Coherent Explanation of Aerodynamic Lift and Threshold Condition of Drag Divergence Using The Concept of Sanal Flow Choking

AIAA AVIATION Forum 10.2514/6.
2023-3754
12-16 June 2023, San Diego, CA and Online
AIAA AVIATION 2023 Forum
Coherent Explanation of Aerodynamic Lift

and Threshold Condition of Drag Divergence
Using the Concept of Sanal Flow Choking
V. R. Sanal Kumar*
Indian Space Research Organisation, VSSC, Trivandrum - 695022, Kerala, India
Indian Institute of Science, Aerospace Engineering, Bangalore - 560012, Karnataka, India
Amity Institute of Aerospace Engineering, Amity University, New Delhi NCR 201 313, India
Downloaded by Texas A&M University on July 18, 2023 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2023-3754
Vigneshwaran R,† Saatvik Sharma,‡ Raunak Sharma,‡ Dekkala Vinay,§

Yash Raj,** Vigneshwaran S,†† Vignesh S†† Nichith C,‡‡ Ajith S, ††
Sulthan Ariff Rahman M,‡‡ Rohan Sarswat,§ Chahat Bhatia,¶ Prisha K.
Asher,‡‡ Dhruv Panchal,** Prathit Kalra,§ Amit Kushwaha,‡ Ashutosh
Biswal,‡ Anurag Sharma,‡ Suraj Krishna,‡ Bhavya Saxena,‡ Katrodiya
Harsh P,‡ Astha Rai,‡ Debayan Roy,‡ Advait Katyal, ‡ Smrijanee Das‡
The University of New South Wales Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 2610, Australia
Amity Institute of Aerospace Engineering, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Noida 201 313, India
Indian Institute of Science, Aerospace Engineering, Bangalore - 560012, Karnataka, India
Vyadh Aerospace, Computational Fluid Dynamics Group, Ahmedabad 382481, Gujarat, India
Explanations of aerodynamic lift based on Bernoulli’s theorem and Newton’s third law of
motion are correct but not conclusive. Aerodynamic lift is a force generated by a solid object
creating a flow-turning situation. Theories on the generation of lift and the prediction of
drag divergence Mach number have become a source of great controversy and a topic for
heated arguments over the decades. Herein, after invoking the concept of Streamtube
compression and Sanal-flow-choking [Global Challenges (2020), Scientific Reports (2021),
Physics of Fluids (2022)], we are presenting a cogent explanation of aerodynamic lift and
the condition at which the wave-drag begins. When a solid object moves through a fluid and
if the geometry creates a flow-turning condition the physical situation of streamlines
compression occurs due to the viscous effect. Gas viscosity increases at the stagnation zone.
If the streamline compression is more at the upper surface of the airfoil the flow passing
between the streamlines gets accelerated faster than the lower surface for meeting the
continuity condition set by the law of conservation mass. It creates a low-pressure region at
the upper surface of the airfoil for meeting the condition set by the law of conservation of
energy. This results in aerodynamic lift towards the low-pressure region of the solid object
due to the generation of momentum thrust as dictated by Newton's third law, which requires
*Corresponding Author: Aerospace Scientist (ISRO SC CA No.6301/2013) / Professor and Head, Research and Innovation,
AIAE; Lead Member, Indo-US Investigators on Stroke & MI, Senior AIAA Member; vr_sanalkumar@yahoo.co.in
† Research Scientist/Graduate Student, The UNSW Canberra, Student AIAA Member; vickyoffl24@gmail.com
‡ Student AIAA Member / Undergraduate Student, Amity Institute of Aerospace Engineering
§ M.Tech Student/Research Scientist, Student AIAA Member
** CEO / Head, CFD Group, Vyadh Aerospace
†† Currently Ph.D student, KAUST / SNU / Texas A & M.
‡‡ Visiting Research Scientist
Copyright © 2023 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
the air to exert an upward force on the airfoil for meeting the law of conservation of
momentum. In silico simulation results are presented to demonstrate the streamlines
compression and Sanal flow choking on the upper surface of the airfoil. We concluded that
the critical pressure ratio for Sanal-flow-choking due to Streamtube compression is the
threshold condition of developing drag divergence. The phenomenon of Sanal flow choking
can be negated by increasing the drag divergent Mach number by injecting fluid with a high
heat capacity ratio at the Streamtube pinching zone or a little ahead. The coherent
explanation of aerodynamic lift and the threshold condition of drag divergence presented
herein, after invoking all the conservation laws of nature, are pointers for the design
optimization of subsonic, transonic, supersonic, and ground effect vehicles lucratively.
I. Nomenclature
Al = local port area of the streamtube
CD = convergent-divergent
dH = hydraulic diameter of the streamtube

M = Mach number
= mass flow rate
SFCI = Streamtube flow choking index
Pt = total pressure
p = static pressure
Re = Reynolds number
Vl = local velocity
γ = heat capacity ratio
ν = kinematic viscosity of operating gas
ρ = density of the operating gas
u = Free stream velocity
Subscript
g = gas
i = inlet
m = minimum (lowest)
sft = sonic-fluid-throat
II. Introduction
T HE theory of aerodynamics is the result of the creations of numerous researchers or individuals across the globe
[1,2]. It was possibly instigated by primeval man's desire to imitate the actions of the bird to get aerodynamic
lift and fly. Aerodynamic lift is a force produced by a solid object generating a flow-turning situation. There are
many factors that affect the turning of the flow, which creates aerodynamic lift, viz., those associated with the object
(i.e., shape and size), those associated with the motion of the object (i.e., velocity and orientation or inclination)
through the air, those associated with the air itself. Aerodynamic lift depends on the mass of the flow. The lift also
depends in a complex way due to the various factors, altering its viscosity and compressibility properties at various
flow regimes. It is well known that all changes in nature occur according to nature’s laws [3]. A phenomenon is a
change or a set of changes in nature. Vidhyasagar and Kumar [3] reported that aerodynamic lift is a phenomenon
involving airflow changes and it needs to be explained by the correct operating law(s) according to which it happens
[AIAA 2012-2772]. Therefore, for a cogent explanation of aerodynamic lift and predicting the threshold condition
of drag divergence, herein the author invoked the Sanal flow choking theory because it satisfies all conservation
laws of nature. Note that Bernoulli's equation is derived by considering the conservation of energy, Newton's laws of
motion are statements concerning the conservation of momentum, and the theory of Sanal flow choking [4] is based
on the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy. The fact is that at the Sanal flow choking condition for
diabatic flows (for two-dimensional (2D) /three-dimensional (3D) cases) all conservation laws are satisfied at the
sonic-fluid-throat (due to boundary layer blockage factor) of all internal fluid flow systems irrespective of the
incoming flow characteristics, whether it is laminar, turbulent, continuum or non-continuum [4-11]. It implies that
the predictions of the 2D and 3D boundary layer blockage factors at the sonic-fluid-throat of internal flow systems
are accurate [5-9]. Note that the Sanal flow choking phenomenon is a compressible viscous fluid flow effect. It
2
occurs in both adiabatic [8] and diabatic fluid flow systems [5-7]. According to the first law of thermodynamics, all
flowing fluids in nature are compressible [7]. The second law of thermodynamics reveals that all fluids are viscous
[7]. Therefore, Streamtube compression and Sanal flow choking can occur in any fluid flow system
(internal/external) at a critical total-to-static pressure ratio [7-9].
The concept of Sanal flow choking [4-11] due to Streamtube compression (pinching) is a methodological
advancement in predicting the flow features of transonic aircraft with credibility. Of late V.R.S. Kumar et al. [6-10]
established the possibilities of the occurrence of Sanal flow choking due to streamline compression (pinching) in
yocto to yotta scale systems and beyond. The total-to-static pressure ratio (Ptotal/Pstatic) at the region of Sanal flow
choking and/or Streamtube flow choking is entirely a function of the heat capacity ratio of the fluid. Note that flow
choking is more susceptible to the low-wing aircraft flying near the ground and/or sea with a relatively high
subsonic Mach number (M > 0.56) and a low angle of attack [6]. Experience gained through in silico simulation
results [6] leads to conclude that the physical situation of the Sanal flow choking possibly happens at the upper
surface of the aircraft due to the streamlines compression at a critical total-to-static pressure ratio without any
physical channel flow effect. In silico studies reveal that Streamtube compression and flow choking is more prone in
regions where turbulent viscosity is relatively high and heat capacity ratio is relatively low [6-11]. Herein, the
concept of Streamtube compression leading to Sanal flow choking (see Fig.1) is invoked for explaining the
aerodynamics lift and further declaring the threshold condition of drag divergence.
Fig.1 Demonstration of streamlines compression and Sanal flow choking at

the upper surface of an airfoil
III. Analytical Methodology

The concept of Sanal-flow-choking and Streamtube flow choking [6-11] obtained noteworthy notice in physical,
chemical, and biological sciences [9-11]. This is particularly true in aerospace industries for the design optimization
of environment-friendly transonic aircraft and ground effect vehicles [6, 13-25]. The Sanal flow choking theory
reveals that when a solid object is moving through a fluid and if the geometry creates a flow-turning condition, the
physical situation of streamlines compression and flow choking occurs. This is due to the viscous effect at a critical
total-to-static pressure ratio. At the stagnation region viscosity of air increases due to an increase in temperature due
to the decrease in kinetic energy. It creates stickiness (i.e., an increase in viscosity) between the nearby streamlines.
If the streamline compression is more at the upper surface of the object and/or airfoil the flow passing between the
streamlines gets accelerated faster than the lower surface of the object and/or airfoil for meeting the continuity
condition set by the law of conservation of mass. It creates a low-pressure region at the upper surface of the airfoil
for meeting the condition set by the law of conservation of energy. This results in aerodynamic lift towards the low-
pressure region of the solid object due to the generation of momentum thrust as dictated by Newton's third law,
3
which requires the air to exert an upward force on the object/airfoil for meeting the law of conservation of
momentum. As the angle of attack increases, streamlines compression increases and as a result, the flow gets
accelerated and lift increases until the flow separation happens. On this rationale, the analytical models are capable
to predict the Sanal flow choking due to Streamtube compression (see Fig.1) are developed herein (see Eqs.1-5)
using the compressible flow theory [1,2] for forecasting the threshold conditions of drag divergence. Equation 1
represents the Streamtube flow choking index (SFCI), which is governed by the lowest heat capacity ratio of the
evolved gas. The SFCI can be determined from the total-to-static pressure ratio (see Eq.2).
𝛾𝑚
𝛾𝑚 + 1 𝛾𝑚 −1
𝑆𝐹𝐶𝐼 = (1)
2
𝑃𝑡
= 𝑆𝐹𝐶𝐼 (2)
𝑃 local
M = 1 (3)
𝑚 𝑙 𝑉𝑙 1/2
= 1 (4)
𝛾𝑚 𝑝 𝐴𝑙
𝑅𝑒 𝜈 𝑔 𝜌 𝑔 1/2
𝑑𝐻 𝛾𝑚 𝑝
= 1 (5)
Equations (1) and (3) are two standalone and supplementing well-known conditions [1,2] to reach the physical
situation of Sanal flow choking due to Streamtube compression in an external fluid flow system. Note that the
threshold condition of drag divergence is set at a region where the flow Mach number (M) reaches one. Therefore, it
is mandatory to retain the flow Mach number always less than one for prohibiting the Streamtube flow choking
leading to shock wave generation creating wave drag in high subsonic (M > 0.56 [7]) aircraft. Note that Eqs.4 & 5,
highlighting the multitude of parameters, are the corollary of Eq. 3. It explains the role of the Streamtube and fluid
properties controlling the flow choking, viz., the hydraulic diameter of the Streamtube, dynamic and kinematic
viscosities, density, specific heat ratio, total pressure, static pressure, flow rate, velocity, and Reynolds number.
Briefly, Eqs.1-5 highlight the coupled effect of a multitude of parameters controlling the threshold conditions of
drag divergence. Analytical models (Eqs.4-5) presented herein reveal that flow choking occurs at relative
high and low viscosities of the flowing fluid. At relatively low viscosity the flow Reynolds number will be quite
high, and it generates significant turbulence. It enhances the boundary layer blockage factor within the Streamtube
causing an early Sanal flow choking. This is an interesting research topic for further studies to explore the
possibilities of environmental explosions due to streamlines compression and flow choking in a convergent-
divergent shaped Streamtube.
IV. In Silico Methodology

To demonstrate streamlines compression and flow choking, we have carried out comprehensive in silico
simulations using validated Navier-Stokes (N-S) solvers (double precision, density-based implicit, SST k-omega).
Governing equations are highlighted below.
   ~
(k ) +  (kui ) =   k k  + G k − Yk + S K (1)
t xi x j  x j 
  ~

( ) +  (u i ) =      + G − Y + S + D

(2)
t xi x j  x j 
~
These equations G k represent the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to mean velocity
4
gradients, calculated from Gk and given by,
~
G k = min( Gk ,10  *k ) (3)
G represents the generation of ω, calculated as described for the standard k-ω and is given by,

G =  Gk (4)
k
k and  represent the effective diffusivity of k and ω, respectively, which are calculated as described below. Y k
and Yω represent the dissipation of k and ω due to turbulence. Dω represents the cross-diffusion term, calculated as
described below. Sk and Sω are user-defined source terms.
t
k =  + (5)
k
t
 =  + (6)

where σk and σω are the turbulent Prandtl numbers for k and ω, respectively. The turbulent viscosity,
μt is computed as follows:
k 1
t = (7)
  1 SF 
max  * , 2 
 a1 
where S is the strain rate magnitude and
  * + (Re t / Rk ) 
 * =  *  0 

(8)
 1 + (Re t / Rk ) 
Where,
k 
Ret = , Rk = 6,  0* = i , i = 0.0272
 3
Note that in the high-Reynolds number form of the k- ω model,
 * =  * = 1
1
k = (9)
( F1 /  k ,1 ) + (1 − F1 ) /   ,2
1
 = (10)
( F1 /   ,1 ) + (1 − F1 ) /   ,2
The blending functions, F1 and F2 are given by
F1 = tanh (14 ) (11)
  k 500   4 k 
1 = min max  , 2 , + 2
(12)
  0.09y y     , 2 D y 
 1 1 k  −10 
D+ = max 2  ,10  (13)
   , 2  x j x j 
F2 = tanh ( 42 ) (14)
 k 500  
 = max 2 , 2  (15)
 0.09y y  
5
where y is the distance to the next surface and D+ is the positive portion of the cross-diffusion term.
~
The term G k represents the production of turbulence kinetic energy and is defined in Eq. (1), where Gk is
defined in the same manner as in the standard k- ω model. The term G represents the production of ω and is given
by,
 ~
G = Gk (16)
t
Note that this formulation differs from the standard k–ω model. The difference between the two models also exists
in the way the term α∞ is evaluated. In the standard k–ω model,   is defined as a constant (0.52). In the SST k–ω
model,   is given by
  = F1 ,1 + (1 − F1 ) ,2 (17)
where
 i ,1 2
 ,1 = − (18)
 *  w,1  *
 i,2 2
`  , 2 = − (19)
 *  w, 2  *
where  is 0.41.
The term Yk represents the dissipation of turbulence kinetic energy and is defined similarly as in the standard k–ω
model. The difference is in the way the term f  is evaluated. In the standard k–ω model, f  is defined as a
piecewise function. For the SST k–ω model, f  is a constant equal to 1. Thus,
Yk =  *k (20)
The term Yω represents the dissipation of ω and is defined similarly as in the standard k–ω model. The difference is
in the way the terms  i and f  are evaluated.
For the SST k–ω model, f  is a constant equal to 1.
Thus,
Y =  2 (21)
i = F1i,1 + (1 − F1 ) i ,2 (22)
where F1 is evaluated using Eq. (11).
Note that the SST k–ω model is based on both the standard k–ω model and the standard k–ε model. To blend
these two models, the standard k–ε model has been transformed into equations based on k and ω, which leads to the
introduction of a cross-diffusion term, Dω, which is defined as,
1 k 
D = 2(1 − F1 )  (23)
 , 2 x j x j
The model constants are,
 k ,1 = 1.176,  ,1 = 2.0, k , 2 = 1.0,  , 2 = 1.168, a1 = 0.31, i ,1 = 0.075, i , 2 = 0.0828
The following additional model constants have the same values as for the standard k–ω model.
 * ,  , 0 ,  * , R , Rk , R ,  *and M t 0
In free surface flows, a high-velocity gradient at the interface between two fluids results in high turbulence
generation, in both phases. Hence, turbulence damping is required in the interfacial area to model such flows
correctly. Note that Turbulence damping is available only with the k–ω models.
The wall boundary conditions for the k equation in the k–ω models are treated in the same way as the k equation is
treated when enhanced wall treatments are used with the k–ε models. This means that all boundary conditions for
6
wall-function meshes will correspond to the wall-function approach, while for the fine meshes, the appropriate low-
Reynolds number boundary conditions will be applied.
In this model and its code of solution, the value of ω at the wall is specified as
 (u* ) 2 +
w =  (24)

Analytical solutions can be given for both the laminar sublayer
6
+ = (25)
i ( y + )2
and the logarithmic region:
+
1 duturb
+ = (26)
 * dy +
The model constants C1ε, C2ε, Cμ, σk, and σε have the following values.
These default values have been determined from experiments for fundamental turbulent flows including frequently
encountered shear flows like boundary layers, mixing layers, and jets as well as for decaying isotropic grid
turbulence. These values have been found to work well for a wide range of wall-bounded and free-shear flows.
Viscosity is estimated using Sutherland’s formula. For validating the SST k–ω turbulence model, the numerically
predicted boundary layer blockage at Sanal-flow choking condition for channel flow is compared with the closed-
form analytical model and found very good agreement with the exact solution. Self-explanatory in silico simulation
results highlighting the streamlines compression and flow choking are presented in Figs.2-8.
Fig. 2 Demonstration of Sanal flow choking due to streamlines compression at the upper surface of the
airfoil in ground effect at a critical total-to-static pressure ratio [1].
7
Fig. 3 In silico demonstration of pressure contours at the Sanal flow choking condition of a stationary airfoil
in ground effect (Corresponding to Fig.2).
Fig. 3 In silico manifestation of flow choking and Mach number variations due to streamlines compression on
the upper surface of a stationary airfoil during the channel flow choking at ground effect [2].
8
Fig. 4 Demonstration of external flow choking due to streamlines compression.
Fig.5 Demonstrating the occurrence of streamlines compression and choking in regions

where viscosity is relatively high [1,2].
9
(a) Streamlines superimposed over Mach number contours (AoA=0)
(b) Velocity contours (AoA=0)
(c) Streamlines superimposed over Mach number contours (AoA=5)
(d) Velocity contours (AoA=5)

Fig. 6(a-d) In silico demonstration streamlines pattern over the supercritical airfoil
at two different angles of attack.
10
Fig. 7(a) A representation of an occurrence of a bump in a long tube with a flow Mach number 0.8.
Fig. 7(b) Mach number contour in a tube flow with a bump.
Fig. 7(c) Mach number variation line.
Fig. 7(d) Representation of three reference lines for the measurement of pressure variance.
Measured at 0.2, 0.7, 1.2 units from x axis.
11
Fig. 7(e) Pressure variance in a tube flow with a bump length of 2 units (-1 to 1)
and height of 0.1315 units (circular radius of 5 units).
Fig. 8(a) Mach contour over NACA0012 Airfoil at inlet velocity of 0.8 Mach (AOA=0).
Fig. 8(b) Mach number variation line for NACA0012 Airfoil (AOA=0).
12
Fig. 8(c) Graph for Mach variation vs Airfoil length using representative lines
at 0.3, 0.7 units above X-axis.
Fig. 8(d) Graph for Density variation vs Airfoil length using representative lines
13
Fig. 8(e) Graph for Pressure variation vs Airfoil length using representative lines
V. Results and Discussion

Theories on the generation of lift and the prediction of drag divergence Mach number have become a source of
great controversy and a topic for heated arguments over the decades. Herein, we are presenting a cogent explanation
of aerodynamic lift and the condition at which the aerodynamic drag on an airfoil or airframe begins to increase
rapidly as the Mach number continues to increase. According to Bernoulli’s theorem lift is generated by a pressure
difference across the wing; and corresponding to Newton’s third law of motion lift is the reaction force on an object
caused by deflecting a flow of gas. As stated earlier, though both explanations are correct but not conclusive.
Newton's third law of motion tells us that a turning action of the flow will result in a reaction (aerodynamic force)
on the object. Integrating the effects of either the pressure or the velocity determines the aerodynamic force on an
object. Conferring to the first and the second laws of thermodynamics, all fluids in nature are compressible and
viscous [7]. Therefore, Sanal flow choking due to Streamtube compression (see Fig.2-5) can occur in any fluid
medium. If the streamline compression is more at the upper surface of the object and/or airfoil the flow passing
between the streamlines gets accelerated faster than the lower surface of the object and/or airfoil for meeting the
continuity condition set by the law of conservation of mass. It creates a low-pressure region at the upper surface of
the airfoil for meeting the condition set by the law of conservation of energy. This results in aerodynamic lift
towards the low-pressure region of the solid object due to the generation of momentum thrust as dictated by
Newton's third law, which requires the air to exert an upward force on the object/airfoil for meeting the law of
conservation of momentum. As the angle of attack increases, streamlines compression increases and as a result, the
flow gets accelerated and lift increases until the flow separation happens. Note that the phenomenon of Sanal flow
choking occurs at the Streamtube pinching zone once the total-to-static pressure ratio reaches the critical pressure
ratio (CPR) for choking. The CPR is uniquely controlled by the heat capacity ratio of the flowing fluid. If the
downstream region of the choked Streamtube is divergent the Sanal flow choking leads to supersonic flow
development and possible shock wave generation creating wave drag. We have concluded that the CPR for Sanal
flow choking is the threshold condition of developing drag divergence.
Streamtube compression leads to Sanal flow choking and likely normal shock wave generation causing an
enhancement of entropy and drag divergence. An increase in entropy increases the local air temperature and
viscosity. An increase in viscosity leads to the subsequent Streamtube compression due to the flow stickiness. These
cascade effects lead to the formation of convergent-divergent-shaped multiple Streamtubes in the upper surface of
high-subsonic aircraft creating wave drag. The phenomenon of Streamtube compression and Sanal flow choking can
be negated, by increasing the drag divergence Mach number, by injecting fluid with a high heat capacity ratio at the
Streamtube pinching zone or a little ahead. It can also be achieved by increasing the static pressure at the pinching
14
zone by altering the shape of the upper surface of the airfoil/airframe, which was practiced empirically over the
decades for the design optimization of a supercritical airfoil (see Fig.6(a-d)). As an offshoot of the Sanal flow
choking phenomenon due to Streamtube compression in an external flow as described herein, the theoretical
discovery of the standoff distance of sonic ring (2D cases) / sonic jacket (3D cases) impelling entropy waves on
supersonic and hypersonic vehicles leading to aerodynamic heating is an active research topic of topical interest
[26,27]. The coherent explanation of aerodynamic lift presented herein using all the conservation laws of nature is a
pointer towards the design optimization of subsonic, transonic, supersonic [26], and ground effect vehicles
lucratively. We concluded that the theory of Streamtube compression and Sanal flow choking is capable to predict
the threshold condition of drag divergence and it helps for the prudent design optimization of transonic vehicles.
V. Concluding Remarks
We have developed closed-form analytical models to correlate multitudes of variables causing Streamtube flow
choking and sonic fluid throat effect leading to the creation of shock waves over the transonic aircraft. In silico
results presented herein for non-reacting and reacting flow cases established conclusively the possibilities of
streamtube compression and Sanal flow choking in internal and free external flows. In all the cases reported herein,
the phenomenon of Sanal flow choking occurs at the streamtube pinching zone once the total-to-static pressure ratio
reaches the critical pressure ratio (CPR) for choking. The CPR is uniquely controlled by the heat capacity ratio of
the flowing fluid. If the downstream region of the choked streamtube is divergent the Sanal flow choking leads to
supersonic flow development and shock wave generation creating wave drag. We concluded that the CPR for Sanal
flow choking is the threshold condition of developing drag divergence. We further concluded that the phenomenon
of Sanal flow choking can be negated, by increasing the drag divergent Mach number, by injecting fluid with a high
heat capacity ratio at the streamtube pinching zone or a little ahead. It can also be achieved by increasing the static
pressure at the pinching zone by altering the shape of the upper surface of the airfoil/airframe, which was practiced
empirically over the decades for the design optimization of supercritical airfoils. The coherent explanation of
aerodynamic lift presented herein using all the conservation laws of nature is a pointer towards the design
optimization of aircraft lucratively. We concluded that the theory of streamtube compression and Sanal flow
choking is capable to predict the threshold condition of drag divergence and it helps for the prudent design
optimization of transonic aircraft. We concluded that in addition to the geometry optimization, drag divergence Mach
number can be increased by injecting fluid with high heat-capacity-ratio than the operating fluid to the Streamtube
flow choking region using the recently discovered "Satavic Technique" [28]. The "Satavic Technique" proposes
injecting monoatomic gas, specifically argon extracted from the aircraft intake system using membrane separation,
into the Streamtube flow choking region of supersonic/hypersonic vehicles to increase the standoff distance of sonic
point and thereby reduce aerodynamic heating. This technique can also potentially offset the arrival of Mach 1 or the
sonic boom for transonic vehicles.
Acknowledgment
V.R.S.Kumar thanks Professor John D Anderson, Curator of Aerodynamics, National Air and Space Museum,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington District of Columbia, U.S.A., the global students’ community, and the
co-authors of the connected manuscripts.
References
[1] J. D. Anderson, Jr., Modern Compressible Flow, with Historical Perspective, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company (2007).
[2] J. D. Anderson, Jr., Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill series in Aeronautical and Aerospace
engineering, ISBN 978-0-07-339810-5, MHID 0-07-339810-1, ISBN-13: 978-0-07-339810-5, ISBN-10: 0-07-339810-1,
Copyright ©2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
[3] L.S.Vidhyasagar and V.R.Sanal Kumar, An Attempt to Correlate Collision Theory with Aerodynamic Lift, 30th AIAA
Applied Aerodynamics Conference 25 - 28 June 2012, New Orleans, Louisiana, AIAA 2012-2772.
[4] V.R.Sanal Kumar, Vigneshwaran Sankar, Nichith Chandrasekaran, and Sulthan Ariff Rahman Mohamed Rafic, Discovery
of Sanal Flow Choking, Patent Application No. 201841049355, Chennai, India, Date of online publication: January 4, 2019.
[5] V.R.Sanal Kumar, Vigneshwaran Sankar, Nichith Chandrasekaran, Ajith Sukumaran, et al., Sanal-flow-choking: A
paradigm shift in computational fluid dynamics code verification and diagnosing detonation and hemorrhage in real-world
fluid-flow systems, Glob. Chall. 4(2020).
[6] V.R.Sanal Kumar, Vignesh Saravanan, Vivek Srinivasan, S. Ganesh Shankar, Sivabalan Mani, Vigneshwaran Sankar,
Dhanalakshmi Krishnamoorthy et al., The Theoretical Prediction of the Boundary layer Blockage and External Flow
Choking at Moving Aircraft in Ground Effects, Physics of Fluids, Vol.33, No.3, 2021, DOI:10.1063/5.0040440
15
[7] V.R.Sanal Kumar, Vigneshwaran Sankar, Nichith Chandrasekaran, Vignesh Saravanan, Ajith Sukumaran, Vigneshwaran
Rajendran et al., “Universal benchmark data of the three-dimensional boundary layer blockage and average friction
coefficient for in silico code verification,” Phys Fluids 34(2022), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0086638
[8] V.R.Sanal Kumar, Vigneshwaran Sankar, Nichith Chandrasekaran, et al., “A closed-form analytical model for predicting
3D boundary layer displacement thickness for the validation of viscous flow solvers,” AIP Advances, 8, 025315 (2018);
doi: 10.1063/1.5020333; View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5020333.
[9] V.R.Sanal Kumar, Vigneshwaran Sankar, Nichith Chandrasekaran, SulthanArif Rahman Mohamed Rafc, Ajith Sukumaran,
Pradeep Kumar Radhakrishnan and Shiv Kumar Choudhary, Discovery of Nanoscale Sanal Flow Choking in
Cardiovascular System - Exact Prediction of the 3D Boundary-Layer-Blockage Factor in Nanotubes, Nature Scientific
Reports, Date: 29 July 2021, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94450-8
[10] V.R.Sanal Kumar, Bharath Rajaghatta Sundararam, Pradeep Kumar Radhakrishnan, Nichith Chandrasekaran, Shiv Kumar
Choudhary, Vigneshwaran Sankar, Ajith Sukumaran, Vigneshwaran Rajendran, Sulthan Ariﬀ Rahman Mohamed Raﬁc,
Dhruv Panchal, Yash Raj, Srajan Shrivastava, Charlie Oommen, Anbu Jayaraman, R Deveswaran, S Bharath, “In
vitro prediction of the lower/upper-critical biofluid flow choking index and in vivo demonstration of flow choking in the
stenosis artery of the animal with air embolism,” Physics of Fluids, 34(9), 2022, doi: 10.1063/5.0105407
[11] V. R. Sanal Kumar et al., “In Silico Demonstration of Sanal Flow Choking and/or Streamtube Flow Choking in 3D
Reacting Flows Causing Detonation and Explosions, the 2023 AIAA SciTech, January 23, 2023, AIAA 2023-1102.
[12] V.R. Sanal Kumar, Shiv Kumar Choudhary, Pradeep Kumar Radhakrishnan, Anbu Jayaraman, Deveswaran Rajamanickam,
Bharath Srinivasan, Rajaghatta Sundararam Bharath, Vigneshwaran Rajendran, Dhruv Panchal, Yash Raj, Srajan
Shrivastava, Nichith Chandrasekaran, Ajith Sukumaran, Vigneshwaran Sankar, Charlie Oommen, “Flow choking and
memory effect: paradigm shift in risk assessments for cardiovascular disease and disorders,” The 2023 Human Research
Program Investigators’ Workshop (HRP IWS 2023), NASA HRP IWS, 7-9 February 2023 (Confirmation number
RW55Q9QGWX).
[13] Qiulin Qu, Wei Wang, Peiqing Liu, and Ramesh K. Agarwal. "Airfoil Aerodynamics in Ground Effect for Wide Range of
Angles of Attack". , AIAA Journal, Vol 53, Issue 4, 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.J053366
[14] Graham Doig, Shibo Wang, Harald Kleine, and John Young, “Aerodynamic Analysis of Projectiles in Ground Effect at
Near-Sonic Mach Numbers,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 54, No. 1, January 2016, pp. 150-160,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.J054114
[15] Qiulin Qu, Xi Jia, Wei Wang, Peiqing Liu, and Ramesh K. Agarwal. "Numerical Simulation of the Flowfield of an Airfoil
in Dynamic Ground Effect", AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 51, No. 5 (2014), pp. 1659-1662,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.C032452
[16] G.Doig, Transonic and supersonic ground effect aerodynamics, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Volume 69, August 2014,
Pages 1-28
[17] Raymond, A.E., “Ground influence on Airfoils,” NACA Technical Note No.67, 1921. Document ID: 19930080862,
Report/Patent Number: NACA-TN-67
[18] Lazar Dragos, “Numerical Solution of the Equation for a Thin Airfoil in Ground Effect” AIAA Journal, Vol. 28, No. 12
1989, http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/3.10532
[19] Ramesh K Agarwal, Aerodynamics of a transonic airfoil in ground effect, 6th International Conference and Exhibition on
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, November 07-08, 2018, Atlanta, USA.
[20] Sun, Z., Miao, X., & Jagadeesh, C. (2020). Experimental investigation of the transonic shock-wave/boundary-layer
interaction over a shock-generation bump. Physics of Fluids, 32(10), 106102. doi:10.1063/5.0018763
[21] Yang, Y., Sciacchitano, A., Veldhuis, L. L. M., & Eitelberg, G. (2016). Spatial-temporal and modal analysis of propeller
induced ground vortices by particle image velocimetry. Physics of Fluids, 28(10), 105103. doi:10.1063/1.4964685
[22] Vinuesa, R., Bobke, A., Örlü, R., & Schlatter, P. (2016). On determining characteristic length scales in pressure-gradient
turbulent boundary layers. Physics of Fluids, 28(5), 055101. doi:10.1063/1.4947532
[23] Strand T, Royce WW, Fujita T. Cruise performance of channel flow ground effect machines. Journal of the Aerospace
Sciences, 1962;29(6):702–11., http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/8.9586
[24] Kirill V. Rozhdestvensky, Wing-in-ground effect vehicles, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 42 (2006) 211–283,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/8.9586
[25] Mohammadreza Yavari, Ramin Farzadi, and Majid Bazargan, Analytical solution for two-dimensional displacement flow
in a curved down-sloping duct, Phys. Fluids 32, 102110 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0019061
[26] V.R.Sanal Kumar, Raunak Sharma, Vigneshwaran Rajendran, Dekkala Vinay, Theoretical Discovery of the Standoff
Distance of Sonic Ring Impelling Entropy Waves on Supersonic Vehicles, Indian Patent Application No. 202311002448, Date:
12 January 2023.
[27] V.R.Sanal Kumar, Dekkala Vinay, Raunak Sharma, Satvik Sharma, Vigneshwaran Rajendran et al., Phenomenological
Introduction of Standoff Distance of Sonic Ring Impelling Entropy Waves and Aerodynamic Heating of Hypersonic
Vehicles, the 25th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, 28 May - 1
June 2023, Bangalore, India.
[28] Saatvik Sharma and V.R.Sanal Kumar, Invention of “Satavic Technique” for Increasing the Aerodynamics Performance of
Transonic and Supersonic Aircraft,” Indian Patent Application, New Delhi, India, Application No. 202311018761, Date:
20/03/2023.
16

Coherent Explanation of Aerodynamic Lift and Threshold Condition of Drag Divergence Using The Concept of Sanal Flow Choking

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

Coherent Explanation of Aerodynamic Lift and Threshold Condition of Drag Divergence Using The Concept of Sanal Flow Choking

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIAA AVIATION Forum 10.2514/6.

Coherent Explanation of Aerodynamic Lift

Vigneshwaran R,† Saatvik Sharma,‡ Raunak Sharma,‡ Dekkala Vinay,§

dH = hydraulic diameter of the streamtube

Fig.1 Demonstration of streamlines compression and Sanal flow choking at

III. Analytical Methodology

IV. In Silico Methodology

Fig. 4 Demonstration of external flow choking due to streamlines compression.

Fig.5 Demonstrating the occurrence of streamlines compression and choking in regions

(b) Velocity contours (AoA=0)

(c) Streamlines superimposed over Mach number contours (AoA=5)

(d) Velocity contours (AoA=5)

Fig. 7(b) Mach number contour in a tube flow with a bump.

Fig. 7(c) Mach number variation line.

V. Results and Discussion

You might also like