Parametric Study of The Effects of A Tubercle's Geometry On Wing Performance Through The Use of LLT Bolzon 2016

AIAA 2016-0295
AIAA SciTech
4-8 January 2016, San Diego, California, USA
54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting
Parametric Study of the Effects of a Tubercle’s Geometry on

Wing Performance Through the Use of the Lifting-Line
Theory
Michael D. Bolzon1, Richard M. Kelso2, and Maziar Arjomandi3

The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 5005
Prandtl’s lifting-line theory has been implemented to determine the effects of a tubercle’s
amplitude and wavelength on the lift coefficient, induced drag coefficient, and the lift-to-
Downloaded by UNIV OF ADELAIDE (INTERNET) on January 27, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-0295
induced-drag ratio of a NACA 0021 wing at an angle of attack of 3°, and a Reynolds number
of 120,000. In addition, a new tubercle parameter has been introduced; the point along a
tubercle that a wing terminates. This parameter has been termed the phase of the tubercles.
The phase of the tubercles tended to have the greatest effect on the lift coefficient, induced
drag coefficient, and the lift-to-induced-drag ratio, while the wavelength had the least.
However, the effects of the tubercle amplitude, wavelength, and phase on the wing
performance parameters considered were inter-dependent, whereby increasing the
amplitude or wavelength not only resulted in these individual parameters to be more
effectual, but for the phase to be more effectual as well. Typically, a particular tubercle
geometry that reduced the lift coefficient also reduced the induced drag coefficient, and the
lift-to-induced-drag ratio would increase. The lift-to-induced-drag ratio was increase by as
much as 7.7% for the considered tubercle geometries.
Nomenclature
A = tubercle amplitude
AR = wing aspect ratio
b = wing span
CDI = induced drag coefficient
CLWing = wing lift coefficient
Cn = segment’s mean geometric chord
C L = segment’s lift curve slope
hmax = wing camber
n = segment
V = freestream velocity
X = coefficient
α = geometric angle of attack
α0 = zero-lift angle of attack
Γ = circulation
Γi = ith segment circulation
θi = ith segment angle
λ = tubercle wavelength
μ = grouping parameter
Φ = phase
1
PhD Candidate, The School of Mechanical Engineering, North Terrace, Adelaide, Australia, 5005.
2
Associate Professor, The School of Mechanical Engineering, North Terrace, Adelaide, Australia, 5005.
3
Senior Lecturer, The School of Mechanical Engineering, North Terrace, Adelaide, Australia, 5005.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright © 2015 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
I. Introduction
T ubercles on the leading edge of a lifting surface have received much attention recently as they have
demonstrated the ability to soften and delay stall1, 2, as well as increase a wing’s efficiency at pre-stall angles of
attack3. Tubercles can be found in the natural world, such as on Humpback whale pectoral flippers, and it is now
known these tubercles are responsible, in part, for the Humpback whale’s agility. Several studies have demonstrated
that tubercles create pairs of counter-rotating, streamwise vortices over the lifting surface on which they are
implemented4, 5. The flow mechanisms that tubercles introduce are rather complex, however there is substantial
evidence to support two hypotheses as to how tubercles work. The first mechanism is that tubercles act to
“compartmentalize” the flow, in that they segregate the flow over a lifting surface into “pockets” in the troughs. The
result being that if the flow over one pocket separates the flow over neighboring regions will not be affected6, 7. The
second flow mechanism is that tubercles act in a similar fashion to vortex generators, whereby in the regions of
common downwash they mix higher momentum flow into the boundary layer, which delays separation 2, 7.
As the most obvious benefits of
tubercles occur during the stall

regime8, the effects of tubercles in
the pre-stall regime have been
largely overlooked. The pre-stall
regime is of high importance as
many potential tubercle applications
typically operate in this regime.
One of the few studies concerning
the pre-stall effects of tubercles
demonstrated an increase in the lift-
to-drag ratio of 2-6% when
implemented on a swept wing3. A a)
9 a)
subsequent study by Bolzon et al.
was performed on the exact same
two wings that Bolzon et al.3 b) Phase Tubercle Termination
investigated. This study showed 
Peak
that the total drag coefficient

decrease found by Bolzon et al.3
was due primarly to a reduction in
the profile drag coefficient, and 1st Phase
partly due to a reduction in the Section
Midpoint
Tubercle
induced drag coefficient.


Furthermore, it was also found that
the troughs increased the drag 2nd Phase
coefficient whereas the peaks Section
reduced the drag coefficient,
thereby creating a modulating effect
Trough
along the entire span of the wing.

The next area of interest is to 
        
optimize a tubercle configuration to
give the greatest possible benefits. b)b) Phase
The tubercle geometry is

typically characterized by two Figure 1. a) tubercled wing geometric parameters, b) depicts the
parameters; the amplitude and the point along the tubercle that a wing will terminate given a specified
wavelength, where the amplitude phase.
refers to the distance between a
tubercle peak and trough, and the wavelength refers to the distance between two adjacent tubercle peaks or troughs,
as shown in Fig. 1 a). The only parametric analyses of the tubercle geometries conducted thus far have been limited
due to their experimental nature, and have largely focused on the stall regime of the wing10, 11. It is an aim of this
study to investigate, through the use of Prandtl’s lifting-line theory, how a tubercle’s amplitude and wavelength
affects the wing’s lift and induced drag coefficient productions at pre-stall angles of attack. There is one further
tubercle parameter that will be investigated; the phase of the tubercle. As Fig. 1 b) depicts, the phase refers to the
2
point along the tubercle at which the wing terminates, for example, termination on a peak or a trough corresponds to
phases of 6π/12 and 18π/12, respectively. Figure 1 a) depicts a wing with a phase of 6π/12. The phase of the tubercle
is expected to have a large impact on both the lift and the induced drag coefficients of the wing, as this affects the
circulation distribution over the wing span. It is another aim of this study to categorize the relationships between the
amplitude, wavelength, and phase of the tubercles on the lift coefficient, induced drag coefficient, and the lift-to-
induced-drag ratio, which can then be used as a future guide in the design of tubercles.
II. Method
The wing modelled was the same as that used in the experiments by Hansen10. The wing was an unswept,
untapered NACA 0021 wing profile, with a span of 0.495m and a chord of 0.07m, and a diagram of the smooth
leading edge wing can be seen in Fig. 2. For the simulation only half of the wing was modelled as the smooth
leading edge wing was symmetrical about the centreline. Tubercles were employed along the entire leading of the
wing and a sensitivity study of the tubercle amplitude, wavelength, and phase was performed by the use of Prandtl’s
lifting-line theory. This theory allows, among other parameters, the calculation of lift and the induced drag
coefficients for a finite wing from knowing the wing planform shape, size, and the two-dimensional lift-curve slope.
A detailed explanation of the simulation process can be found in Houghton et al.12. A general outline of the process
used will be covered.
Initially the wing is divided into N segments, as shown in Fig. 2. It should be noted that the segments depicted in
Fig. 2 are for illustrative purposes, and for this simulation the wing was divided into 2000 segments. Typically, the
wing segments become more frequent towards the wingtip to more accurately predict the faster changing circulation.
Equations (1), (4), and (5) can be used to find the circulation distribution, the lift, and the induced drag coefficients
of the wing, respectively. Equations (2) and (3) show how to calculate the unknowns for Eqs. (1), (4), and (5).
Equation (2) is known as the “Monoplane Equation”.
Figure 2. Diagram of the half-wing model illustrating a typical segmentation and the corresponding
segment angle of the first three segments.
N
i  2bV  X n sin(n i ) (1)
n 1
N
 n 
  0      X n sin(n i )1  
sin  i 
(2)
n 1 
Cn C L
 (3)
4b
CLWing  ARX 1 (4)
3
N
C DI  AR  nX n
2
(5)
n 1
Despite being a relatively simple method for numerically determining the circulation distribution, the lift
coefficient, and the induced drag coefficient of a wing, the lifting-line theory is remarkably accurate for simple
planform shapes, such as unswept wings. Furthermore, it is computationally inexpensive, which makes it ideal for a
parametric analysis. However, for more complex planform shapes, such as highly swept and tapered wings, and
Segment Number Independency compressible flow, this
0.01 theory becomes inaccurate.
CL
CD
This study focusses on an
a) I unswept, untwisted, and
0.005
Percentage Change
CL/CD untapered wing at pre-stall

I
angles of attack, therefore,
0 Prandtl’s lifting-line theory is

suitable. In order to utilize
the lifting-line theory the
-0.005 two-dimensional lift-curve
slope must be known. This
slope was attained from
-0.01
10 25 50 100 250 500 1000 2000 Hansen’s experimental data10
and the lift-curve slope was
calculated for each angle of
attack.
10 For the parametric
CL
CD
analysis the tubercles were
b) I distributed over the entire
Percentage Change
CL/CD leading-edge of the wing.

5 I
The tubercle amplitude range
considered for this simulation
was 0mm to 20mm. 20mm
0 was chosen as the maximum
amplitude as this
corresponded to 29% of the
wing chord, and as the
-5
10 25 50 100 250 500 1000 2000 lifting-line theory performs
Number of Segments
inadequately for swept
wings, a larger amplitude
Figure 3. Segment indepdency test for smooth wing, a), and tubercled wing, would result in a larger
b). Tubercled configuration is A20λ15.47Φ0π, with tubercles along the inaccuracy. Therefore, 20mm
entire span. Y-axis expressed as a percentage change to the results of the was a satisfactory
2000 segment models. compromise. The wavelength
ranged from 0mm to 495mm.
As the wavelength increases
past 247.5mm the wing started to approximate a tapered wing. The phase ranged from 0 to 2π. The amplitude,
wavelength, and phase ranges were divided into 40, 33, and 25 equally incremented points, respectively, and were
incremented systematically through their respective ranges. As mentioned previous, for this simulation the wing was
divided into 2000 segments and the division of the segments followed a cosine distribution over the wingspan. As
Fig. 3 shows, 2000 segments resulted in the lift coefficient, induced drag coefficient, and the lift-to-induced drag
ratio to converge for the smooth and tubercled wings. For this convergence study the tubercles had an amplitude of
20mm, a wavelength of 15.47mm, a phase of 0π, and covered the entire span of the wing. This tubercle geometry
had the greatest gradient between the tubercle peak and trough out of all of the geometries tested in the parametric
analysis. Therefore, the number of segments required to produce a segment-independent lift coefficient, induced
drag coefficient, and a lift-to-induced-drag ratio for this geometry was suitable for the other tubercle geoemtries
modelled.
4
The experiment by Hansen10 was conducted at a freestream velocity of 25 m/s, giving a chord Reynolds number
of approximately 120,000. This freestream velocity was also used for the numerical simulations. The numerical
simulation was conducted at an angle of attack of 3° as this corresponds to a typical low angle of attack application,
such as airplanes. Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 4, and as will be explained in the Model Validation section, there is
good agreement between the lifting-line theory and the experimental data presented by Hansen10 below an angle of
attack of 4°, therefore, an angle of attack of 3° is a suitable choice for this experiment.
III. Model ValidationLift Data Comparison

The wing planform selected for the
Hansen NACA 0021 Finite 2012
simulation was chosen as there are two- Lifting Line Theory
0.7
dimensional and three-dimensional Ideal Lift Slope
experimental data of the lift coefficient 0.6
of this wing with a smooth leading-edge
Coefficient of Lift, CL
from Hansen10. Therefore, the lift-curve 0.5
slope can be obtained from the two-
dimensional data, while a validation of 0.4
the numerical simulation can be
performed for the three-dimensional 0.3
case. Figure 3 shows the lift coefficient
calculated from the numerical 0.2
simulation with the experimental data
from Hansen10, and the ideal lift 0.1
coefficient as calculated from Eq. (6),
where α is in radians. For angles of 0
attack below 4° there is good agreement 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
between all three results, however, Geometric Angle of Attack, °
above 4° a divergence of the Hansen10
data occurs. The experiment by Figure 4. Lift coefficient validation of the lifting-line theory
Hansen10 was conducted in the with Hansen’s experimental data10, and the ideal lift slope.
Induced Drag
transitional regime. The data collected Calculated Induced Drag Coefficient
0.02
showed an increase in the lift-curve Quadratic Line of Best Fit
slope, which can also be seen in Fig. 3 0.018
Induced Drag Coefficient
past 4°, and it was deduced that this 0.016

increase was due to the formation of a
0.014
laminar separation bubble on the
10
suction side of the wing . This bubble 0.012
effectively increased the thickness of 0.01
the wing, which resulted in a greater lift
0.008
production. Due to the relatively sparse
lift coefficient data, the lift-curve slopes 0.006
calculated from Hansen’s experimental 0.004
data10 were not sufficient to allow the
0.002
lifting-line theory to mimic this trend,
therefore, deviation of the lifting-line 0
theory lift coefficient from Hansen’s 0 2 4 6 8
10
data at angles of attack greater than 4° Geometric Angle of Attack, °
is expected. As there is good agreement
between the lifting-line theory lift Figure 5. Induced drag coefficient of the wing as predicted by
results and Hansen’s experimental the lifting-line theory and a quadratic line-of-best-fit;
data10 below 4°, this regime is optimal C DI  3.10  10 4  2  1.36  10 4   2.63  10 4 .
for the numerical simulation. It should
also be noted that there is very good
agreement between the lifting-line theory and the ideal lift slope for this NACA 0021 wing, as shown in Fig.3.
5
 2h 
2    max 
CL  
c  (6)
2
1
AR
Figure 5 shows the calculated induced drag coefficient from the lifting-line theory and a quadratic line-of-best-fit
has been included to demonstrate the good agreement in the trend of the lifting-line theory induced drag coefficient.
In the pre-stall regime the induced drag coefficient is proportional to the square of the wing lift coefficient, and the
wing lift coefficient is typically proportional to the angle of attack. Therefore, the induced drag coefficient of the
wing should be proportional to the square of the angle of attack. Figure 5 shows that there is excellent agreement
between a quadratic line of best fit and the induced drag coefficient thereby showing that the induced drag
coefficient is proportional to the square of the angle of attack, as expected. From Figs. 4 and 5 it can be concluded
that within the scope of this investigation the lifting-line theory is applicable and the results obtained by its use are
of value.
IV. Results
Perhaps the most important effect of tubercles is its effect on the circulation distribution over a wing, as this
distribution dictates the lift and induced Circulation Distribution
drag coefficient productions of the wing.
Figure 6 shows that for a smooth wing the
circulation distribution is, as expected, 0.2
rather uniform with a maximum at the wing
root and a growing decrement towards the
Circulation, m2/s
wingtip. It should be noted that the location 0.15

along the wing has been normalized to the
wingspan such that zero corresponds to the
wing root and one to the wingtip. When 0.1
tubercles are added to the leading-edge of
the wing the effects are obvious as there is
a constant modulation in the circulation 0.05
along the span of the wing, before the Smooth Wing
decline at the wingtip. This modulation has A525
also been documented by Rostamzadeh et A151000
0
al.13 who used a non-linear lifting-line 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
theory. Two different tubercle Location Along Wing, Normalized to Wing Span
configurations have been depicted to
demonstrate the effects of each parameter. Figure 6. The circulation distribution over the wingspan for a
The amplitude of the tubercle directly smooth wing and for tubercled wings with tubercle geometries of
affects the modulation amplitude of the A5λ25Φπ and A15λ100Φ0π.
circulation. The wavelength of the
tubercles is responsible for the wavelength
in the modulation. The phase of the tubercles shifts the local maxima and minima of the circulation and lift
distribution along the span of the wing. The local maxima and minima in the circulation distribution over the span of
the wing correspond to the peaks and troughs of the tubercles, respectively. This circulation modulation has a direct
impact on the lift coefficient distribution over the wingspan, as shown in Fig. 7 where the same modulation occurs.
The local maxima and minima along the wingspan in the lift coefficient distribution also correspond to the tubercle
peaks and troughs, respectively. This increase in the lift coefficient is due to the increase in the circulation over the
peaks and that the chord is greater. Therefore, there are two causes for an increase in the lift production over a peak.
6
To determine the effects of the Lift Distribution
tubercle amplitude and wavelength on
the lift and induced drag coefficients,
0.25
and the lift-to-induced-drag ratio color
plots have been developed in Figs. 8 to
10, where each color plot corresponds to 0.2
Lift Coefficient
a certain phase. The phase can be
determined from Fig. 1 b). It should be
noted that for 3° the smooth wing has a 0.15
lift coefficient of 0.2317, an induced

drag coefficient of 0.0025, and a lift-to- 0.1
induced-drag ratio of 91.1.
The most obvious result from Figs. 8
to 10 is that without accounting for the 0.05

Smooth Wing
tubercle phase there does not appear to A525
be a general effect of the amplitude and A151000
0
the wavelength on the lift or induced 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
drag coefficients, or the ratio of these Location Along Wing, Normalized to Wing Span
coefficients. For example, in Fig. 8 it
can be seen that for a phase of 0π Figure 7. The lift coefficient distribution over the wing with a
increasing the amplitude and smooth leading-edge, and two tubercled leading-edge
wavelength results in a decrease in the configurations; A5λ25Φπ and A15λ100Φ0π.
lift production, however, if the phase is
8π/12 then this relationship no longer
holds true, and for a phase of 12/12π increasing the amplitude and wavelength results in an increase in lift.
Figure 8. The effect of the tubercle amplitude and wavelength on the lift coefficient.
Furthermore, in Fig. 8 for a phase of 0π both the amplitude and wavelength of the tubercles impacts the lift
production, however, for a phase of 8π/12, the lift production is, unexpectedly, relatively insensitive to the
7
wavelength, whereby only a change in the amplitude of the tubercle will significantly change the lift production.
Similar conclusions can be drawn from Figs. 9 and 10, which correspond to the induced drag coefficient and the lift-
to-induced-drag ratio, respectively.
For Figs. 8 to 10 there are two distinct sections of the phase that must be segregated in order to determine
relationships between the previously discussed tubercle parameters and the wing performance parameters. The first
section is for a tubercle phase ranging from 21/12π to 6/12π, and the second section is from 8/12π to 19/12π, as
annontated on Fig. 1. There are phases in between these two sections that display trends of both phase sections, and
as such these phases can be thought of as transitioning regions. In the first phase section an increase in the amplitude
will result in both a decrease in the lift and induced drag coefficients, as shown in Figs. 8 and 9. While a decrease in
the lift coefficient is not typically desirable, the decrease in the induced drag coefficient is greater, which results in
an increase in the lift-to-induced-drag ratio, as seen in Fig. 10. Furthermore, Fig. 10 shows that in this phase section,
from 21/12π to 6/12π, the lift-to-induced-drag ratio is almost always higher regardless of the tubercle amplitude and
wavelength than in the second phase section, 8/12π to 19/12π. Therefore, only by designing tubercles in this first
phase section will the maximum lift-to-induced-drag ratio be attained.

The first phase section offers far greater lift-to-induced-drag ratios with several configurations reaching a ratio
over 98, which is approximately 7.5% greater than the smooth wing’s 91.1. In the second phase section the lift-to-
induced-drag ratio rarely exceeds the smooth wing’s ratio, which clearly demonstrates the polarizing effect of the
phase on the lift-to-induced-drag ratio. While it is clear that dividing the entire range of phases into two distinct
phases highlights the tubercle configurations with the highest lift-to-induced drag, the effects of the tubercle phase
on the wing lift and induced drag coefficients are yet to be considered and depending on the application, the tubercle
configuration with highest lift-to-induced-drag ratio tubercle may not be most suitable.
From Fig. 10 the highest lift-to-induced-drag ratios occur at a tubercle phase ranging from 23/12π to 1/12π, and
this is for a tubercle with an amplitude of 15mm to 20mm and a wavelength greater than 450mm. However, from
Fig. 8 for the same range of phases this combination of amplitudes and wavelengths results in a decrease in the lift
coefficient; approximately 7% compared to the smooth wing. This decrease in the lift coefficient may not be
acceptable for a given application, as to produce the same amount of lift as the smooth wing, the planform area must
increase, which would then result in an increase in weight. It should be noted that there is a general trend between
the lift and induced drag coefficients, and the lift-to-induced-drag ratio, where when the lift-to-induced-drag ratio
Figure 9. The effect of the tubercle amplitude and wavelength on the induced drag coefficient.
8
reaches a maxima or minima, the lift and induced drag coefficients reach a minima or maxima, respectively.
However, while both the fluctuations in the lift and induced drag coefficients appear to mimic each other, the
induced drag coefficient experiences a greater relative change, which is reflected in the lift-to-induced-drag ratio. In
addition, the tubercle configurations that yield the highest lift-to-induced-drag ratio are typically those with a greater
amplitude, and a wavelength comparable to twice the wingspan, which results in the wing becoming more like a
gently tapered wing and less like a tubercled wing.
Figure 10. The effect of the tubercle amplitude and wavelength on the lift-to-induced-drag ratio.
It was previously mentioned that for some phases of the tubercle termination the wavelength does not greatly
affect the lift or induced drag coefficient, or the lift-to-induced-drag ratio. By comparing Figs. 8 to 10 it can be seen
that these wavelength-insensitive regions are more pronounced for the lift and induced drag coefficients than for the
lift-to-induced-drag ratio. The reason why the lift-to-induced-drag ratio is slightly more sensitive to the tubercle
wavelength is because the relatively small changes in the lift and induced drag coefficients that changing the
wavelength yields magnify and results in the tubercle wavelength being slightly more effectual on the ratio of these
two coefficients.
Other studies into the effects of tubercle geometry on the wing performance have also revealed that the tubercle
amplitude typically has a greater effect on the stalling characteristics than the wavelength10, 11, 13. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the amplitude of the tubercle has a greater effect not only in the stall regime, but also in the pre-stall
regime.
Fig. 11 shows the effects of increasing the wavelength of tubercles on the circulation, lift coefficient, and
induced drag coefficient distributions when the tubercle configuration is in one of the previously identified
wavelength-insensitive phases. The circulation distribution is very similar in shape and magnitude for both tubercle
wings, as shown in Fig. 11 a), which results in the lift coefficient distribution also being very similar for the two
wings. From the lift coefficient distribution it is easy to see why the overall lift coefficients of both wings are very
similar; 0.226 and 0.228 for wavelength of 300mm and 450mm, respectively.
9
Circulation Distribution Lift Distribution
0.25
0.2
0.2
Circulation, m2/s
0.15
Lift Coefficient
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
A103007/12 A103007/12
A104507/12
0 A104507/12
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
a) Location Along Wing, Normalized to Wing Span b) Location Along Wing, Normalized to Wing Span
Figure 11. a) Circulation and b) lift coefficient spanwise distributions for two tubercle configurations;
A10λ300Φ7/12π and A10λ450Φ7/12π.
a) b)
V. General Trends
In recent studies of tubercles the most investigated
tubercle parameters have been their amplitude and
wavelength. However, it is clear from Figs. 8 to 10 that
the effects of tubercles on the lift coefficient, induced
drag coefficient, and the lift-to-induced-drag ratio are
varied and depend not only on the tubercle amplitude
and wavelength, but the phase on which the wing
terminates. Fig. 10 shows that for a certain tubercle
amplitude, wavelength, and phase tubercles can
increase the lift-to-induced-drag ratio by up to 7.7% at
an angle of attack of 3°, while for the same tubercle
amplitude and wavelength, but different phase, this
c) ratio can decrease by almost as much. To further
elucidate the importance of the tubercle phase as a key
Figure 12. Phased-averaged effects of the tubercle parameter in the performance of a wing, at least in the
amplitude and wavelength on the a) lift coefficient, b) low angle of attack regime, phase-averaged color plots
induced drag coefficient, and c) the lift-to-induced- of the effects of the tubercle amplitude and wavelength
drag ratio. on the lift coefficient, induced drag coefficient, and the
10
lift-to-induced-drag ratio can be seen in Fig. 12. It is important to note the colorbar scale on the right of each plot, as
it shows that there is very little change in any of the wing performance parameters with changing tubercle amplitude
and wavelength. Therefore, without taking into account the phase of the tubercles there is no significant relationship
between the amplitude and wavelength of the tubercles and their effects on the lift and induced drag coefficients,
and the lift-to-induced-drag ratio at low angles of attack.
To determine other potential trends the data collected from the lifting-line theory and presented in Figs. 8, 9, and
10 have also been amplitude- and wavelength-averaged, and the results can be seen in Figs. 13 and 14.
a) b)
Figure 13 shows that there is a definite trend
between the phase and the tubercle wavelength on the
lift and induced drag coefficients, and the lift-to-
induced-drag ratio which is independent from the
tubercle amplitude. From Fig. 13 it can be seen that for
all three wing performance parameters considered the
results are polarizing, where a phase of 12π/12 will
increase the lift and induced drag coefficients, and will
decrease the lift-to-induced-drag ratio, whereas the
converse is true for a Phase of 0π/12. A phase of
12π/12 corresponds to a physical geometry of the wing
terminating midway between a peak and a trough,
whereas a phase of 0π/12 corresponds to a termination
midway between a trough and a peak. Changing the
c) wavelength also affects the depicted wing performance
Figure 13. Amplitude-averaged effects of the parameters. It is interesting to note that increasing the
tubercle wavelength and phase on the a) lift wavelength typically results in a greater deviation in
coefficient, b) induced drag coefficient, and c) the the lift and induced drag coefficients, and the lift-to-
lift-to-induced-drag ratio. induced-drag ratio. At lower wavelengths the tubercles
have less on an effect on any of the performance
parameters. It can also be seen in Fig. 13 that, as determined previously, for certain phases that changing the
wavelength has little effect on the lift coefficient, induced drag coefficient, and the lift-to-induced-drag ratio, namely
when the wing terminates just after a peak or trough. Another interesting feature of Fig. 13 is that phases at which
the wing performance becomes less sensitive to the wavelength is not constant with the wavelength, as for a
wavelength of approximately 300mm the insensitive phases are 11π/12 and 23π/12, which correspond to almost
exactly midway between a peak and a trough, or vice versa. If the wavelength is 450mm then the insensitive phases
are 6π/12 and 18π/12, which correspond to a tubercle peak or trough, respectively.
11
a) b)
Trends also exist when considering the amplitude

and phase independently from the wavelength, as
shown in Fig. 14. Fig. 14 shows that like in Fig. 13,
changing the phase of the tubercles tends to have the
largest effect on the lift coefficient, the induced drag
coefficient, and the lift-to-induced-drag ratio, and once
again, maxima and minima occur at specific phases. In
addition, the amplitude appears to have a slightly
greater effect on the wing lift coefficient, induced drag
coefficient, and the lift-to-induced-drag ratio than what
the wavelength exhibited in Fig. 13. This is not to say
that the wavelength should not be considered during
the design phase of the tubercles, but rather that greater
benefits to a wing’s performance can be attained
through a more thorough consideration of the
c) amplitude. It is interesting to note that as the tubercle
Figure 14. Wavelength-averaged effects of the wavelength decreases the phase has less of an impact
tubercle amplitude and phase on the a) lift on the lift and induced drag coefficients, and the lift-to-
coefficient, b) induced drag coefficient, and c) the induced-drag ratio, whereas decreasing the amplitude
lift-to-induced-drag ratio. still results in the phase having a considerable effect on
these performance parameters. This further indicates
that the wing performance is more sensitive to the amplitude of the tubercle than its wavelength. The fact that the lift
coefficient, induced drag coefficient, and the lift-to-induced-drag ratio become less affected when the amplitude and
wavelength decrease is intuitive, as this indicates that the tubercles are becoming smaller to the point of
approximating a smooth leading edge.
From analyzing Figs. 12, 13, and 14 the tubercle amplitude, wavelength, and phase all impact the lift and
induced drag coefficients, and the lift-to-induced-drag ratio, however, the hierachy of impact is the phase, then the
amplitude, then finally the wavelength. It can also be concluded from Figs. 12, 13, and 14 that to produce the highest
lift coefficient the tubercle amplitude should be upwards of 15mm, the wavelength should be greater than the
wingspan, and the wing should terminate midway between a tubercle peak and a trough. To design a tubercled wing
with the highest lift-to-induced-drag ratio the tubercle should again have an amplitude upwards of 15mm, a
wavelength greater than the wingspan, however, the wing should terminate midway betweena tubercle trough and a
peak.
VI. Conclusion
The effects of altering the tubercle amplitude, wavelength, and phase on a wing’s lift coefficient, induced drag
coefficient, and the lift-to-induced-drag ratio have been investigated. The investigation considered a NACA 0021
wing at an angle of attack of 3° and a Reynolds number of 120,000. This model was also validated with
experimental data. It was found that the tubercle phase had the greatest effect on these wing performance
parameters, while the wavelength had the least. For some phases the wavelength was almost ineffectual. The effects
of the tubercle geometry on the wing performance parameters can be categorized into two phase regions; between a
12
phase of 8π/12 and 19π/12π the lift-to-induced-drag ratio of the tubercled wing typically exceeded that of the
smooth wing, whereas the opposite occurred for a phase between 21π/12 and 6π/12. It was also found that the
tubercle geometries that increased the lift-to-induced-drag ratio reduced the lift and induced drag coefficients,
however the increase in the lift-to-induced-drag ratio occurred because the decrease in the induced drag coefficient
was higher than the lift coefficient.
Without accounting for the phase of the tubercles the amplitude and wavelength had little impact on the lift
coefficient, induced drag coefficient, or the lift-to-induced-drag ratio, but when coupled with the phase, the effects
of the amplitude and wavelength were more pronounced. The lift-to-induced-drag ratio of a tubercled wing increases
most at a phase of approximately 0π/12, which corresponds to a wing terminating midway between a tubercle trough
and peak. This phase also results in decreased lift and induced drag coefficients. The lift and induce drag
coefficients experience maxima when the wing terminates midway between a tubercle peak and a trough, which
corresponds to an approximate phase of 12π/12. However, at this phase the lift-to-induced-drag ratio decreases.
Acknowledgments
Research undertaken for this report has been assisted with a grant from the Sir Ross and Sir Keith Smith Fund
(Smith Fund) (www.smithfund.org.au ). The support is acknowledged and greatly appreciated.
The Smith Fund by providing funding for this project does not verify the accuracy of any findings or any
representations contained in it. Any reliance on the findings in any written report or information provided to you
should be based solely on your own assessment and conclusions.
The Smith Fund does not accept any responsibility or liability from any person, company or entity that may have
relied on any written report or representations contained in this report if that person, company or entity suffers any
loss (financial or otherwise) as a result.
References
1
Stein, B. and Murray, M. M., “Stall Mechanism Analysis of Humpback Whale Flipper Models”, Unmanned Untethered
Submerisible Technology (UUST), Autonomous Undersea Systems Inst., Lee, NH, 2005.
2
Miklosovic, D. S., Murray, M. M., Howle, L. E., and Fish, F. E., “Leading-edge Tubercles Delay Stall on Humpback Whale
(Megaptera Novaeangliae) Flippers”, Physics of Fluids, Vol. 16, No. 5, 2004, pp. 39-42, doi:10.1063/1.1688341.
3
Bolzon, M. D., Kelso, R. M., and Arjomandi, M., “Force Measurements and Wake Surveys of a Swept Tubercled Wing”,
Journal of Aerospace Engineering (submitted for publication), 2015, a, The University of Adelaide.
4
Pedro, H. T., and Kobayashi, M. H., “Numerical Study of Stall Delay on Humpback Whale Flippers”, 46th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2008.
5
Stanway, M. J., “Hydrodynamic Effects of Leading-Edge Tubercles on Control Surfaces and in Flapping Foil Propulsion”,
M.S. Dissertation, MIT, MA, 2008.
6
Watts, P., and Fish, F. E., “The Influence of Passive, Leading Edge Tubercles on Wing Performance”, Unmanned
Untethered Submersible Technology (UUST), Auutonomous Undersea Systems Inst.,Durham, New Hampshire, 2001.
7
Bolzon, M. D., Kelso, R. M., and Arjomandi, M., “The Effects of Tubercles on the Drag of a Wing”, Journal of
Visualization (submitted for publication), 2015, b, The University of Adelaide.
8
Bolzon, M. D., Kelso, R. M., and Arjomandi, M., “Tubercles and Their Applications”, Journal of Aerospace Engineering,
2015, c. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.
9
Bolzon, M. D., Kelso, R. M., and Arjomandi, M., “The Formation of Vorticies on a Wing with Leading Edge Tubercles, and
Their Effects on the Components of Drag”, Aerospace Science and Technology (submitted for publication), 2015, d, The
University of Adelaide.
10
Hansen, K. L., “Effect of Leading Edge Tubercles on Airfoil Performance”, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Adelaide,
2012.
11
Johari, H., Henoch, C., Custodio, D., and Levshin, A., “Effects of Leading-Edge Protuberances on Airfoil Performance”,
AIAA Journal, Vol. 45, No. 11, 2007, pp. 2634-2642. doi:10.2514/1.28497.
12
Houghton, E. L., Carpenter, P. W., Collicott, S., and Valentine, D., Aerodynamics for Engineering Students, 6th ed.,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Massachusetts, 2012, pp. 306-313.
13
Rostamzadeh, N., Kelso, R. M., Dally, B. B., and Hansen, K. L., “The Effects of Undulating Leading-Edge Modifications
on NACA 0021 Airfoil Characteristics, Physics of Fluids, Vol. 25, No. 117101, 2013. doi:10.1063/1.4828703.
14
Van Nierop, E. A., Alben, S., and Brenner, M. P., “How Bumps on Whale Flipper Dealys Stall: an Aerodynamic Model”,
Physical Review Letters, PRL 100, 054502, February, 2009.
13

Parametric Study of The Effects of A Tubercle's Geometry On Wing Performance Through The Use of LLT Bolzon 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Parametric Study of The Effects of A Tubercle's Geometry On Wing Performance Through The Use of LLT Bolzon 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIAA 2016-0295

Parametric Study of the Effects of a Tubercle’s Geometry on

Michael D. Bolzon1, Richard M. Kelso2, and Maziar Arjomandi3

tubercles occur during the stall

that the total drag coefficient

induced drag coefficient.

along the entire span of the wing.

The tubercle geometry is

CLWing  ARX 1 (4)

CL/CD untapered wing at pre-stall

0 Prandtl’s lifting-line theory is

CL/CD leading-edge of the wing.

III. Model ValidationLift Data Comparison

past 4°, and it was deduced that this 0.016

wingtip. It should be noted that the location 0.15

lift coefficient of 0.2317, an induced

to 10 is that without accounting for the 0.05

phase section will the maximum lift-to-induced-drag ratio be attained.

Trends also exist when considering the amplitude

You might also like