Application of Panel Methods

PEMP
ACD2506
Session 02
Application of Panel Methods
Session delivered by: Session delivered by:
Prof M D Deshpande Prof M D Deshpande Prof. M. D. Deshpande Prof. M. D. Deshpande
1
02
M.S. Ramaiah School of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru
PEMP
ACD2506
Session Objectives
-- At the end of this session the delegate would have g
understood
How to test a panel code for accuracy p y
How to validate and interpret results from a panel code
How to interpret airfoil results
The meaning of a higher order panel method
How to extend the method to 3-D cases
2
02
PEMP
ACD2506
S i T i Session Topics
1. Revision of the Panel Methods
2. Verification of the quality of Panel
M th d R lt Method Results
3. Validation of the Panel Method Results
4. Airfoil Characteristics- Lift, Pitching , g
Moment, Drag
5. Special Airfoils, Inverse Design
6 Higher order and 3 D Panel Methods 6. Higher order and 3-D Panel Methods
3
02
PEMP
ACD2506
INTRODUCTION
A i ibl fl if th ff t f i it b An incompressible flow, if the effects of viscosity can be
neglected, satisfies the Laplace equation.
The continuity equation and conditions of irrotationality lead
to the Laplace equation.
The Laplace equation is a linear PDE and hence a large body
of mathematical theory is available. Then the solution can be of mathematical theory is available. Then the solution can be
found accurately and efficiently. We are solving only one PDE.
Flows with Mach number M< 0.3 can be approximated as
incompressible flo s Hence if the isco s effects are incompressible flows. Hence, if the viscous effects are
negligible, a low Mflow can be approximated by the Laplace
equation and solved conveniently.
4
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Summary of the Airfoil Example (1) Summary of the Airfoil Example (1)
A summary of the Panel method is given below by listing the steps
t k i th Ai f il E l taken in the Airfoil Example.
1. The geometry is to be represented by N panels. It is a closed
surface.
2. Boundary condition
representing a closed surface at infinity

is represented in terms of freestream velocity. is represented in terms of freestream velocity.
3. Geometrical quantities are calculated. They include: areas,
slopes
i
, unit vectors normal and tangential to the panels
( t ) nodal or collocation points ( ) along ith their (n
i
, t
i
), nodal or collocation points ( ) along with their
coordinates.
4. On each of the N panels assume uniform source strength q
i
and
5
02
the vortex strength , assumed to be same on each panel.
PEMP
ACD2506
5. Now at any point in the field can be expressed in terms of (N
+ 1) l f i l iti d i fi it l + 1) values of singularities and infinity value
:
6. Determine the influence coefficients ( u
ij
, v
ij
, u
ij
, v
ij
) to 6. Determine the influence coefficients ( u
sij
, v
sij
, u
vij
, v
vij
) to
relate velocities to singularities. These influence coefficients are
geometric relations and can be evaluated.
6
02
PEMP
ACD2506
7. The velocities are related to the singularities by the relations:
8. Apply the tangency boundary condition for velocities on the N
panels These are fresh N eq ations for sing larities ( and ): panels. These are fresh N equations for singularities (q
i
and ):
7
02
PEMP
ACD2506
9. Apply the Kutta condition at the trailing edge to get one more
ti Thi (N + 1
st
) ti i equation. This (N + 1
st
) equation is
10. Thus we have generated (N +1) equations to close the system.
This linear system of equations can be solved for (q
i
and ).
11. Potential and velocities can be calculated. The pressure values 11. Potential and velocities can be calculated. The pressure values
can be evaluated at each panel (Bernoullis theorem) and then
lift, drag & moment coefficients can be calculated.
8
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Typical Results Typical Results
Variation of pressure coefficient on the top and bottom surfaces is
h f NACA4412 i f il l ith th t lt bt i d shown for NACA 4412 airfoil along with the exact results obtained
by conformal mapping.
= 6
1. Notice max & min values.
2. How to get C
L
, C
D
, C
M
?
3 How to get Lift value? 3. How to get Lift value?
4. What do you mean by
exact results here?
5 C 5. Comment on agreement.
6. The method can be
extended to 3-D.
9
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Sensitivity of the Results to the Number of Panels (1)
1. The discussion here is the same as grid independence study in
CFD.
h l h ld d d h b f l 2. The results we get should not depend on the number of panels.
3. The number of panels is not a part of the original flow problem. It
is a numerical artefact we have introduced to solve the problem. p
Hence if the results depend on the number of panels, they are not
the solution of the original problem, i.e., they are not the results.
4 If we have more number of panels N the geometry gets represented 4. If we have more number of panels N, the geometry gets represented
better.
5. Also, an increase in N, results in better representation of the
i l i di ib i R b i if l singularity distributions. Remember q
i
is uniform on a panel.
6. The integral representations we use are exact. But they are
restricted to irrotational flows only.
10
02
y
PEMP
ACD2506
1. We increase the number of panels N, and observe if the results
change. If they change we have not reached the desired stage.
f h d h i h i i h 2. Q: If they do not change with respect to an increase in N, what
can we conclude?
3. When we increase N, it is quite important to have a strategy. Also, , q p gy ,
keep in mind that coarseness of N means part of the flow geometry
is not represented properly. The strategy should be such that as N
becomes large results tend towards the exact values becomes large results tend towards the exact values.
4. The effect of an increase in N, should be concluded only if this
increase is sufficiently large. (Not changing N from 200 to 210
d h l d h h l i i i hi h !) and then conclude that the results are insensitive to this change!)
5. What is the level of sensitivity of the results to a change in N that
is acceptable? It depends on what quantities we are inspecting and
11
02
p p q p g
the purpose of our study and also the resources available.
PEMP
ACD2506
1. Sensitivity of the drag coefficient to the number of panels N .
2. What should be the asymptotic value as N becomes large?
12
02
PEMP
ACD2506
1. Sensitivity of the lift coefficient to the number of panels N .
2. Keep in mind the expanded scale used.
h i b h i f h lif ffi i 3. Comment on the non-monotonic behaviour of the lift coefficient
to the number of panels N .
13
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Based on the sensitivity of the results to N as seen in the previous
two figures consider:
1. Comment on the choice of N = 20. See that the lift values are
the same for N = 20 & 100 !
2. Is the value N = 80 or 100 a satisfactory choice?
3. Suppose we decided N = 100 to be a satisfactory choice (last
point above for = 8 ) then is it likely to be a satisfactory point above for = 8 ), then is it likely to be a satisfactory
choice for = 2 ? Is it likely to be a satisfactory choice for
= 12 ?
4. If we increase the number of panels sufficiently, can we resolve
the boundary layer and make the results more realistic?
5 Can we conclude from these figures if the results are valid for a
14
02
5. Can we conclude from these figures if the results are valid for a
viscous flow?
PEMP
ACD2506
1. The same results are plotted now as a function of ( 1/n ) which is
proportional to (or a measure of average) panel size.
i i i f h d ffi i ( / ) 2. Sensitivity of the drag coefficient to ( 1/n ).
15
02
PEMP
ACD2506
i i i f h lif ffi i ( / ) 2. Sensitivity of the lift coefficient to ( 1/n ).
16
02
PEMP
ACD2506
i i i f h ffi i ( / ) 2. Sensitivity of the moment coefficient to ( 1/n ).
17
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Based on the sensitivity of the results to ( 1 / n ) as seen in the
previous three figures consider:
1. As the number of panels becomes very large ( 1 / n ) 0 and
we should get exact results. g
2. If we plot these graphs on log scale it may be possible to
evaluate the accuracy of the numerical scheme.
3 Is it possible to extrapolate C curve to ( 1 / n ) 0 ? 3. Is it possible to extrapolate C
D
curve to ( 1 / n ) 0 ?
4. Is it possible to extrapolate C
L
curve to ( 1 / n ) 0 ?
5. Is it possible to extrapolate C
m
curve to ( 1 / n ) 0 ?
6 Whil id i h h i k l k h 6. While considering the top three questions, take a look at the
previous two figures also.
18
02
PEMP
ACD2506
The quantities we used ( C
D
, C
L
& C
m
) for comparison are integral
values. We will compare now C
P
distribution. This is a more
d il d d i i h d l detailed and sensitive test. Argue why we need more panels near
the leading edge.
19
02
PEMP
ACD2506
1. In the previous figure we see that with 20 panels we do not
recover C
P
= 1 at the leading edge. But results of 60 & 100
l i di i i h bl h ll panels are indistinguishable graphically.
20
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Validation of the Results (1)
1. Step 1: In the previous comparisons we have assumed that the
inviscid model is valid and verified the computational procedure
k h i l i i i d d l h to make sure that our approximate solution is indeed close to the
exact solution of the assumed model.
2. Step 2: Once we are convinced of this, it is possible to check p , p
(validate) how close is the assumed theoretical model to physical
reality.
3 We cannot apply step 2 unless results in step 1 are satisfactory 3. We cannot apply step 2 unless results in step 1 are satisfactory.
4. In the validation step 2 here we usually make comparison for a
wider range of parameters of practical relevance.
5 I i f diffi l if i l d f 5. It is often difficult to verify our computational procedure for
every possible range of parameters. We, of course, select the
range of parameters of practical interest and then make
21
02
g p p
verification tests to more stringent cases.
PEMP
ACD2506
Comparison Comparison
made here with
the experimental
data.
See next slide
for comments. for comments.
22
02
PEMP
ACD2506
1. In the previous figure comparison is made for two airfoils 1. In the previous figure comparison is made for two airfoils
NACA 0012 and NANA 4412. The fist airfoil is symmetrical
and both of them have 12 % thickness.
2 Th l h d i h l f 2 di d b 2. The panel method gives the correct slope of 2 , predicted by
the thin airfoil theory (Verify).
3. For NACA 0012 the curve passes through the origin but for p g g
NACA 4412 the zero lift angle is about
Z L
= - 4 .
4. Disagreement with the experimental data is gradual as
i b i i hi h f h NACA4412 i f il increases, but it is higher for the NACA 4412 airfoil.
5. Q: Is it possible to argue that by shifting one set of curves that
the disagreement is roughly the same in both the sets? Keep g g y p
thin airfoil theory in mind.
6. For the cambered airfoil the flow separates first at the trailing
edge and stall is gradual For the symmetrical airfoil the flow
23
02
edge and stall is gradual. For the symmetrical airfoil the flow
separates first at the leading edge and stall is abrupt.
PEMP
ACD2506
Predicting the Pitching Moment (1)
1. Pitching moment plotted is about the quarter chord point.
24
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Predicting the Pitching Moment (2)
1. For the NACA 0012 airfoil experimental data indicate that the
quarter chord point is the aerodynamic centre (recall the
definition) Panel methods give close results but < 0 definition). Panel methods give close results but < 0
indicating that the quarter chord point is not the aerodynamic
centre.
2. Once the flow separates disagreement is large.
3. For the cambered NACA 4412 airfoil experimental data indicate
that pitching moment is constant for - 4 < < 4 that pitching moment is constant for 4 < < 4 .
4. Recall that for this airfoil flow separates at the trailing edge and
disagreement is gradual as is increased. Pitching moment is
large and there is a qualitative difference between the two sets
of results.
5. Comparison made here is very exacting and also of practical
25
02
5. Co p so de e e s ve y e c g d so o p c c
importance for stability. But failure is not of computations.
PEMP
ACD2506
Discussion of the Airfoil Results by Panel Methods (1)
1. The panel methods solve for an irrotational flow. Hence the results
may be OK for thin airfoils at low Mach number (M < 0.3) and small
angles of attack angles of attack.
2. Results may be acceptable for pressure distribution and lift but not
for drag. See the next figure.
3. The 2-D drag value predicted by the panel methods should be strictly
zero but there may be a small value indicating numerical error.
4. The skin friction drag of an airfoil cannot be predicted by the panel 4. The skin friction drag of an airfoil cannot be predicted by the panel
methods. Because of viscous effects the rear stagnation pressure will
not be fully recovered and will contribute for a small value of
pressure drag Flow separation further adds to it None of these can pressure drag. Flow separation further adds to it. None of these can
be predicted by an inviscid model.
5. Since the panel methods are accurate and fast, they can be used to
26
02
study the effect of geometry keeping in mind viscous effects.
PEMP
ACD2506
Discussion of the Airfoil Results by Panel Methods (2)
1. Key areas of interest in airfoil pressure distribution.
27
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Airfoil Characteristics (1)
Effect of Angle of Attack :
NACA 0012 Airfoil
C
P
minimum
value decreases
with increase in with increase in
A larger
deceleration with
increase in increase in
28
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Eff t f Ai f il Thi k Effect of Airfoil Thickness:
= 0
NACA 0012 Airfoil
C
P
minimum
value decreases
with increase in with increase in
thickness
A larger
deceleration with deceleration with
increase in
thickness
29
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Eff t f Ai f il Thi k Effect of Airfoil Thickness:
= 4
NACA 0012 Airfoil
The thinnest airfoil
shows a large expansion /
recompression due to the recompression due to the
stagnation point being
below the L.E.
The thicker airfoil
results in milder expansion
and subsequent
recompression.
30
02
PEMP
ACD2506
31
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Effect of on Cambered Airfoil C
P
:
= 0 & 4
NACA 4412 Airfoil
Due to camber lift is
generated without a large
L E expansion and L.E. expansion and
subsequent recompression.
hi d h This reduces the
possibility of L.E.
separation. See next p
figure for comparison.
32
02
PEMP
ACD2506
C b Eff t Ai f il C Camber Effects on Airfoil C
P
:
C
L
= 0.48 for both the airfoils
Due to camber lift is
generated without a
large L.E. expansion and large L.E. expansion and
subsequent
recompression.
Next two figures
indicate it for C
L
= 0.96
& for C
L
= 1.43.
33
02
PEMP
ACD2506
P
:
C
L
34
02
PEMP
ACD2506
P
:
C
L
35
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Even though the panel methods do not give drag values, it is
i i l k h d l f h i f il d instructive to look at the drag values for these two airfoils and
appreciate the effectiveness of the camber.
36
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Airfoil Characteristics (8-A)
Eff t f Aft C b Ai f il C Effects of Aft Camber on Airfoil C
P
:
NACA 6712 Airfoil
ff f f b d b i h d hi b i Effect of extreme aft camber was used by Richard Whitcomb in
the development of the NASA supercritical airfoils.
It opens up the pressure distribution near the leading edge. See p p p g g
next figure.
37
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Airfoil Characteristics (8-B)
P
:
NACA 6712 Airfoil
Aft camber opens
up the pressure
distribution near the
leading edge.
But it has led to a
large zero lift pitching
moment moment.
It has also led to
delayed and then
rapid pressure
recovery and possible
38
02
ecove y d poss b e
early B.L. separation.
PEMP
ACD2506
Airfoil Characteristics (9-A)
P
:
GA(W)-1 also known as NASA LS(1)-0417 Airfoil
h i f il h li d l d i h d h The airfoils shown earlier were developed in the 1930s and the
geometry was given by simple formulas. Modern airfoils developed
in the 1970s are defined by tables of coordinates. y
The figure below shows 17 % thick GA(W)-1 airfoil (General
Aviation) .
39
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Airfoil Characteristics (9-B)
P
:
GA(W)-1 Airfoil, 17 % thick
It has better
maximum lift and
stall characteristics.
The pressure The pressure
recovery rate is
constant and hence
gradual & Moderate gradual & Moderate.
If the camber is too
steep, flow may
separate first at the
bottom surface .
40
02
bo o su ce .
PEMP
ACD2506
Laminar Rooftop Airfoil by Liebeck for High Lift
Note the high lift curve in the next figure.
Design and tests from R.H. Liebeck,
Rep. MDC-J5667/01, August 1972 p , g
From: R.T. Jones, Wing Theory.
41
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Laminar Rooftop Airfoil by Liebeck Laminar Rooftop Airfoil by Liebeck
for High Lift
Note the pressure recovery in the
previous figure previous figure.
Design and tests from R.H.
Li b k Liebeck,
Rep. MDC-J5667/01, August
1972
From: R.T. Jones, Wing Theory.
42
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Drag value for Liebecks High Lift Airfoil
Note the low drag value even at very high lift!
43
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Inverse Problem of Airfoil Design
1. The pressure distribution is specified. Of course, it has to be
something possible.
2 Now the idea is to design an airfoil to have this pressure 2. Now the idea is to design an airfoil to have this pressure
distribution.
3. This is the inverse problem different from the analysis problem
where we obtain the pressure distribution corresponding to a
known geometry.
4. If we succeed in the inverse design it is possible to generate an 4. If we succeed in the inverse design it is possible to generate an
ideal airfoil section to meet an specific needs, provided it meets
other requirements, for example from the structural viewpoint.
5 It is possible to specify pressure distributions for which a geometry 5. It is possible to specify pressure distributions for which a geometry
does not exist. Hence the restriction in item 1 above.
6. Panel method being accurate and fast comes in a handy, specially
44
02
in 2-D problems. But we have to suitably modify them.
PEMP
ACD2506
An Example of Inverse Airfoil Design
45
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Application of the Panel Method to 3-D Flows (1) Application of the Panel Method to 3-D Flows (1)
EXMP: Wing-body-tail configuration with wakes
46
02
PEMP
ACD2506
EXMP: Details of the wake model required.
47
02
PEMP
ACD2506
EXMP: The space shuttle mounted on a Boeing 747.
48
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Comments on the 3-D Panel Methods Comments on the 3-D Panel Methods
It is tempting to apply the panel methods to 3-D flows.
A 3-D lifting body has induced drag even in a steady, irrotational
flow. Panel methods can be used to calculate the induced drag. But
it needs better accuracy it needs better accuracy.
Application of the Kutta condition needs a careful consideration.
It applies to distinct edges. It can lead to difficulties.
H t d l th k l d f l id ti How to model the wakes also needs careful consideration.
Since the 3-D bodies considered are usually complex, the wake
from one part may interfere with some other parts and hence the flow
may not be strictly irrotational.
Usually quadrilateral panels are used to define a surface. It
requires proper care to define the surface in a consistent manner.
49
02
requires proper care to define the surface in a consistent manner.
PEMP
ACD2506
Higher Order Panel Methods g
Panel methods are approximate methods.
Accuracy of the computational results depends on (1) how well Accuracy of the computational results depends on, (1) how well
we approximate the geometry, (2) how well we approximate the
equations and (3) the round-off errors in the arithmetic. The last part
can be controlled and we will not bother about it here.
We need a larger number of panels for an accurate representation
of the geometry. Often non-planar panels are used. of the geometry. Often non planar panels are used.
In higher order panel methods singularity distributions are not
constant on the panel. This improves the formal accuracy of the
method method.
A smaller number of panels can be used in higher order methods.
However, in practice the need to resolve geometric details dictates
50
02
the number of panels and we cannot reduce the number of panels.
PEMP
ACD2506
Summary
The following topics were dealt in this session
1. Revision of the Panel Methods
2. Verification of the quality of Panel Method Results
3 Validation of the Panel Method Results 3. Validation of the Panel Method Results
4. Airfoil Characteristics- Lift, Pitching Moment, Drag
5. Special Airfoils, Inverse Design p g
6. Higher order and 3-D Panel Methods
51
02
PEMP
ACD2506
Thank you Thank you
52
02

Application of Panel Methods

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Application of Panel Methods

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PEMP

representing a closed surface at infinity

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen