passive flow control on civil aircraft flaps using sub-boundary layer
Post on 17-Nov-2014
137 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008
AWIATOR Project Perspectives:Passive Flow Control on Civil Aircraft Flaps using
Sub-Boundary Layer Vortex GeneratorsDavid Sawyers
Aerodynamics R&T Co-ordinatorAirbus UK Limited
No SBVGs With SBVGs
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 2© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Presentation Overview
• Background�Passive Flow Control for High Lift Applications �What are SBVGs and how do they work?�Potential Benefits of using SBVGs on Trailing Edge Flaps �Previous Work on SBVG design
• SBVGs in the AWIATOR Programme�SBVG Design�Wind Tunnel Testing�Flight Testing�Concluding Remarks
KA
Tnet II Separation C
ontrol Workshop -01-03 A
pril 2008P
age 3
© AIRBUS UK LTD. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. Background
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 4© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Passive Flow Control for High Lift Applications
• Motivation�Extended ranges for civil aircraft means that the take-off and
landing performance (low speed) is a critical factor in design.• Conventional ways to Improve Low Speed Performance
�Increase the wing area (potentially increased drag & reduced range).
�Design a more mechanically complex high-lift system (increased weight).
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 5© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Passive Flow Control for High Lift Applications
• The use of Simple (Passive) Flow Control Devices�Increases the efficiency of high lift systems whilst maintaining
simplicity.
• High lift performance is limited by boundary layer separations. �Two approaches to reduce separation:
– (1) careful optimisation of flap gap (� increased gap sensitivity, more difficult to manufacture within tolerances)
– (2) limit flap angle (� loss in potential performance CLmax)
�Sub Boundary-layer Vortex Generators (SBVGs):– (1) Reduce flow sensitivity to flap gap.– (2) Re-attach separated flow for high flap angles without incurring a
large drag penalty at cruise and take-off.
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 6© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
SBVGs
• What are they?�Surface mounted vortex generators where the VG height < BL height
• How they work?�These SBVG’s control the flap boundary layer by adding momentum to the
boundary layer, at the flap surface. �By doing so SBVG’s control (delay) the boundary layer separation. �These SBVGs are mounted on the flap upper surface so that they delay
flap boundary layer separation only when the flap is deployed. – When the flap is stowed, the SBVG’s are contained in the cove region, under
the shroud.
Vortex Influence Paths
SBVG on Flap
Direction of onset flow
h
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 7© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Potential Benefits of SBVGs on Flaps
• Existing Aircraft Application (i.e. as a retrofit)�Increase CL
– At high flap angles the flap becomes separated but SBVGs can re-attach the flap and allow the a/c to cash in the benefit of increased lift from the increased flap angle.
• potential to decrease approach speed and hence approach noise
�Decrease Sensitivity to Gap (risk mitigation)– Can be used at take-off or landing to reduce
separations due to flap gap geometry sensitivity.
�Increase Drag at Landing– Increasing the flap angle will have a drag
increase without any loss in CL max which may be favourable in cases where the option of a steep approach would be beneficial.
Higher flap angle
With SBVGs
CL
D
CL
D
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 8© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Potential Benefits of SBVGs on Flaps
• New Aircraft Design �New a/c variant that requires higher CL, can use SBVGs to achieve
higher flap angles without having to go to a complex system�Design a simplified high lift system with a smaller flap at higher
angles (reduce weight and complexity) but give the same landing and take-off performance.
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 9© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Previous Work
• National High-Lift research programmes with Airbus & QinetiQexamined SBVG designs (shape, size, angle) in a simple 2D BL test. (CARAD)
• Looked at different SBVG designs and their effectiveness for more complex applications. (NEXUS)
Full complex configuration, at high Re No. (6m) (2001)
0
5
10
15
x/h
-2000.00 -1595.96 -1191.92 -787.88 -383.84 20.20
Boundary-layer Testing
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 10© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
SBVGs in AWIATOR
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 11© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
SBVGs in AWIATOR
• AWIATOR (Aircraft WIng with Advanced Technology OpeRation) �The aim of this project was to contribute to new future aircraft designs by
applying and integrating new technologies. (CEC FP5)�Demonstration by various flight tests on an A340 after having first been
simulated using a number of computational methods and validated in wind tunnel and other aircraft ground tests.
• Objectives of SBVG task (T3.4)�To demonstrate technologies for improving the performance of trailing
edge flap systems using simple flow control devices.�To demonstrate if SBVGs can be used to:
– increase the trailing edge flap angle 32° to 35°– by doing this increase CL throughout the incidence range without incurring a
loss in L/D for take-off.• Phases
�Phase 1: SBVG Design�Phase 2: Wind Tunnel Testing�Phase 3: Flight Testing
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 12© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
SBVG Design
• CFD study (ONERA)�Structured mesh �Navier-Stokes calculations (elsA code) �Data on the sensitivity of the flap boundary layer to
Reynolds Number. �Experimental pressure data was used to validate
the CFD for the baseline and finally complex CFD calculations with SBVG representation was also used to refine the final SBVG design.
• BL Calc (QQ)�Using the CFD calculations as an input boundary
layer calculations were performed �CALLISTO code �Scaled SBVGs for the boundary layer of the
aircraft. • Output
�The output of this collaborated design work was a baseline array of SBVGs, which was taken forward to be optimised and demonstrated in a series of wind tunnel tests.
CFD
F1 Wind Tunnel Test
CFDCFD
F1 Wind Tunnel Test
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 13© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Wind Tunnel Testing
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 14© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Wind Tunnel Testing Overview
• Model�A340 high-lift half model
– Model scale 1:14.4
• Tunnel Entries�Entry 1: Airbus LS Tunnel, Filton
– June 2004– Atmospheric (Re=2.2m)– ID optimum SBVG arrangement
�Entry 2: ONERA F1 Tunnel– July 2004– Pressurised to 3bar (Re=6.6m)– Examine Re effects
• Measurements�Forces & Oil flow visualisations
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 15© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Wind Tunnel Testing – Airbus FLSWT Test
• Objective: �To assist in determining the optimum SBVG arrangement to be
fitted to the flaps for the AWIATOR test flight to allow an increased trailing edge flap deflection angle with acceptable flow quality.
• Main Observations:�The optimised SBVG array significantly reduced the extent of
boundary layer separation of the flap at an increased flap deflection of Gf = 35°.
�The addition of SBVGs to the flap at Gf = 35° deflection increased the lift coefficient by up to 2.2% over a wide incidence range compared to the baseline configuration of Gf = 32° without SBVGs.
�The effect of SBVGs at a fixed landing flap deflection increased the lift coefficient by 'CL = 0.01 to 0.04 over part of the incidence range indicating, as expected, that the vast majority of the lift increase is due to increase in flap angle.
�A trend to a small increase in drag of 4 counts (Cd=0.0004) in take-off configuration is within the repeatability of the wind tunnelbalance and therefore deemed not significant.
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 16© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Wind Tunnel Testing – Airbus FLSWT Results
No SBVGsNo SBVGs No SBVGs
With SBVGsWith SBVGs
With SBVGs
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 17© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Wind Tunnel Testing – ONERA F1 Test
• Objective:�To investigate Reynolds number effects on the optimised SBVG array as defined in
the Airbus LSWT test (Filton). • Main Observations:
�Good correspondence of CL-alpha curves and drag increments was observed between FLSWT and F1.
�At high Reynolds number (Re=6.6m) the optimised SBVG array from the Filton test (ref height of h1) significantly reduced the extent of boundary layer separation of the flap at an increased flap deflection of Gf = 35°, see Figure.
�With an increase in Re the incidence range of CL improvements due to higher flap deflection and SBVG application is extended, see Figure.
�At Re=6.6 the level of CL improvement at a reference alpha (approx 0.8 CLmax SBVGs off) is slightly larger (2.25%) than at atmospheric conditions (Re=2.2m)
�SBVGs of smaller heights (h2 and h3) could not cure flap flow separation at the highest Reynolds number.
�With higher Reynolds numbers a drag increase in take-off configuration due to SBVGs installation at atmospheric pressure is not observed outside the tolerance of the balance.
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 18© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Wind Tunnel Testing – ONERA F1 Results
No SBVGs
With SBVGs
No SBVGs
With SBVGs
No SBVGs
With SBVGs
No SBVGs
With SBVGs
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 19© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Wind Tunnel Testing – ONERA F1 Results
AWIATOR 3.4 SBVG LSWT TestModell 419B, G s =19.6°/23°/23°, G f=32°, 35°
Ma=0.2, Re=2.2x10 6 , 6.6x10 6
X:\A erodynamic s\B61\HLWD\K arsten\AWIATOR\Onera F1\OneraF1_FLSWT_forces_prel_datasorted_0721z.exy SB VG Improvement Po tenti al DCLa V2
Run 865, df=35°, Re=2.2E6, SR1optRun 591, df=35°, Re=6.6E6, SR1opt
Reference DataRun 524, df=32°, Re=2.2E6, no SBVGsRun 702, df=32°, Re=6.6E6, no SBVGs
Increase in CL of 2.25% at ref alpha
Gf=32q no SBVGs
Del
ta C
L
Gf=35q with SBVGs (Re=6.6m)
Gf=35q with SBVGs (Re=2.2m)
Alpha
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 20© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Flight Testing
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 21© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Flight Testing - Overview
• Main Objective:�To demonstrate, on a full scale-aircraft, that SBVGs can be used to increase the
trailing edge flap angle beyond the current maximum whilst maintaining attached flow.�This would release an additional lift increment whilst minimising any increase in
buffeting. • Tests Completed:
�The optimised SBVG arrangement as identified from wind tunnel testing was tested at aircraft scale on the A340-300 MSN 1 flight test aircraft.
�The aircraft was tested at stall and climb performance conditions with and without SBVGs installed to allow a full comparison of results.
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 22© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Flight Testing – Aircraft Modifications
• Modification of the flap kinematics • Mechanism changes to allow flaps to
deploy to 35°�New rear links as detailed Flap
System�Adaptor wire installed on MSN1 �Spoiler extension on spoilers 3-5
• Mounting of SBVGs on the flaps�Design & Manufacture
– SBVGs cut out of aluminium strips
�Mounting of SBVGs – Strips mounted across full span of
I/B & O/B flap– Mounted using speed tape
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 23© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Flight Testing – Flight Test Instrumentation
• Flight Test Instrumentation• Lift and drag measurements (Onboard)
• Pressure measurements�Slat-wing-flap (1 station)�Flap (additional station)
• Flap deformation measurements (EDT)�2 stations with stereo arrangement
(DLR)
• Flow cones & cameras�On the slats 3/4, wing & flap
• Indication of Tail Plane buffeting �Accelerometer mounted on HTP
wing pressure measurement
flap deformation measurement (EDT)
wing pressure measurement
flap deformation measurement (EDT)flap deformation measurement (EDT)
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 24© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Flight Testing – Main Observations
• Flap Flow Behaviour�Flow cones indicated improvement in flap flow
with SBVGs on at 35°.�Flap flow at 35° without SBVGs was not as
separated in 2005 as expected from previous experience.
�The flow behaviour observed on the wing with the SBVGs installed was more noticeably improved for the flap at 35° than with the flap at 32°.
�At 35° there is no clear improvement on the inboard flap as it remains largely separated. On the outboard flap there is improvement whatever alpha.
• CL-Alpha Plots�32-35 CL-alpha trend is as expected, increase in
CL of approx 2.5% at reference alpha.�CL increase across the range but 35° stall is 0.3
degree early.
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 25© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
Concluding Remarks
• This work has demonstrated, at aircraft scale, that by reducing flap flow separation SBVGs can be used to enable low speed improvements associated with increased flap angle to be exploited on civil aircraft.
• The increase in flap angle leads to an increase in lift that can be exploited in landing across the CL range without incurring a significant drag penalty in take-off.
• SBVGs provide a simple, effective, innovative means of enabling the increase of the performance of an existing under-performing flap system with imposing any significant weight, complexity, cost penalty.
• SBVGs have the future potential to adopt a simpler, lighter, cheaper flap system to give a similar performance by exploiting the following characteristics: �Same lift despite non-optimum flap gap geometry �Allow an increase in the maximum flap deployment angle
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 26© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
…any Questions?
Thanks…
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 27© A
IRB
US
UK
LT
D.
All
right
s re
serv
ed. C
onfid
entia
l and
pro
prie
tary
doc
umen
t.
4/5/2008 Page 27
© AIRBUS UK LTD. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.
This document and all information contained herein is the sole property of AIRBUS UK LTD. No intellectual property rights are granted by the delivery of this document or the disclosure of its content. This document shall not be reproduced or disclosed to a third party without the express written consent of AIRBUS UK LTD. This document and its content shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied.
The statements made herein do not constitute an offer. They are based on the mentioned assumptions and are expressed in good faith. Where the supporting grounds for these statements are not shown, AIRBUS UK LTD will be pleased to explain the basis thereof.
AIRBUS, its logo, A300, A310, A318, A319, A320, A321, A330, A340, A350, A380, A400M are registered trademarks.
top related