin j s j ) 2 y ni ( yc s ) + ( yc i i yb j yb j sin j s j ) sin j s j ) sin 2 .
Gij = tan E ij S j Aij S j + Bij Cii Fii + DiiGii = 2 .Integration • After this differentiation. • The boundary condition becomes: m j Where: j =1 2 Aij = ( xc i Cij Fij + Dij Gij = U sin( i 2 xb j ) cos j ( yc i yb j ) sin xb j ) + ( yc i 2 ) j Bij = ( xc i Cij = sin( E ij = ( xc i i yb j ) i 2 j ). it is now possible to evaluate the integral. F = ln 1+ S 2 + 2Aij S j j Bij 1 xb j ) sin j ( yc i yb j ) cos j . Dij = cos( j ).
) • Where Dn=(CF/2+DG)/2 • Which can be solved directly for the unknown . Dn =Usin( .System of equations • Therefore. the problem of choosing the correct source strengths to enforce impermeability has been reduced to: m j =1 2 j Cij Fij + Dij Gij = U sin( 2 i ) • Or. in matrix notation. .
Tangential Velocities • The velocities tangential to the panels are given by: ( xc i . yc i ) = U ti + m j =1 j x y cos + sin ti ti Sj 0 2 ti ln ( xc i xb j cos j s j ) + ( yc 2 i yb j sin j s j ) 2 ds j • So that: v ti = U cos( i ) m j =1 j Dij Fij 2 2 2 + Cij Gij • As usual: c pi = 1 v ti U .
Cartesian velocities • For plotting the velocity field around the airfoil. . the cartesian velocities. • These can be obtained from the normal and tangential expressions: u = U cos( v = U sin( i ) i m j =1 j Dij Fij 2 j 2 2 + Cij Gij )+ m j =1 Cij Fij + Dij Gij 2 • for i=0. v are needed. u.
Example: • NACA 2412 airfoil at 5o angle of attack • 50 panels Full flowfield Near trailing edge .
The flow separates on the airfoil’s upper surface. • Additionally.Discussion • The usual problem: the Kutta condition was not enforced. But is it? • Calculate c = c dx x p c y = c p dy . the lift must be equal to zero. since there is no ciurculation in the flow.
Lift definition • Lift is the force perpendicular to the free stream L Fy D Fx Therefore: L=Fycos Fxsin D=Fysin +Fxcos Or: cl=cycos cxsin cd=cysin +cxcos .
Hence very low pressure.0082 The aerodynamic forces are not zero.Pressure distribution Stagnation point Stagnation point cl=0.1072 cd=0. Very high velocity at trailing edge. .
.Increasing number of panels • Increasing the number of panels also increases the accuracy. • The forces move very slowly towards 0. • The problem is the infinite velocity at the trailing edge.
Enforcing the Kutta condition • The number of equations was equal to the number of unknowns • Therefore. • More equations than unknowns means a least squares solution. . the Kutta condition could not be enforced anyway. it would have been an additional equation. • Conclusion: we need an additional equation (Kutta condition) and an additional unknown.
y ) = U ( x cos m j =1 + y sin Sj )+ 1 m j =1 2 j Sj 0 ln (x xb j ds j cos j s j ) + (y 2 yb j sin j s j ds j ) 2 2 0 tan y x yb j xb j sin j s j cos j s j . • The potential equation becomes: ( x. • If there are m source panels.Vortex panels • Vortex panels with exactly the same geometry as the source panels are added. Only one new unknown is introduced. . there will now be additionally m vortex panels. • The vorticity on all the panels is equal.
now: m j j=1 Cij Fij 2 2 + Dij Gij m 2 j=1 Dij Fij + Cij Gij = U sin( 2 i a) • The tangential velocity is: v ti = U cos( i ) m j =1 2 j Dij Fij + Cij Gij + 2 2 m j =1 Cij Fij 2 Dij Gij .Boundary condition • The Neumann impermeability boundary condition is still: n =0 • So that.
Stagnation streamline . then the stagnation Streamline will wrap itself around the trailing edge.Kutta condition • The Kutta condition can be applied to this flow by enforcing that the pressures just above and just below the trailing edge must be equal cpu cpl If the two pressures are not equal.
• And • So that: m j j=1 c p ( m) = c p (1) v t ( m) = v t (1) 2 m D F Dmj Fmj + Cmj Gmj + 1 j 1 j + C1 j G1 j 2 2 Cmj Fmj 2 1 2 Dmj Gmj + m C1 j F1 j 2 D1 j G1 j j=1 = U (cos( ) + cos( )) .Kutta condition (2) • Therefore.
• The complete system of equations becomes: Anq=R • where: Cij Fij 1 An = 2 2 + Dij Gij m m Dij Fij 2 + Cij Gij C1 j F1 j 2 D1 j G1 j j=1 D F Dmj Fmj + Cmj Gmj + 1 j 1 j + C1 j G1 j 2 2 U sin( 1 Cmj Fmj 2 Dmj Gmj + j=1 R= U (cos( ) ) + cos( m i )) .System of Equations • The impermeability boundary conditions on the panels and the Kutta condition make up m+1 equations with m+1 unknowns (m source strengths and 1 vorticity). q= i .
Example: • NACA 2412 airfoil at 5o angle of attack • 50 panels Full flowfield Near trailing edge .
Pressure distribution L. Stagnation point For calculating the lift use KuttaJoukowski: cl = Minimum pressure point 2 cU m Si i=1 cl=0.0003 . Stagnation point T.E.E.8611 cd=0.
• The drag is still not exactly zero. not necessarily on a control point – The trailing edge stagnation point is on the trailing edge. • The cp values at the two stagnation points are not exactly 1. certainly not on a control point.Discussion • This is a typical pressure distribution for attached flow over a 2D airfoil. . – The leading edge stagnation point is somewhere on the bottom surface.
Increasing number of panels • This is a nice situation: – The lift is almost constant with number of panels – The drag is high for few panels but drops a lot for many panels – It remains to decide which number of panels is acceptable .
• Higher orders of accuracy can be obtained if the singularity strength is allowed to vary. an airfoil can be modeled using vortex panels only with linearly varying vorticity. .Higher order accuracy • The panel methods shown here have a constant strength (source or vortex) on every panel. • For example.
The Kutta condition states that the vorticity at the trailing edge must be zero. with m boundary conitions and one Kutta condition. .Linearly varying vortex panels Now there are m+1 unknowns. m+1+ 1=0.e. i. i.
The pressure coefficient is closer to 1 .Example • NACA 2412 airfoil at 5o angle of attack • 50 panels Trailing edge control points.
is lost. such as the number. speed. as long as the coordinates of the airfoil are known. • Panel methods are supposed to be fast and easy to implement: – Increasing the order and increasing the number of panels too much will render these methods so computationally expensive that their main advantage.e. i. panels with quadratically varying singularity strength are even more accurate.Observations • Panel methods allow the modeling of any airfoil shape. • As they are numerical methods. • Second order panels. their results depend on parameters. . order and choice of panels.
Comparison with thin airfoil theory – NACA 2412 • The zerolift angles are identical • The liftcurve slopes are different • Thin airfoil theory cannot account for thickness effects .
the thin airfoil theory is much more representative . • At 4% thickness. 12% thickness is too much for thin airfoil theory.Comparison with thin airfoil theory – NACA 2404 • The liftcurve slopes are much more similar • Clearly.
It can also: – Perform corrections for viscosity – Perform corrections for compressibility – Design an airfoil given specifications .edu/drela/Public/web/xfoil/ • It can model the flow around any 2D airfoil using panel methods.mit. • Website: http://web.XFOIL • XFOIL is a free panel method software developed by Mark Drela at MIT.
NACA 2412 at 5o .