84 views

Uploaded by SNADA

good information on supercritical

- Report 3
- distribucion tipo coseno con intensidad lineal para airfoils naca 4412.pdf
- Baby it's cold outside
- Selig-1994-AIAAJ-CascadeInverseDesign
- Lab1Report
- M.tech Aeronautical Engg
- Theories of Flight
- 21 Month Review
- PV2007_504
- Ae 6401 Aerodynamics1 Two Marks.doc
- Homemade Model Plane
- Project Report AnSys Workbench - Nithin L Devasia
- Boundary Layer
- High Lift Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Design
- 37422504 NACA Airfoil Series
- Homework 5
- s4 1pw1 Forces
- Kaimil_Saman_DBF AIAA OC Conference
- Exp 1 Reynolds' Number
- rwito

You are on page 1of 13

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

aircraft wing design

Yufei Zhang a,1 , Xiaoming Fang a,2 , Haixin Chen a,,3 , Song Fu a,3 , Zhuoyi Duan b,4 ,

Yanjun Zhang b,5

a

b

AVIC The First Aircraft Institute, Xian, 710089, China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 29 September 2014

Received in revised form 26 February 2015

Accepted 27 February 2015

Available online 4 March 2015

Keywords:

Airfoil

Optimization

Natural laminar ow

Pressure gradient constraint

Favorable pressure gradient

a b s t r a c t

An optimization design method of supercritical natural laminar ow airfoil based on Genetic Algorithm

and Computational Fluid Dynamics is tested in this paper. Class Shape Transformation method is

adopted as geometry parameterization method. Constraints on pressure distribution are applied to gain

appropriate ow eld in addition to the L / D performance. A xed transition computation method

is used in the optimization process to save computation time while giving the reasonable friction

drag estimation and predicting the inuence of the laminar boundary layer on airfoil performances.

Specied favorable pressure gradient constraints are used to guarantee the expected laminar length.

Objective of optimization is set to weaken the shock wave and minimize the pressure drag. Such a

simplied NLF optimization process is veried by natural transition computation. The optimal setting

of the favorable pressure gradient constraint, which is important for the trade-off between drag

reduction and laminar stability, is then studied via numerical investigation. Results show that the airfoil

optimized by constraining a favorable pressure gradient larger than 0.2 is good for both cruise eciency

and robustness. A natural laminar wing is then designed based on the optimized airfoil. Numerical

verications show that the wing has good natural laminar performance and low speed behavior.

2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Natural Laminar Flow (NLF) airfoil has already been studied for

several decades [15]. However, it still draws high attention in recent years. As the friction drag is about half of the total drag

for modern civil aircrafts [10], laminar technology has great potential to increase lift to drag ratio. Although a lot of ight tests

had successfully validated the eciency of NLF airfoil on modern large civil aircrafts [16,6], the technology is only realized on

wings of several light business aircrafts in the commercial market

until now, such as the Honda Jet [11,13] and the Aerion Super-

and National Natural Science Foundation of China (11102098 and 11372160).

Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: zhangyufei@tsinghua.edu.cn (Y. Zhang),

chenhaixin@tsinghua.edu.cn (H. Chen).

1

Assistant professor, School of Aerospace Engineering.

2

Master student, School of Aerospace Engineering.

3

Professor, School of Aerospace Engineering.

4

Research professor, General Design and Aerodynamic Department.

5

Senior engineer, General Design and Aerodynamic Department.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2015.02.024

1270-9638/ 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

et al. [19] showed that, NLF design of a Boeing 777-size airplane

could not show improvements on airplane direct operating costs

than conventional turbulent design unless the drag reduction is

more than 40 counts. In order to preserve laminar region, a lower

leading edge sweep angle is adopted in the NLF wing [19]. Consequently, the cruise Mach number is quite lower than turbulent

wing. Increasing cruise Mach number is as important as reducing

skin friction for NLF wing design. Benet and penalty of the NLF

technology need to be clearly quantied.

Airfoil is a fundamental element of a wing. Many investigators

have focused on the supercritical NLF airfoil design because of its

importance for the high-subsonic NLF wing. Biber and Tilmann [4]

developed a supercritical NLF design method based on the panel

and Euler codes coupled with boundary layer equation, and attempted to increase the drag bucket of the NLF airfoil in order to

extend the operational speed range. Eggleston et al. [9] showed

that the peak Mach number, pressure gradient, and aft loading

were critical factors of a favorable pressure distribution of an NLF

airfoil. Cella et al. [5] successfully used the rule of cosine to design a high-subsonic NLF wing with a multi-objective optimization

method. They separately designed the root/kink/tip airfoils and got

153

Nomenclature

Re

Ma

Cp

Cf

Cl

Cd

Reynolds number based on boundary layer momentum thickness

Mach number

Pressure coecient

Friction coecient

Lift coecient

Drag coecient

an NLF wing with good laminar performance. Khalid and Jones [17]

showed the supercritical NLF airfoils with different thicknesses designed at the National Aeronautical Establishment, and the experiment validated good performances of the airfoils at Reynolds number up to 12.5 million. Streit et al. [30] provided a new method

of converting pressure distribution of two-dimensional NLF airfoil

to three-dimensional wing by considering the sweep and tapered

effects. The pressure distribution of the Honda jet [12] provided

some new concepts of supercritical NLF airfoil design, on which

the tailing edge bubble of the upper surface was adopted to suppress low speed ow separation, and the leading-edge shape was

carefully designed to cause transition at high angles of attack (AoA)

to obtain higher maximum lift coecient. Shockwave/boundary

layer interaction is a major cause of transonic drag rising. Aircraft

designers would have an opportunity to raise cruise Mach number

if they could decrease shock wave drag. That is a main objective of

supercritical airfoil design. Apparently, another objective of supercritical NLF airfoil design is to decrease the friction drag. In realistic

high-subsonic design practice, aerodynamic designer usually has a

target (or an expectation) of laminar length for a certain condition

based on experience or literature survey. Consequently, the potential of friction drag reduction is approximately conrmed. The

design problem becomes how to achieve laminar length and how

to reduce shockwave drag. Laminar ow length could be achieved

through maintaining Favorable Pressure Gradient (FPG, or negative

pressure gradient) [8]. However, the FPG should not be so great as

to avoid excessive shock strength [8]. Nevertheless, the quantitative inuence of FPG on drag of supercritical NLF airfoil is not so

clear. Trade-off between wave drag and friction drag is a problem

of NLF airfoil design, which is closely related to the FPG.

With the help of modern optimization methods, the application of NLF technology could be pushed forward. Genetic algorithm

[35,2] and adjoint method [21,22] are two kinds of widely used

optimization methods on airfoil design. Both methods have their

inherent problems. The latter is lack of global optimization ability and dicult to treat realistic design constraints. The former

has the probability to achieve global optimization solution, but requires lots of computation costs. Computation cost of CFD must

be carefully controlled in genetic algorithm optimization. Manin-loop design process is a practical compromise for engineering

applications, for example, introducing some pressure distribution

constraints in a design problem to guide optimization direction

[34,33] and articially adjusting the constraints and objectives during design iteration.

In this paper, supercritical NLF airfoil is optimized for the highsubsonic NLF wing of a regional jet. A Reynolds Averaged Navier

Stokes CFD solver is used as aerodynamic analysis tool. An inhouse developed optimization platform [27] based on the Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II (NSGA-II) [7] is adopted as

background scheduling software. Class shape transformation (CST)

method is employed as airfoil parameterization method. Optimization process is controlled by a series of realistic constraints. Supercritical NLF airfoil is obtained through optimization based on

C d, p

C d, f

Cm

L/D

dC p /d X

t /c

c

Q FPG

Friction drag coecient

Pitching moment

Lift to drag ratio

Pressure coecient gradient of airfoil

Airfoil relative thickness

Chord length

quantity of favorable pressure gradient, dC p /d X

RAE2822 supercritical airfoil. Effect of FPG on laminar characteristics is investigated by six airfoils which are optimized by different pressure distribution constraints. A good compromise between

pressure drag and friction drag is achieved when the FPG on the

upper surface before 50% chord is larger than 0.2. A high-subsonic

NLF wing is got by assembling and simply modifying the optimized

airfoil. Numerical results demonstrate that the wing has both large

laminar region and good robustness.

2. Numerical method and validation

2.1. Turbulence modeling

Aerodynamic analysis in this paper is based on a Reynolds Averaged NavierStokes CFD code. It is used to compute xed transition

ow eld in the optimization, and to calculate natural transition

ow eld after optimization.

In NLF wing design, the accuracy of transition prediction is an

important factor of design quality. Based on Shear Stress Transport (SST) model [23], a transition model had been developed by

Menter et al. [24,25] through adding an intermittency factor ( )

equation and a momentum thickness based Reynolds number (Re )

equation to the turbulence models, called as SST Re model.

Because of the strong source terms in the SST Re model, the

computation time of the SST Re model is much longer than

the SST model, as the CourantFriedrichsLewy number must be

smaller. However, the computation time is a critical factor of genetic algorithm optimization. An alternative method is used in the

present optimization process to reduce computation cost. The pressure distribution of airfoil is predicted by the SST turbulence model

with xed transition when optimizing the airfoil shape and the

accurate transition location is validated by the SST Re model

after optimization. The xed transition location is located based

on the design expectation of laminar length. The xed transition

computation could consider the inuence of the laminar boundary

layer and accurately predict the pressure drag. The laminar length

is achieved through maintaining the FPG. In the next sub-section,

the code is validated by two cases with experimental data. The

pressure distributions of the xed transition and natural transition

computations are also compared.

2.2. Validation

In this paper, we mainly focus on transition prediction capability of the SST Re transition model for supercritical NLF airfoil.

The transition prediction accuracy is validated by two test cases.

The rst is a low speed NLF airfoil, NLF 0416. It is used to test

grid convergence, as well as xed transition computation to ensure it as a cheaper substitution in the optimization process. The

second case NLR 7301 is used to validate the transition prediction

accuracy of transonic ow.

154

locations. It employed microphones, which connected to the orices on the airfoil, to determine the transition location. Transition

locations of present computation are all located between the laminar and turbulence orices of the experiment, which shows the

Re transition models good capability of capturing natural transition.

NLF 0416 is a low speed natural laminar ow airfoil. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration provided a lot of experimental data of the airfoil [29]. In the present study, ow conditions are free stream Mach number = 0.1 and Reynolds number =

1.0 106 . Free stream eddy viscosity is set as 0.1 times of dynamic

viscosity, and turbulence intensity is 0.1%. Fig. 1 shows a grid with

257 97 points. The grid is generated by an in-house developed

grid code. Generated by solving an elliptic equation with a source

term, the mesh is in good orthogonal with the solid wall. The rst

layer in the normal direction is less than 3.0E6 to ensure Y+ less

than 1.0, and increasing rate of the boundary layer grid height

is 1.15. Far-eld boundary is set at 80 times of the chord length

away from the airfoil.

Three meshes with different grid number are used to test grid

convergence. Fig. 2 shows pressure and friction distributions of the

three meshes at the same AoA by SST Re transition model,

as well as the xed transition result of 257 97 points grid by

SST model. The pressure distributions of the different grids computed by the SST Re transition model are almost the same,

and the friction distributions also show a convergent tendency. The

xed transition positions of upper and lower surfaces are located

at 40% and 60%, respectively. The pressure distribution of the xed

transition matches well with the others. The friction distribution

is a little different with the natural transition because of inaccurate xed transition location. The xed transition computation has

quite a little inuence on the drag prediction, as in Table 1. The

xed transition computation of the 257 97 grid costs about 2

minutes on an Intel 2.8 GHz CPU core. However, the natural transition computation on this grid needs about 10 minutes. Therefore

in the optimization, the xed transition computation could be used

to minimize the shock drag in order to increase optimization eciency.

Fig. 3 shows lift and lift-drag polar curves of the computation

results and experimental data. The CFD results are computed by

the 257 97 points grid. Results of transition computations are

in good agreement with experimental data. However, the drag of

full turbulence computation is much higher than experiment. Fig. 4

shows transition locations of the computation compared with experimental data. The experiment could not provide exact transition

NLR 7301 airfoil is a typical supercritical airfoil with large thickness. The Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development

provided a series of transition experimental data [26]. Computation

results are also available in publications [32,36]. In this section,

the airfoil is adopted to test the transition prediction accuracy

for transonic ow, especially with shock/boundary layer interaction. Computation grid is the same as the 361 137 grid of Section 2.2.1. Several free stream Mach numbers are calculated to test

drag rising. Reynolds numbers and AoAs in the experiment are all

2.2 106 and 0.85 . However, AoAs in the present computation

are corrected according to corrections in the experiment, referring

to literature [32]. Free stream eddy viscosity is set as 0.1 times of

dynamic viscosity, and turbulence intensity is 0.1%.

Fig. 5 shows the aerodynamic coecients compared with experiment, including lift, drag and pitching moment coecients. All

of the curves match quite well before Mach number 0.75. However,

the shockwave/boundary layer interaction becomes very strong after drag rising (Ma = 0.75), leading to deviation of the RANS results. Nevertheless, the Mach number of drag divergence is well

captured. Fig. 6 shows transition locations compared with experimental data at different Mach numbers. On both upper and lower

surfaces, the computed transition locations match well with the

experimental data. Results of NLR 7301 validated the transition

prediction capability for transonic ow, and the accuracy of both

pressure and friction drag. Such a capability provides the basis for

supercritical NLF validation.

The 257 97 points grid is having a good accuracy together

with an acceptable computation cost. In the following section, this

grid is chosen as the design grid in the optimization process, and

the 361 137 points grid is employed as a natural transition validation grid after optimization.

3. Natural laminar airfoil optimization

3.1. Design requirements of NLF airfoil

The NLF wing in this paper is designed for a high-subsonic

regional jet. The objectives and constraints of NLF airfoil are derived from the needs of the wing. Cruise Mach number of the

regional jet is 0.76, and ight altitude is 37 000 ft. Fig. 7 shows

the planform of the wing. Sweep angles of leading edge and 1/2

chord are 17.50 and 13.60 , respectively. Airfoil optimization is

focused on proles of the outboard wing. Rule of cosine [5] can be

Fig. 2. Results of three different grids of NLF 0416 (Ma = 0.1, Re = 1.0E6, AoA = 1 ).

155

Table 1

Aerodynamic coecients of different computations of NLF 0416 airfoil (Ma = 0.1, Re = 1.0E6, AoA = 1 ).

Lift coecient, C l

Drag coecient, C d

Pressure drag, C d, p

Friction drag, C d, f

Transition positions (upper/lower surfaces)

187 69 grid

Natural transition

257 97 grid

Natural transition

Natural transition

257 97 grid

Fixed transition

0.528

0.0089

0.0036

0.0053

42%/62%

0.541

0.0086

0.0034

0.0052

45%/62%

0.544

0.0087

0.0035

0.0052

45%/63%

0.551

0.0091

0.0036

0.0055

40%/60% (xed)

Fig. 3. Lift and lift/drag polar curves of NLF 0416 airfoil (Ma = 0.1, Re = 1.0E6, 257

97 grid).

used to transform wing parameter to airfoil requirement. In general speaking, any sweep angle from leading edge to trailing edge

of a tapered wing could be used for 3D to 2D parameter transformation. However, Streit et al. [30] suggest that the sweep angle at

shock wave location could be a good choice for transonic airfoil. In

this paper, the shock wave location is found to be near the 1/2c, so

the sweep angle of the 1/2 chord is used to decide the airfoil design Mach number. Relative thickness of the airfoil is transformed

from the kink location. The parameters of airfoil design are listed

in Table 2.

There are three types of transition mechanisms on sweep wing,

which are TollmienSchlichting (TS) instability, crossow instability and attachment line instability or contamination. TS instability

could be suppressed by FPG. In this paper, the TS instability is

controlled by pressure distribution constraints in optimization and

predicted by the SST Re transition model after optimization.

Crossow instability and attachment line contamination could not

be directly captured in 2-D computation. Referring to ight tests of

Anderson and Meyer [1], the transition location is almost the same

when the sweep angle is less than 20 . Therefore, crossow instability could be excluded in the present planform. Attachment line

contamination is also a cause of premature transition. It is primarily inuenced by leading edge radius. A leading edge momentum

Reynolds number is often used to estimate the leading edge contamination [28,3]. In the present optimization, the leading edge

radius is restricted to be less than 0.035c because the leading edge

momentum Reynolds number should be less than 100 [28,3].

3.2. Class-shape transformation method

Parameterization method should have fewer variables and

larger design space. In recent years, Class-Shape Transformation

(CST) [18,20] method is widely used in aerodynamic optimization.

In the method, an airfoil with a blunt trailing edge is dened as

the product of a class function and a shape function, plus a linear term of tail thickness, as in Eq. (1). The = Y /c, = X /c are

the normalized coordinates of the airfoil. The te is the tail thickN

ness. The C N 21 () is a class function, as in Eq. (2). Round nose and

and N 2 = 1.0. In this paper, the shape function S () is dened by

a combination of Bernstein polynomials B ni (), as in Eq. (3). The

b i is design variable vector, which represents weights of Bernstein

polynomials. Upper and lower surfaces of airfoil are generated by

two independent polynomials. Thus it is dicult to explicitly x

the airfoil thickness in the method. When designing an airfoil with

a certain thickness, Y coordinate of the airfoil is scaled to control

thickness.

() = C NN21 () S () +

N

C N 21 ()

S () =

te

(1)

= N 1 (1 ) N 2

n

(2)

b i B ni ()

i =0

which B ni () = K ni i (1 )ni , K ni =

n!

i !(n i )!

(3)

lower surfaces in this paper. Table 3 shows ranges of the CST variables in the optimization. The rst variables of both upper and

lower surfaces are different with the others in order to obtain a

large leading edge radius. The sixth and seventh variables of the

lower surface are adjusted to obtain aft loading. Each variable is

separated by 201 steps in the optimization, thus possible parameter combinations are about 20114 1.76 1032 .

3.3. Airfoil optimization with pressure distribution constraint

For supercritical NLF airfoil, wave drag is primarily determined

by the Mach number before the shock wave, and friction drag is

controlled by the length of laminar region. Sucient FPG length in

the front part of NLF airfoil is needed to maintain laminar ow.

However, FPG would raise the Mach number ahead of shock and

increase wave drag. Therefore the appropriate FPG is the key issue

of NLF supercritical airfoil design.

In the authors previous publications [34,33], pressure distribution constraints can be applied on the airfoil or wing design

process to gain a good overall supercritical performance. Such a

pressure distribution constraint provides us with a tool to obtain

airfoils with different pressure gradients and compare their performances.

In order to not only design an airfoil with minimum drag, but

also separately study the effects of the FPG on pressure drag and

156

Fig. 5. Aerodynamic coecients of the NLR 7301 airfoil varying with Mach number (Re = 2.2E6).

Fig. 6. Transition location of NLR 7301 airfoil varying with Mach number (Re =

2.2E6).

Table 2

NLF airfoil design parameters.

Value

Cruise Mach number

Reynolds number

Lift coecient

Relative thickness

0.739

1.0E7

0.55

12.35%

different pressure gradient constraints, based on xed transition

computation and a reasonable transition location, corresponding

low pressure drag airfoils are designed by optimization [34,33].

Then the transition computations are conducted on these airfoils

to validate the real laminar ow length, and to investigate the effects of the pressure gradient, and at the same time, get overall

optimal design.

In this section, the xed transition points of both upper and

lower surfaces are set to be at X = 0.52c, as we suppose that the

laminar region of the nal design should be longer than 50%. It

also assumes that the shock wave should locate after X = 0.52c,

because the computation would not be stable if ow after the

shock wave is still laminar. Such a setting is reasonable for supercritical NLF airfoil design. Objective of optimization is to minimize the pressure drag. Shock wave drag will be implicitly minimized with this objective. NSGA-II is employed as the optimization

method. The 257 97 points grid discussed in Section 2.2.1 is used

in the optimization process.

The optimization problem is dened as in Eq. (4). The design

conditions are from Section 3.1. Leading edge radius R LE is limited

to be less than 0.035 in order to avoid leading edge contamination, and larger than 0.010 to ensure a good enough low speed

stall behavior. Pitching moment C m is expected to be larger than

0.10 to restrict trim drag. Because of xed transition computation, the friction drag variation of airfoils is quite small. However,

if ow separation exists in the ow, friction drag would be small

because of the reverse ow direction. Consequently, friction drag

constraint C d, f > 0.0025 is employed to rule out designs with

ow separation. In order to maintain laminar ow, and to improve optimization eciency, the quantity of the FPG, denoted as

Q FPG = dC p /d X , are applied in the optimization. On the front

part of airfoil, where X < 0.50, for both upper and lower surfaces

Q FPG should be larger than 0.0. dC p /d X is limited to be less than

3.0 on the pressure recovery region ( X > 0.70) to avoid trailing

edge separation [8].

Table 3

Parameter ranges of the CST design variables.

Upper surface parameter number

Parameter range

1

[0.05, 0.3]

27

[0.0, 0.3]

Parameter range

25

[0.3, 0.0]

[0.3, 0.05]

[0.2, 0.1]

7

[0.0, 0.3]

157

Fig. 8. Iteration history of the NLF supercritical airfoil optimization. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure, the reader is referred to the web version of

this article.)

min

C d, p

s.t.

Ma = 0.739;

Re = 1.0E7;

C l = 0.55

t /c = 12.35%

R LE < 0.035;

R LE 0.010

C m 0.10

C d, f 0.0025

Q FPG |Upper and Lower, X <0.50 > 0.0

(4)

each generation. The rst generation contains the CST parameters

of the RAE2822 airfoil and 31 random parameter combinations.

Optimization is terminated after 100 generations. Total number of

individuals generated in this process is 3200. However, only about

2100 individuals are computed by CFD because duplicated individuals could be generated due to the elite strategy of NSGA-II [7].

Total computation time is about 6 hours on a 32-core 2.8 GHz

workstation.

Fig. 8 shows the iteration history of the optimization. Each airfoil is given a Design ID, which is equal to generation population + individual number. Fig. 8(a) shows all results of the

optimization process. The red points are unfeasible designs which

do not fully satisfy all constraints of Eq. (4). The black points are

feasible designs that satisfy all of the constraints. The results show

that feasible designs rst appear after ID > 250, and a lot of un-

feasible designs have less pressure drag than the feasible designs.

Fig. 8(b) shows the history of feasible designs. A clear convergent

tendency could be seen when ID > 1500. Furthermore, feasible designs become less and less when ID > 2500 because individuals

identical to already exist designs are produced more and more frequently, which means convergent solution is approached.

Three airfoil shapes and pressure distributions in the optimization process are shown in Fig. 9. Corresponding Mach number

contours are presented in Fig. 10. The original design (called as

ORD) in the gures is the scaled RAE 2822 airfoil of the rst generation. The ORD is unfeasible because FPG on the lower surface is

not sucient for NLF design, and the pitching moment is also too

large.

The rst feasible design (called as FFD) is the airfoil which rst

satises all constraints. The maximum thickness location of FFD

moves towards the trailing edge to obtain a longer region of FPG

on the lower surface, as in Fig. 9(b). However, Mach number ahead

of shock exceeds 1.2, as in Fig. 10(b), and the shock wave is very

strong. The optimized design (called as OPD) is the design which

has the minimum pressure drag in all of the feasible designs. It is

from the 97th generation. Lower surfaces of the FFD and OPD are

similar. The FPG region is longer than 50% of the chord on both

upper and lower surface. Result shows that, at the current design

Mach number and lift coecient, shock wave might be unavoidable. However, the shock wave of the OPD is obviously weaker than

the ORD and FFD. The Mach number ahead of shock is 1.12, as in

Fig. 10(c), which is an acceptable value for transonic airfoil.

158

Fig. 10. Mach number contours of the three airfoils in optimization process. (For interpretation of the colors in this gure, the reader is referred to the web version of this

article.)

Table 4

Aerodynamic coecients of the three airfoils (Ma = 0.739, Re = 10.0 million, C l = 0.55).

Computation method

Aerodynamic coecient

Fixed transition

Pressure drag C d, p

Friction drag C d, f

Pitching moment C m

0.00314

0.00303

0.117

0.00738

0.00300

0.0739

0.00195

0.00315

0.0894

Natural transition

Pressure drag C d, p

Friction drag C d, f

Total drag C d

Lift to drag ratio L / D

Transition positions (upper/lower surfaces)

0.00314

0.00316

0.00630

87.36

57%/44%

0.00757

0.00288

0.01045

52.63

59%/55%

0.00212

0.00299

0.00511

107.52

57%/54%

Fig. 11. Pressure distributions and friction coecient distributions of the ORD and OPD.

The three airfoils are validated by natural transition computation. Results of the xed transition and natural transition computations are compared in Table 4. It could be seen that the pressure

drag from both computation methods are close to each other. After

optimization, the L / D is increased by about 20. Most of the drag

reduction comes from the pressure drag. The friction drag is also

reduced by a little, although such a reduction is not expected by

using such a process.

Fig. 11(a) shows pressure distributions of natural transition

computation and xed transition computation. Pressure distributions of the two methods show only a little difference. The results

prove that the xed transition computation could well predict the

pressure distribution of the airfoils. Fig. 11(b) shows friction coef-

cient distributions of the ORD and OPD airfoils which are both

computed by the SST Re transition computations. The transition location is closely related to the length of FPG region. As in

Fig. 11(b), laminar region of the lower surface is increased by a lot

after optimization. However, laminar region on the upper surface is

a little bit reduced because the shock wave location is moved back

towards the leading edge. However, it is necessary penalty paid

to weaken the shockwave. Nevertheless, laminar region length of

the OPD is more than 55% for both upper and lower surfaces. It

is a little longer than the pre-assumed transition locations for the

xed transition computation, which means that the FPG constraint

is adequate to generate such a laminar ow region at this Reynolds

number. The optimization method with xed transition computa-

159

Fig. 13. Shapes and pressure distributions of the airfoils with different Q FPG constraints.

Fig. 14. Friction coecient distributions of the six airfoils at different Reynolds numbers (Ma = 0.739, C l = 0.55).

satisfactory designs.

3.4. Effect of Q FPG on transition

In last section, the expected pressure gradient can be obtained

by setting a constraint on Q FPG through the optimization process,

and the expected laminar length can be achieved by maintaining a

constraint. Is it the larger the better? Is it related to Reynolds numbers?

With the pressure gradient constrained optimization, we are

able to design and compare a series of airfoils with different pressure distribution gradients, or different length of FPG. With the

pressure drag minimized by the optimization, such a process could

provide an insight into how the pressure gradient is affecting the

transition performance, taking into account not only the friction

drag, but also the robustness and Reynolds number effects.

160

pressure gradients from Q FPG > 0.0 to Q FPG > 1.0 are set before

the 50% chord of upper surface. The length of FPG on the lower

surface is expected to be more than 60%. In the optimization process, the xed transition locations of the upper and lower surfaces

are set at 52% and 62%, respectively. The optimized design in Section 3.3 is put into the rst generation as the original design in the

following optimizations.

min

C d, p

s.t.

Ma = 0.739;

Re = 1.0E7;

C l = 0.55

t /c = 12.35%

R LE < 0.035;

R LE 0.010

C m 0.10

C d, f 0.0025

Q FPG |Upper, X <0.50 > 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, or 1.0

Fig. 15. Friction drag and total drag of the six airfoils varying with Reynolds number

(Ma = 0.739, C l = 0.55).

dC p /d X

< 3.0

(5)

got six optimized airfoils corresponding to different upper surface

pressure distribution constraints, which are designated as Q FPG >

0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 airfoils, respectively. Fig. 12 shows

the drag coecient histories of the different FPG constraints. Only

the feasible designs are plotted in the gures. All cases are iterated

about 90100 generations. With the increase of Q FPG , feasible designs are less and less. It is clear that the drag increases with Q FPG

increasing, because the shock wave drag is increased, while the

friction drag is almost unaffected in the xed transition computation.

Fig. 13 compares the shapes and the pressure distributions of

four airfoils out of the six and the original airfoil. Shapes and lower

surface pressure distributions are similar. Lengths of the FPG on

the lower surface are more than 60% chord. The shock wave becomes stronger and stronger as the specied limitation of Q FPG

increases.

Based on the above six airfoils, ve Reynolds numbers ranging

from 10 million to 20 million are computed by transition model to

test the sensitivity of pressure distribution to the FPG constraints.

Different Reynolds numbers could represent ow conditions of

different types of aircrafts with different size, conguration and

speed. Reynolds number less than 1.0 107 could be the ight

condition of business jet, and Reynolds number 1.5 107 represents the typical condition of regional jet, while Reynolds number

higher than 2.0 107 might correspond to the narrow body airliners. In the present computation, the free stream eddy viscosity is

0.1 times of dynamic viscosity, and turbulence intensity is 0.1%, as

the airfoils are supposed to be in ight rather than in wind tunnel.

Fig. 14 shows friction coecient distributions of the six airfoils at three Reynolds numbers with the same lift coecient.

As shown in Fig. 14, all of the airfoils have quite large areas of

laminar ow, which indicates that the constraints of Q FPG are adequate to obtain laminar ow. From all the ve Reynolds number

studied, we could gure out some transition tendencies from the

results:

(1) When the Reynolds number is 1.0 107 , transition locations

on the upper surface are all later than 50% chord. Remember that

the FPG region is constrained to be longer than 50%, actual length

of FPG on the upper surface is determined by shock wave location,

so are the transition locations. Transition locations on the lower

surfaces keep the same for different airfoils, no shock is detected

on the lower surface. All these facts indicate that the transition

location is not sensitive to the quantity of FPG at this Reynolds

number range, but only to the shock location.

the upper surface is mostly before 50% chord. The differences are

hence not produced by the shock, but by the intensity of FPG.

Transition locations move downstream with the Q FPG increasing.

The only exception is the Q FPG > 1.0 airfoil. The shock wave of this

airfoil is very strong and induces a small separation bubble, which

might inuence the transition location. From airfoils of Q FPG > 0.0

to Q FPG > 0.8, transition locations of the upper surfaces move from

35% to 53% chords. For lower surfaces, transition locations are also

all before 60% chord, which is also less than the assigned FPG

range. At this Reynolds number, the pressure gradient should be

carefully designed to get adequate laminar length.

(3) When the Reynolds number is 2.0 107 , the effect of Q FPG

becomes small. Variations of the upper surface transition locations

are less than 6% chord. The longest laminar region is less than 30%

chord, which is on the Q FPG > 0.8 airfoil. For such a large Reynolds

number, a large range of NLF is dicult to realize. Hybrid NLF and

laminar control measures must be considered.

Fig. 15 shows friction drag and total drag of the six airfoils at

different Reynolds numbers. Friction drag of the Q FPG > 0.0 airfoil is the largest. By increasing the Q FPG from 0.0 to 1.0, benet

of friction drag achieved is about 4 drag counts with Reynolds

number less than 1.5 107 . However, the benet drops to less

than 2 drag counts when Reynolds is 2.0 107 . Total drag of

the Q FPG > 1.0 airfoil is much larger than other airfoils, as the

shock wave is quite strong. The total drags of the Q FPG > 0.0 airfoil and the Q FPG > 0.4 airfoil are almost the same when Reynolds

numbers less than 1.5 107 , which means the variations of friction drag and pressure drag are balanced on these two points.

However, when Reynolds number is 2.0 107 , the total drag of

Q FPG > 0.0 airfoil and Q FPG > 0.2 airfoil are about the same. The

Q FPG > 0.2 airfoil is the best one which has the least total drag for

all Reynolds numbers. It worth to be mentioned that constraints

of the recovery region ( X > 0.70) and the pitching moment greatly

limit the application of aft loading, which has the potential of further reducing shock wave drag.

Robustness of transition location is also an important criterion

for the evaluation of NLF airfoil. Flight could be unsafe if aerodynamic forces are not stable. Flight control problem would arise if

the aerodynamic derivatives change in cruise range. In the present

computation, the airfoils are computed at different AoAs to test

robustness. Fig. 16 shows polar curves of the Q FPG > 0.0, 0.2 and

0.4 airfoils, whose cruise drag coecients are close. Fig. 17 shows

the corresponding transition locations. Clear drag buckets can be

seen on the curves of Fig. 16. The lower extent (C l about 0.1

to 0.2) of the drag bucket of Q FPG > 0.0 airfoil, which is dom-

161

Fig. 16. Polar curves of three airfoils at Reynolds number 10.0M and 12.0M.

Fig. 18. Pressure distributions varying with angles of attack (Ma = 0.739, Re = 10.0M).

two airfoils; however, the lift coecients may not appear in real

ight. The upper extents of the drag buckets are quite different.

Drag of the Q FPG > 0.0 airfoil shows a sudden rise when C l > 0.4

(AoA > 0.75 ), which demonstrates that premature transition occurs on the upper surface. As shown in Fig. 17, the upper surface

transition locations of Q FPG > 0.0 airfoil at AoAs from 0.5 to 1.0

are not stable, which means poor robustness. The other two airfoils

show better performance near the lift coecient of cruise range

(0.6 > C l > 0.4).

looking into the pressure distribution. Fig. 18 shows the pressure

distributions varying with AoAs. With the AoA deviating from the

design point, the pressure distribution cannot always keep the favorable gradient. There will be an adverse region on the suction

roof-top. The adverse pressure gradient should be the cause of

premature transition. For the Q FPG > 0.0 airfoil, adverse pressure

gradient is strong when AoA is less than 1 ; However, for the

Q FPG > 0.2 and 0.4 airfoils, the adverse pressure gradients only appear at 0.5 and are much weaker. Besides the increase in friction

162

drag, the premature transition also changes the slope of lift coefcient, as shown in Fig. 19. From the above results, we could see

that the Q FPG > 0.2 airfoil is the best airfoil with both low cruise

drag and good robustness.

4. High-subsonic NLF wing design

Fig. 19. Lift coecient curves of the Q FPG > 0.0 and Q FPG > 0.2 airfoils.

In this section, the Q FPG > 0.2 airfoil is used as the baseline airfoil of high-subsonic wing. Based on the conclusions in Section 3,

the FPG region of the lower surface is expected before only 50%

chord. The baseline airfoil is optimized again with the new design

constraints. Fig. 20 shows the control proles, which are located at

the root, kink and tip locations. The relative thicknesses of the root,

kink and tip locations are 15%, 12% and 10%, respectively. Rule of

cosine [5] is used to obtain the 2-D airfoil thickness. Spline-based

surface is adopted to ensure smoothness in the span-wise direction. The baseline airfoil is installed at the kink location. The wing

is installed onto a wing-body conguration to validate the performance. Cut and try method is employed to adjust the root and

tip airfoils. At the beginning of wing design, the upper surfaces

of the root and tip airfoils are copied from the kink airfoil, while

the lower surfaces are scaled from the kink airfoil to t the thickness requirements. The kink airfoil is kept unchanged during the

design process. After about 30 iterations of manual modications

and CFD computations, an NLF wing is obtained. Fig. 21 shows the

control airfoils of the NLF wing. The upper surface shapes of the

airfoils are similar with each other. In contrast, the lower surfaces

are quite different because of the differences of the relative thickness.

Fig. 22 shows surface pressure contour and pressure distributions at the cruise condition Ma = 0.76, C l = 0.42, Re = 1.6E7

(based on mean aerodynamic chord). The computation grid involves 15 million points, and the Y+ of the rst grid layer is less

than 1.0. The isolines of the pressure in the span-wise direction

are almost straight, as shown in Fig. 22(a). Clear FPG can be seen

in the stream-wise direction, as in Fig. 22(b). Fig. 23 shows the

skin friction contour and friction contours of the wing/body. Both

the upper and lower surfaces have large areas of the laminar ow.

Performances of the cruise Mach number 0.76 and low Mach

number 0.2 are also validated by the CFD method. Fig. 24 shows

lift and lift-drag ratio curves of the two Mach numbers. At the

cruise Mach number, the lift coecient remains linearly increasing

until AoA = 3.5 , on which the lift coecient is about 0.77, that is

larger than 1.3 times of the cruise lift coecient 0.42. Moreover,

the lift-drag polar does not have unexpected uctuation. The lift

Fig. 22. Surface pressure contour and pressure distributions at four sections (Ma = 0.76, C l = 0.42, Re = 1.6E7). (For interpretation of the colors in this gure, the reader is

referred to the web version of this article.)

163

Fig. 23. Surface friction contour and friction coecient distributions at four sections (Ma = 0.76, C l = 0.42, Re = 1.6E7). (For interpretation of the colors in this gure, the

reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 24. Lift coecient and lift-drag polar curves of the wing/body conguration.

to drag ratio is 22.95 when C l = 0.42 for the wing/body conguration. Low speed stall behavior also shows good performance. The

maximum lift coecient is larger than 1.25, which shows that the

constraints of minimum leading edge radius are effective to guarantee low speed performance.

5. Conclusions

An optimization method of supercritical NLF airfoil is introduced in this paper. The work could be concluded as:

(1) A supercritical NLF airfoil optimization method is developed based on genetic algorithm and CFD. With design expectation

of laminar length, the optimization method uses a xed transition computation to evaluate the friction drag and consider the

inuence of laminar boundary layer, rather than accurately predicting the transition location. With the aid of FPG constraint, the

design expectation of laminar length could be guaranteed, which

is validated by the SST Re transition model. The optimization can then be focused on minimizing the pressure drag (mainly

the shock drag), and the computational consumption is greatly reduced. With the help of FPG constraint in optimization, airfoils

with a specied quantity of favorable gradient, which is believed

to be the key issue of preserving laminar ow of NLF airfoil, can

be designed.

(2) Effects of the FPG on transition location are studied in this

paper. The results show that for moderate Reynolds number, the

variation of FPG has the most signicant effect on the laminar

ow region. When the Reynolds number is small, instead of natural

by the shock wave. Moreover, when the Reynolds number is large,

the transition location is only slightly affected by the FPG.

(3) Favorable pressure gradient of dC p /d X > 0.2 is a good

compromise for supercritical NLF airfoil in the design condition of

present paper. With such a constraint, the optimized airfoil can

have good performance on both cruise drag and robustness. Airfoil with lower FPG will be easy to endure a premature transition

at off-design AoA. The premature transition, causing sudden rise of

drag and change of the lift slope near the cruise condition, needs

to be carefully treated when designing an airfoil.

(4) The optimized supercritical NLF airfoil is applied to an NLF

wing design as its baseline airfoil. The good supercritical NLF properties of the airfoil can be well preserved in the wing.

Conict of interest statement

The authors declared that they have no conicts of interest to

this work.

References

[1] B.T. Anderson, R.R. Meyer, Effects of wing sweep on in-ight boundary-layer

transition for a laminar ow wing at Mach numbers from 0.60 to 0.79, NASA

Technical Memorandum 101701, 1990.

[2] A.P. Antunes, J.L.F. Azevedo, R.G. Silva, A framework for aerodynamic optimization based on genetic algorithms, AIAA paper 2009-1094, 2009.

[3] D. Arnal, J. Perraud, A. Sraudie, Attachment line and surface imperfection

problems, VKI course Advances in Laminar-Turbulent Transition Modeling,

912 June 2008, Brussels, EN-AVT-151-09.

164

[4] K. Biber, C.P. Tilmann, Supercritical airfoil design for future high-altitude longendurance concepts, J. Aircr. 41 (1) (2004) 156164.

[5] U. Cella, D. Quagliarella, R. Donelli, B. Imperatore, Design and test of the

UW-5006 transonic natural-laminar-ow wing, J. Aircr. 47 (3) (2010) 783795.

[6] F.S. Collier, An overview of recent subsonic laminar ow control ight experiments, AIAA Paper 1993-2987, 1993.

[7] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist multiobjective

genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6 (2) (2002) 182197.

[8] P. Edi, J.P. Fielding, Civil-transport wing design concept exploiting new technologies, J. Aircr. 43 (4) (2006) 932940.

[9] B. Eggleston, R.J.D. Poole, D.J. Jones, M. Khalid, Thick supercritical airfoils with

lowdrag and natural laminar ow, J. Aircr. 24 (6) (1987) 405411.

[10] A. Filippone, Data and performances of selected aircraft and rotorcraft, Prog.

Aerosp. Sci. 36 (2000) 629654.

[11] M. Fujino, Design and development of the Honda jet, J. Aircr. 42 (3) (2005)

755764.

[12] M. Fujino, Y. Yoshizaki, Y. Kawamura, Natural-laminar-ow airfoil development

for the Honda jet, AIAA paper 2002-2932, 2002.

[13] M. Fujino, Y. Yoshizaki, Y. Kawamura, Natural-laminar-ow airfoil development

for a lightweight business jet, J. Aircr. 40 (4) (2003) 609615.

[14] G.A. Garzon, J.R. Matisheck, Supersonic testing of natural laminar ow on sharp

leading edge airfoils. Recent experiments by Aerion corporation, AIAA paper

2012-3258, 2012.

[15] B.J. Holmes, C.J. Obara, Observations and implications of natural laminar ow

on practical airplane surfaces, J. Aircr. 20 (12) (1983) 9931006.

[16] R.D. Joslin, Overview of laminar ow control, NASA/TP 1998-208705, 1998.

[17] M. Khalid, D.J. Jones, A summary of transonic natural laminar ow airfoil development at NAE, Aeronautical note NAE-AN-65, NRC No. 31608, 1990.

[18] B.M. Kulfan, A universal parametric geometry representation method CST,

AIAA paper 2007-62, 2007.

[19] T. Lammering, E. Anton, K. Risse, K. Franz, R. Hoernschemeyer, Gains in fuel efciency: multi-stop missions vs. laminar aircraft, AIAA paper 2011-6885, 2011.

[20] K.A. Lane, D.D. Marshall, Inverse airfoil design utilizing CST parameterization,

AIAA paper 2010-1228, 2010.

[21] J.D. Lee, A. Jameson, Natural-laminar-ow airfoil and wing design by adjoint

method and automatic transition prediction, AIAA paper 2009-897, 2009.

[22] J.Q. Luo, J.T. Xiong, F. Liu, Aerodynamic design optimization by using a continuous adjoint method, Sci. China, Phys. Mech. Astron. 57 (7) (2014) 13631375.

[23] F.R. Menter, M. Kuntz, R. Langtry, Ten years of industrial experience with the

SST turbulence model, Turbul. Heat Mass Transf. 4 (2003) 625632.

[24] F.R. Menter, R.B. Langtry, S.R. Likki, et al., A correlation-based transition model

using local variables Part I: Model formulation, J. Turbomach. 128 (2006)

413422.

[25] F.R. Menter, R.B. Langtry, S.R. Likki, et al., A correlation-based transition model

using local variables Part II: Test cases and industrial applications, J. Turbomach. 128 (2006) 423434.

[26] NLR 7301 Airfoil, Experimental data base for computer program assessment,

AGARD Rept. AR-138, Neuilly sur Seine, France, 1979.

[27] A. Ni, Y. Zhang, H. Chen, An improvement to NSGA-II algorithm and its application in optimization design of multi-element airfoil, Acta Aerodyn. Sin. 32 (2)

(2014) 252257.

[28] H.L. Reed, W.S. Saric, Attachment-line heating in a compressible ow, AIAA paper 2011-3242, 2011.

[29] D.M. Somers, Design and experimental results for a natural-laminar-ow airfoil for general aviation applications, Technical report NASA TP-1861, Langley

Research Center, 1981.

[30] T. Streit, G. Wichmann, F. Knoblauch, R.L. Campbell, Implications of conical ow

for laminar wing design and analysis, AIAA paper 2011-3808, 2011.

[31] P. Sturdza, Extensive supersonic natural laminar ow on the Aerion business

jet, AIAA paper 2007-685, 2007.

[32] G. Wang, H.H. Mian, Z.Y. Ye, J.D. Lee, Numerical study of transitional ow

around NLR-7301 airfoil using correlation-based transition model, J. Aircr.

51 (1) (2014) 342349.

[33] Y. Zhang, H. Chen, S. Fu, et al., A practical optimization design method

for transport aircraft wing/nacelle integration, Acta Aeronaut. Astronaut. Sin.

33 (11) (2012) 19932001 (in Chinese).

[34] Y. Zhang, H. Chen, M. Zhang, et al., Supercritical wing design and optimization

for transonic civil airplane, AIAA paper 2011-27, 2011.

[35] Y. Zhang, H. Chen, W. Zhang, et al., Wing/engine integrated optimization based

on NavierStokes equations, AIAA paper 2012-1046, 2012.

[36] K. Zhao, Z.H. Gao, J.T. Huang, Robust design of natural laminar ow supercritical airfoil by multi-objective evolution method, Appl. Math. Mech. 35 (2)

(2014) 191202.

- Report 3Uploaded byNileemaNagar
- distribucion tipo coseno con intensidad lineal para airfoils naca 4412.pdfUploaded byMarcos Duarte
- Baby it's cold outsideUploaded bythe_gov
- Selig-1994-AIAAJ-CascadeInverseDesignUploaded byfcevik
- Lab1ReportUploaded byJoe Montroy
- M.tech Aeronautical EnggUploaded byadarsh
- Theories of FlightUploaded byVincent S Ryan
- 21 Month ReviewUploaded byJoseph Chang
- PV2007_504Uploaded byAndres Perez Garcia
- Ae 6401 Aerodynamics1 Two Marks.docUploaded bySun Heifer
- Homemade Model PlaneUploaded bysugerd
- Project Report AnSys Workbench - Nithin L DevasiaUploaded byarunonmax
- Boundary LayerUploaded bySayak Ghosh
- High Lift Low Reynolds Number Airfoil DesignUploaded byalexis477
- 37422504 NACA Airfoil SeriesUploaded bykostis antoniadis
- Homework 5Uploaded byscribdrnv
- s4 1pw1 ForcesUploaded byNina Tran
- Kaimil_Saman_DBF AIAA OC ConferenceUploaded byWai-Yen Chan
- Exp 1 Reynolds' NumberUploaded byDonna Mae Ramos Galaez
- rwitoUploaded byom5886
- MOdelling_of_Wake-Induced_Transition_with_Dynamic_.pdfUploaded byZang Nguyen
- ADP-I(1)Uploaded byselina
- ME 305 Part 7 Similitude and Dimensional AnalysisUploaded byDavid Brown
- Applied Aerodynamics,2016 ~ LernerUploaded byAnonymous mNJoAxCZ
- 03 Baracu t, Grigoras-benescu S- Computational Analysis of the Flow Around a Cylinder and of the Drag Force,2011_post,FinalUploaded byTud Bar
- 7234Uploaded bySebastian Yatra
- Wortley 2013 Cfd Analysis of Container Ship SinkageUploaded bytanasa
- Group 5 Report Edit 2Uploaded byvivekhv
- Supersonic a Lift and DragUploaded byKaleeswaran Einstein
- Matlab Lesson 4Uploaded byMohamed Rizvan

- ArtContest FlyerUploaded bySNADA
- For Flight DynamicsUploaded bySNADA
- Gauss Jordan Method for Solving Systems of Linear EquationsUploaded byciki1
- Determinant 4 x 4 MatrixUploaded byPhoebeliza Jane Broñola
- Calender_2016-17Uploaded byVenkat Eswar
- 1-s2.0-S0960148111005209-mainUploaded byNung Ning
- QCC Blooms Taxonomy Action VerbsUploaded bySNADA
- Advertisement-for-short-term-training-programmes.pdfUploaded bySNADA
- Active and Passive Control of Flow Past a CavityUploaded bySNADA
- Progress in Aerospace Sciences ArticleUploaded bySNADA
- Progress in Aerospace Sciences ArticleUploaded bySNADA
- Chapter_02Uploaded bykvnsai
- Propeller TheoryUploaded bytats88
- Inviscid Hypersonic Flow Over Blunt-nosed Slender BodiesUploaded bySNADA
- MSW A4 FormatUploaded byricardus25
- Lect 003 Introduction to AerodynamicsUploaded bySNADA
- Expaero01Uploaded bySNADA
- Expaero01Uploaded bySNADA
- Aerospace ndustyUploaded bySNADA
- Expaero02Uploaded bySNADA
- chapter11_Phys201_Summer07Uploaded bySNADA
- Basic Idea of LSP Simulation ConceptsUploaded bySNADA
- Bound LayerUploaded bySNADA
- 12 Five Year PlanUploaded bySNADA
- Issues Concerning Roughness on Wind Turbine BladesUploaded bySNADA
- Introduction to Aerospace Engineering 2nd EditionUploaded byAlice Bot
- Thesis HansenUploaded bythanikavel
- Ae2353 Wind Tunnel Techniques l t p cUploaded bySNADA
- An Efficient Life Prediction Methodology for Low Cycle Fatigue-creep Based on Ductility Exhaustion TheoryUploaded bySNADA

- Gunj glass works. ltd visit reportUploaded byHM Bhatti
- solar returnUploaded byvadic
- 2014-15 Incubator School Job Announcement + OnePagerUploaded byIncubatorSchool
- 578 Brissette Et Al Geometallurgy New Accurate Testwork to Meet Accuracy of Mining Project Development Reviewed R3Uploaded byGutierrezC
- Article File Treatment of Lumbar InstabilityUploaded byAjay Nagarajan
- 1454220118_Sowparnika_8.pdfUploaded byulaganathan
- FruinCausesUploaded byVarun Swaminathan
- Carbomax Bulk Activated Carbon LtrUploaded byAkshey
- 2-3-09Uploaded byDMatias
- Chapter 2 - 2d TransformationUploaded byShubham Tyagi
- 4th Sem EC 1257 MicroprocessorUploaded byHarleen Barmi
- 03 Mine-Geotechnical Field InvestigationUploaded bydesyayualvrida
- sped professional ethics.pdfUploaded byJaja Agustero-Naparan
- Olay 1111Uploaded byShams S
- QUALITY ENGINEERINGUploaded byRamona
- Human Chemistry Student Notes OutlineUploaded byJames Dauray
- Three Approaches Participative InquiryUploaded byMercy Chahilu
- Design of Nonlinear Control Systems With the Highest Derivative in FeedbackUploaded byingcivil01
- Tarpana Netrakriyakalpa 110424214607 Phpapp01Uploaded byAc Ravi
- WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.docxUploaded byAnonymous zuizPM
- Basic Environmental Engineering.pdfUploaded byEmavwodia Solomon
- 4 Sop General Lab 2013-07Uploaded byEma
- Potarzycki: Foliar application of ZnUploaded bysamer iqbal
- 23. Design of Monitor-And-control System for Super MarketUploaded byBarun Dhiman
- Green road approach in rural road construction for sustainable development of NepalUploaded byAbhiman Das Mulmi
- Data GripUploaded bystorm9331
- ISO 26000Uploaded byShikha Popli
- JST PH Connectors - DatasheetUploaded byAnonymous JoB5Zxg
- Oebs Standards Engl Finale WebUploaded byDaniel Gitau
- Snohomish County Medical ExaminerUploaded byEvan Buxbaum, Circa