Study of Aerodynamics Characteristic of BWB Baseline-II

Nor Fazira Reduan, Wirachman Wisnoe , Rizal Effendy Mohd Nasir, Firdaus Mohamad, Zurriati Ali
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Mara, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia Email: norfazira@gmail.com

AbstractThis paper discusses the aerodynamics characteristic of a Blended Wing Body (BWB) Baseline-II aircraft obtained from wind tunnel test. Canard is added as longitudinal control. All tests are carried out in UiTM Low Speed Wind Tunnel using 1/6 scaled model at around 0.1 Mach number at several canard angle. The lift coefficient (CL), the drag coefficient (CD), and the pitching moment coefficient (CM), are plotted and analyze to show the characteristics of the BWB. Keywords Aerodynamics, Blended Wing Body, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Wind Tunnel

and wind tunnel [6]. It has been carried out using two different methods. The simulation is running at Mach 0.3 with elevator deflections of +5, +10, -5, and -10. The wind tunnel experiment was done at Mach 0.1 with the same elevator deflects as the ones used in CFD. The current study focuses on the new model known as Baseline-II as shown in Figure 1. It is an UAV designed to have blended wing body planform with addition canard as longitudinal control. The use of canard in advanced aircraft for control and improved aerodynamics performance, but the main function of canard for UiTM BWB Baseline-II is to control pitching moment, where nose up attitude of canard is taken as positive setting angle.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Since the Wright Brothers first introduced the canard configuration almost a century ago, the benefits of canards over the now more conventional tail plane configurations have been researched. Adding a canard to the wing increases the maximum lift coefficient and delays the stall angle of attack. The BWB aircraft is a tailless design that integrates the wing and the fuselage [1]. BWBs are designed to increase lift force due to larger effective lifting area per wing span [2] and to reduce drag by minimizing interference between wing-body and tail-body attachment [3]. Since September 2005, UiTM has started research on BWB Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) using Computational Fluid Dynamics CFD and Wind Tunnel experiments. Preliminary structural configuration has been analyzed using finite element model [8]. It covered the study around Mach 0.1 and Mach 0.3 using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and wind tunnel [5][6]. Aerodynamic study of preliminary design of BWB UAV has also been done. From the CFD and wind tunnel experiment, it shows that the BWB can flight at a very high angle of attack. The study of the effect of centre elevator deflection was carried out for different elevator deflection angles using CFD

Figure 1. BWB Baseline-II UAV

This paper will focus on the study of aerodynamics characteristic of lift coefficient, drag coefficient and moment coefficient obtained from wind tunnel experiment.

II.

EXPERIMANTAL SETUP

The experiment has been run using UiTM low speed wind tunnel equipped with data acquisition, control and noise reduction system and 6-component balance (Figure 2) [4][7]. It is a suction type tunnel. This wind tunnel has a test section area of 0.5 m 0.5 m 1.25 m.

Figure 4. Model of BWB UAV Baseline-II Table 1: Parameter of wind tunnel model

Wing Span Reference area

Figure 2. UiTM Low Speed Wind Tunnel with 6-Component External Balance.

0.345m 0.03995m2 0.348m 0.058m 0.215 m2

Reference length Reference Chord Canard Area III.

The experiments were conducted at 35 m/s airspeed with canard deflection angle set at -10o, -5o, 0o, +5o and +10o. The pitching angle (angle of attack) was varied from -20 to +50. The BWB planform was obtained from [6]. The half model of UiTM BWB Baseline-II has been manufactured using CNC machine with size reduction of 1/6 from the real size. Figure 3 show the dimension of the half model and figure 4 show the manufactured model. The experimental parameter for this model is shown in Table 1.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

A. Lift Coefficient (CL) Analysis

Figure 3. Dimension of half model of BWB UAV Baseline-II Figure 5. Lift Coefficient (CL) versus angle of attack ()

Figure 5 shows the lift coefficient versus angle of attack () for 6 different canard deflections. From the curve, it can be seen that the trend for all canard deflection is similar angles. For each canard deflection, the value of CL increases as the

angle of attack is increased until its maximum value around = 40o and decreases afterward with lower slope. Baseline II with a canard setting angle of -10 degree has a maximum lift coefficient up to 1.108. After -12, the canard starts to contribute in producing lift (together with the wing), as it is shown by the steeper slope of the curves. The lift coefficient continues to rise until angle of attack 8. At this angle, the canard is located at the same level with the wing. B. Drag Coefficient (CD) Analysis

located at 174 mm from the leading edge. As shown in Figure 6, it is seen that, the value of CM have same trends as angle of attack increase, the moment will be decrease. At -10o, the difference value of moment between no canard deflection and 0o of canard deflection are small. It is around 0.0556. IV. CONCLUSION

All data obtained from the wind tunnel experiments have been studied and analyzed to obtain aerodynamics performance characteristics of BWB Baseline-II such as lift, drag and pitching moment. The wind tunnel result shows that Baseline-II stalls at high angle of attack around = 42. The maximum lift achieved is 1.1. Recommendation for this study is, it should be done a visualization using mini tuft to see the flow pattern of airflow. Another recommendation is, in order to minimize the disturbance effect of the canard; it can be carried out by designing different shape of canard or reposition the canard vertically. The effect of different canard deflection angles to overall performance of BWB also needs to be considered. Study on the yaw and roll direction of the BWB is also to be conducted. REFERENCES
[1] N. Qin, A. Vavalle, A. Le Moigne, K. Hackett, P. Weinerfelt. Aerodynamics considerations of Blended wing body aircraft, Progress in Aerospace Science 40 (2004) 321-343. Engels, H., Becker, W., Morris, A. (2004). Implementation of a multilevel methodology within the e-design of a blended wing body. Aerospace Science and Technology, 145-153. sterheld C, Heinze W, Horst P. (2004). Preliminary Design of A Blended Wing Body Configuration Using The Design Tool PrADO. Aerospace Science and Technology, 154-168. Rizal E.M. Nasir, Wahyu Kuntjoro, Wirachman Wisnoe, Zurriati M. Ali, Nor F. Reduan, Firdaus Mohamad. The effect of canard on aerodynamics and static stability of Baseline-II blended wing-body aircraft at low subsonic speed. World Engineering Congress 2010, 2nd 5th August 2010, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia Conference on Engineering and Technology Education. R. E. Mohd Nasir, W. Kuntjoro, W. Wisnoe, A. M. I. Mamat, The Effect of Centre Elevator Deflection Aerodynamics of UiTM Baseline-I Blended Wing Body (BWB) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) at Mach 0.3 using Computational Fluid Dynamics, Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Volume 6 No. 2, December 2009, pp. 73-96. A. M. Mamat, R. E. Mohd Nasir, Z. Ngah, W. Kuntjoro, W. Wisnoe, R. Ramly, Aerodynamics of Blended Wing Body Unmanned Aerial Vehicle using Computational Fluid Dynamics, Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Volume 5 No. 2, October 2008, pp. 15-25 Rizal E. M. Nasir, Wahyu Kuntjoro, Wirachman Wisnoe, Zurriati Ali, Nor F. Reduan, Firdaus Mohamad, Shahrizal Suboh, Preliminary Design of Baseline-II Blended Wing Body (BWB) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV): Achieving Higher Aerodynamic Efficiency Through Planform Redesign and Low Fidelity Inverse Twist Method, Proceedings of EnCon2010, 3rd Engineering Conference on Advancement in Mechanical and Manufacturing for Sustainable Environment, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, 14-16 April 2010.

Figure 6. Drag Coefficient (CL) versus angle of attack ()

Figure 6 shows variation of drag coefficient (CD) versus angle of attack () taken at different of canard deflection with same airspeeds. At the initial, the drag coefficient decreases as angle of attack increases between -20o to -8o. At 8o angle of attack, CD increases abrupt as is increased. C. Pitching Moment Coefficient (CM) Analysis

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Figure 7. Pitching moment Coefficient (CM) versus angle of attack ()

[7]

From the pitching moment coefficient, CM versus angle of attack, graph, it is seen that, the value of CM is fluctuated at around -20 to -12 angles of attack. The moment coefficient (CM) is measured at aerodynamic center of the BWB. It is

[8]

Wahyu Kuntjoro, Rizal E M Nasir, Wirachman Wisnoe, Aman M I Mamat, M Razip Abdulah. Computer Aided Design and Engineering of Blended Wing Body UAV StructureProceedings RAeS/CEAS Aircraft
Structural Design Conference, 14-16 October 2008, Liverpool, UK

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

Wirachman Wisnoe, Aman Mohd Ihsan Mamat, Rizal Effendy Mohd Nasir, Wahyu Kuntjoro, Ramzyzan Ramly. Wind Tunnel Experiments of Blended Wing Body (BWB) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) At Loitering Phase. Proceedings of International Conference on Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering (ICME2008), 21 23 May 2008, Johor Bahru, Malaysia. A. Bergmann and D. Hummel Aerodynamic Effects of Canard Position on a Wing Body Configuration in Symmetrical Flow. 39th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit 8-11 January 2001 / Reno, NV Yair Guy, Julie A.Morrow, Thomas E. McLaughlin. The Effects of Canard Shape On The Aerodynamic Characteristics Of A Generic Missile ConfigurationAIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit. August 9-3 1, 1999 / Portland, OR S Siouris, N Qin Study of the effects of wing sweep on the aerodynamic performance of a blended wing body aircraft. Proc. IMeche Vol. 221 Part G: J.aerospace Engineering Landfield, J.P. and Rajkovic, D., Canard/Tail Comparison for an Advanced Variable-Sweep-Wing Fighter, AIAA Paper 84-2401, Nov. 1984. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Blended Wing Body A potential new aircraft design. Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199