Advertisement

Numerical Investigation of Influence of Diverse Winglet Configuration on Induced Drag

  • Haci SogukpinarEmail author
Research Paper
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, numerical calculations were conducted over 3D wing surface with varying winglet configuration and their modifications to understand effect of wingtip device on induced drag formation. NACA0012 airfoil was used for all configurations due to availability of experimental lift and drag data. Lift, drag and pressure coefficient were calculated with SST turbulence model at the Reynolds numbers of 6 × 106 and were compared with experimental data to validate the simulation accuracy of numerical approaches. The winglet with different relative angle with wing surface was designed, and numerical calculation was performed with commercial software COMSOL. The winglets attached to the wingtip were divided into 3 different categories such as single winglet up or down sloping, split winglet up and down sloping. To see normal wingtip vortex, conventional wingtip was simulated together with winglet in all cases. Pressure coefficient for the midline section of the wing is in a good agreement with the experimental data, but pressure coefficient at the tip section is very different. Maximum size of vortices was observed for the case of winglet 45° up sloping with the surface, but with the increasing winglet angle with the surface, size of vortex decreases. Results indicate that wingtip vortex formation was reduced considerably at the angle of attack relative to wing surface starting from 90° and considering only lift and pressure coefficients, up-sloping winglet can be considered to be more efficient than down sloped one and maximum efficiency increased between 4 and 6%.

Keywords

Induced drag Winglet Wingtip Wingtip devices NACA0012 

List of symbols

\( c_{P} \)

Pressure coefficient

\( c_{L} \)

Lift coefficient

\( f_{w1} \)

Damping function

\( P \)

Static pressure

\( P_{\infty } \)

Free stream pressure

\( U_{r} \)

Relative velocity

\( U_{\infty } \)

Free stream velocity (wind velocity)

\( v \)

Kinematic viscosity

\( c \)

Airfoil chord

\( t \)

Percentage of the maximum thickness

\( k \)

Turbulence kinetic energy

\( \kappa \)

Von Kármán constant,

\( l_{\text{ref}} \)

Reference length scale

L

Length scale of flow

\( \varepsilon \)

Turbulence dissipation rate

\( \omega \)

Specific dissipation rate

\( \omega_{t} \)

Wall vorticity at the trip

ρ

Density

\( \rho_{\infty } \)

Freestream density

\( \mu \)

Dynamic viscosity

S

Magnitude of the vorticity

\( \tilde{S} \)

Modified vorticity

\( S_{ij} \)

Mean strain rate

\( \varOmega_{ij} \)

Mean rotation rate

\( \mu_{\text{eff}} \)

Effective dynamic viscosity

\( \alpha \)

Angle of attack

\( \emptyset \)

Scalar quantity of the flow

CFD

Computational fluid dynamics

RANS

Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes

SST

Shear stress transport

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bennett D, Covert E, Oliver T (2001) The wing grid: a new approach to reducing induced drag. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Boeing 747-400 (2017). http://www.larc.nasa.gov. Accessed 27 Dec 2017
  3. COMSOL CFD module user guide (2017). http://www.comsol.com. Accessed 27 Dec 2017
  4. Forrester TJ, Tinoco EN, Yu NJ (2005) Thirty years of development and application of CFD at boeing commercial airplanes. Comput Fluids 34(11):1115–1151zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Goldberg UC, Batten P (2015) A wall-distance-free version of the SST turbulence model. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 9(1):33–40Google Scholar
  6. Gregory N, O’Reilly CL (1970) Low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of NACA 0012 aerofoil section, including the effects of upper-surface roughness simulating hoar frost, A.R.C., R. & M. no. 3726Google Scholar
  7. Ilan K (2001) Drag due to lift: concepts for prediction and reduction. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 33:587–617CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Ladson CL (1988) Effects of independent variation of mach and Reynolds numbers on the low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA 0012 airfoil section. NASA TM 4074Google Scholar
  9. McLean D (2005) Wingtip devices: what they do and how they do it. In: Boeing performance and flight operations engineering conference 2005, pp1–20Google Scholar
  10. Menter FR (1992) Improved two-equation kw turbulence models for aerodynamic flows, NASA technical memorandum 103975, October 1992Google Scholar
  11. Menter FR (1994) Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 32(8):1598–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Menter FR (2009) Review of the shear-stress transport turbulence model experience from an industrial perspective. Int J Comput Fluid Dyn 23(4):305–316CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Menter FR, Kuntz M, Langtry R (2003) Ten years of industrial experience with the SST turbulence model, Software Development Department ANSYS–CFXGoogle Scholar
  14. Neal L, Harrison N, Mujezinovic D (2004) Wingtip devices. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, pp 1–27Google Scholar
  15. Originating Technology/NASA Contribution (2017). https://spinoff.nasa.gov. Accessed 27 Dec 2017
  16. Raymer DP (1999) Aircraft design: a conceptual approach, 3rd edn. AIAA, RestonGoogle Scholar
  17. Schauerhamer DG, Robinson SK (2017) Aircraft effects in wake vortex decay simulations, AIAA Paper 2017-3035Google Scholar
  18. Sogukpinar H (2017) Numerical simulation of 4-digit inclined NACA 00xx airfoils to find optimum angle of attack for airplane wing. Uludag Univ J Fac Eng 22(1):169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sogukpinar H (2018) The effects of NACA 0012 airfoil modification on aerodynamic performance improvement and obtaining high lift coefficient and post-stall airfoil. In: AIP conference proceedings, vol 1935, no 1. AIP PublishingGoogle Scholar
  20. Sogukpinar H, Bozkurt I (2018) Implementation of different turbulence model to find proper model to estimate aerodynamic properties of airfoils. In: AIP conference proceedings, vol 1935, no 1. AIP PublishingGoogle Scholar
  21. Turkish Technic: B737-800 winglet modification (2017). http://www.turkishtechnic.com. Accessed 27 Dec 2017
  22. Types of blended winglets (2017) Aviation partners. https://www.aviationpartners.com. Accessed 27 Dec 2017
  23. Whitcomb RT (1976) A design approach and selected wind-tunnel results at high subsonic speeds for wing-tip mounted winglets, NASA-TN-D-8260Google Scholar
  24. Yang H, Shen WZ, Xu HR, Hong ZD, Liu C (2014) Prediction of the wind turbine performance by using BEM with airfoil data extracted from CFD. Renew Energy 70:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhang X, Li W, Liu H (2015) Numerical simulation of the effect of relative thickness on aerodynamic performance improvement of asymmetrical blunt trailing-edge modification. Renew Energy 80:489–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AdiyamanAdiyamanTurkey

Personalised recommendations