B achelor Thesis May 29 2009
Aerodynamic Performance and Stability Simulation of Di ﬀerent Flying Wing Model Airplane Conﬁgurations
Author:
Flavio Gohl
Supervisor:
Stefan Leutenegger Dario Schafroth
Professor:
Prof. Dr. Roland Siegwart
Abstract
In ﬂying wing design, the stability criteria often decrease the aircraft’s performance and vice versa. Therefore a pitch unstable wing can have a higher performance. The question to be answered in this thesis is, how much performance can be won by a pitch unstable wing, stabilised with a PID controller. An application is implemented for studying ﬂying wing dynamic and stability behaviour. The simulation is based on a vortex lattice method integrated in a rigid body simulation. The vortex lattice method is mod elled with singularity elements in chord and spanwise direction on a three dimensional wing. With this method, threedimensional wing geometries, asymmetrical ﬂap deﬂection and asymmetrical inﬂow can be simulated. The application is qualitatively evaluated with real ﬂight tests of a ﬂying wing with measurements of the period time of a phygoid oscillation. Three di ﬀerent wings, amongst them a pitch unstable wing with high performance, are analysed in their dynamic stability behaviour and per formance. The pitch unstable wing has a slightly higher performance than the optimised stable wing.
i
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all those who have contributed, directly or indirectly, to this Bachelor’s thesis in form of technical or other support. I give my special thanks to Stefan Leutenegger and Dario Schafroth, Michael Möller, Jens Walther and Philippe Chatelain and Ursina Gysi.
ii
Contents
1 Introduction 
1 

1.1 Objectives . 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
2 

1.2 Work structure 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
2 

2 State of the Art 
3 

2.1 State of the Art of Aerodynamical Force Calculation . 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
3 

2.2 State of the Art of Flight Simulators 
3 

3 Methods for Aerodynamic Force Calculation 
5 

3.1 
Vortex Methods 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
6 

3.1.1 Theoretical Background on Vortex Methods 
7 

3.1.2 Lifting Line Method and Nonlinear Lifting Line Method 

in General 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
8 

3.1.3 Lifting Line Method 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
11 

3.1.4 Nonlinear Lifting Line Method 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
12 

3.1.5 Vortex Lattice Method . 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
14 

4 Implementation of a Suitable Method 
18 

4.1 Nonlinear Lifting Line Method 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
19 

4.1.1 
Inputs 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
19 

4.1.2 Mesh Generation 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
19 

4.1.3 Sideslip Angle . 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
20 

4.1.4 Inﬂuence Coe ﬃ cients . 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
21 

4.1.5 Initial Guess 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
21 

4.1.6 Iterative Process / Coupling the Proﬁle Information 
22 

4.1.7 Force and Moment Calculation 
22 

4.1.8 Evaluation of the Nonlinenar Lifting Line Method 
23 

4.2 Vortex Lattice Method 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
25 

4.2.1 Inclusion of the Proﬁle 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
26 

4.2.2 Mesh Generating 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
26 

4.2.3 Sideslip Angle . 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
27 

4.2.4 Inﬂuence Coe ﬃ cients . 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
28 

4.2.5 Flap deﬂections 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
30 

4.2.6 Force and Moment Calculation 
30 

4.2.7 
Stall 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
31 

4.2.8 
Evaluation of the Vortex Lattice Method 
31 

4.3 Integrating the Methods in the Simulation 
34 

5 Evaluation of the Simulation 
36 

5.1 Flight Test Results 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
36 

5.2 Simulation Results 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
37 

6 Results of the Simulation 
39 

6.1 Flying Wing, FGWingX02 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
39 

6.1.1 
Stability Results 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
41 

6.2 Optimised Stable Wing 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
43 

6.2.1 
Stability Results 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
45 

6.3 Dutch Roll Mode (germ. Taumelschwingung) and Spiral Mode . 
47 

6.4 Unstable Wing 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
47 
iii
6.4.1 Geometry 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
48 
6.4.2 Static Results . 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
48 

6.4.3 Controller 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
49 

6.4.4 Simulation results 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
50 

7 Discussion 
55 

8 Conclusion 
56 

9 Future Work 
57 
iv
1 Introduction
An everlasting problem in aircraft design, especially in ﬂying wing design is the requirement of stability in pitch roll and yaw axis which is strongly coupled with the aircraft performance and the manoeuvrability. The stability is coupled with a loss of the aircraft’s performance and vice versa. A demonstrative example is the elevator of a classic aircraft conﬁguration, it produces a negative lift (excluded canard conﬁgurations). An aircraft with an optimal performance and optimal stability is a require ment, which probably is never reached, it is always the challenge to ﬁnd an optimum. A main step to improve the aircraft performance is, to integrate the ﬁn, elevator and fuselage in one wing. No fuselage, elevator and ﬁn would be needed, therefore weight can be saved and drag reduced. Even the civil avia tion recognises, that such ﬂying wing combinations are forward looking, due to integrating the big fuselage in the wing and transforming it into a lift creating element. Due to this tradeo ﬀ between the stability and the performance, the question is: What happens with the performance and the stability if the wing is unstable and a controller garantees the stability? With a close look at ﬂying wing model airplanes combined with a controller, the question can be advanced to: How good is the ﬂight performance of a pitch unstable ﬂying wing without taking regard on pitch stability? Is it possible to reach better glide ratios and sink rates if the unstable wing is guided by a pitch controller? In order to optimise the power consumption of a new prototype of conven tional solar UAV airplane in higher altitude, it might be advantageous to switch to a ﬂying wing if a signiﬁcant di ﬀ erence in performance is found. To answer this question, a fast dynamic simulation application is built for studying aircraft stability and performance. The simulation is based on a com plex aerodynamic model for complex, threedimensional wing conﬁgurations with twist, tapering, sweep and dihedral integrated in a six degree of freedom rigid body motion simulation. Inﬂuences, such as ﬂap deﬂections, sideslip angle and angular rates are considered in the calculation of the aerodynamic forces and moments. The aerodynamic force calculation method is a Vortex Lattice method, modiﬁed for short computing time. For each time step the method calculates a force distribution in spanwise and chordwise direction, for a three dimensional wing. To answer the question about the unstable wing’s gain of performance, a pitch unstable wing is designed and compared with self stable ﬂying wings. For testing the ﬂight characteristics and the dynamic stability, the ﬂying wings are simulated in the dynamic simulation. The unstable wing is stabilised by a controller.
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objectives
The objectives of this work are:
• Literature review about existing software solutions
• Establishing a Matlab/Simulink nonlinear dynamic model in order to sim ulate the dynamic behaviour of di ﬀ erent ﬂying wing model airplane con ﬁgurations
• Veriﬁcation of the model with ﬂight experiments using an existing RC ﬂying wing model
• Simulation of di ﬀ erent ﬂying wing model airplane solutions
– Self stable ﬂying wing with high ﬂight performance
– Lowsweep pitch unstable wing with high performance pitch sta bilised by a controller.
• Comparison of the performances
1.2 Work structure
This thesis is structured in three parts. In the ﬁrst part, a theoretical back ground in vortex methods is given. The Nonlinear Lifting Line Method and the Vortex Lattice Method are described in more details. Information about existing software solutions are given. A list of existing simulations and their capacities is provided. The second part describes how the methods are implemented and what as sumptions with regard to a dynamic simulation are made. In the third part results of the evaluation are presented and results are shown and discussed in the section results of the simulation. In the Appendix some important code fragments, a manual of the code and the most important information about designing ﬂying wings are shown.
2
2
STATE OF THE ART
2 State of the Art
In the section 2.1 it is presented what methods are commonly used for aerody namic force calculation. In the section 2.2 di ﬀ erent existing simulators, which try to integrate an aerodynamical model, are presented.
2.1 State of the Art of Aerodynamical Force Calculation
Today high order panel codes are commonly used. For dynamical simulation, an unsteady KuttaJoukovsky boundary condition is made, as well as unsteady wake arrangements by modelling the wake with taking regard to the ﬂight state of earlier simulated time steps. First panel codes were developed in 1962. The strongest eﬀ orts in these codes were made in pre and postprocessing and also in the automatical coupling of proﬁle information, where inner viscous e ﬀ ects are separately analysed. With vortex methods, e ﬀects of propulsion and internal ﬂows trough turbines etc. can be modelled. In addition ﬂow separation can be modelled with vortex methods and give the wing a nonlinear behaviour. There are even methods which can couple the inner viscous e ﬀects in the boundary layer with the potential ﬂow, so that also turbulent boundary layers can be modelled. Detailed information can be found in [18, 8, 12, 22] For real time simulations many simpliﬁcations are commonly made ore huge look up tables are generated from measurement or calculations. See in the section ’Simulation of the dynamic’.
2.2 State of the Art of Flight Simulators
There are various aircraft simulators which try to simulate the behaviour of aircrafts. A simulation of aircraft with a su ﬃ ciently complex aerodynamic force calculator for 3D wings was not found. Most simulators are interested in best graphical visualisation, but not in physical aircraft behaviour. Some simulators which try to include a more complex integration of aerodynamic forces are listed below. A very advanced simulator is Xplane. Not only is the graphical engine outstanding, but also the aerodynamic forces calculation is at a high level.
JSBSim An Open Source project. It calculates aerodynamic forces from look
. Propulsion and ground e ﬀ ects are implemented as well, and even a con troller for auto piloting is included. All stability derivates are modelled linearly. [2]
up tables. Polar data are included for a range of angles from 0
180°
Flight Gear An Open Source project. The ﬂight gear uses ﬂight dynamic models from JSBsim. [15]
XPlane A well known simulator. The user can deﬁne his own airplane and let it ﬂy in Xplane. Xplane tries to approximate the wing as a ﬁnite wing.
E ﬀ ects as aspect ratio, taper ratio, and sweep of the wing are inﬂuencing
the aerodynamics. Even compressible e ﬀ ects are implemented. A 2D airfoil polar maker is included. [14]
André Noth The simulator simulates an inﬁnite wing and neglects the eﬀ ects of a ﬁnite wing on the lift distribution. For induced drag simple approx imations are done to integrate the e ﬀects of taper ratio and aspect ratio.
3
2
STATE OF THE ART
Xfoil is generating 2D proﬁle coe ﬃcients which are integrated over the wingspan. A dynamic of six degrees of freedom is implemented in mat lab simulink. The simulator is made for controller design.
The simulators listed above are not suited to analyse di ﬀ erent wing geometries and to study stability and performance behaviour of ﬂying wings. For this reason a simulator is established and will be introduced in this thesis.
4
3
METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION
3 Methods for Aerodynamic Force Calculation
The aim is, to design an algorithm which can calculate the aerodynamic forces introduced by the wing. Then these forces are given into the dynamic simulation and must be calculated at each time step. There are many methods to calculate the forces over a wing. The program should in principle calculate the forces for a ﬂying wing conﬁguration. The speciﬁcations for an implementation with regard to a dynamic simula tion are:
• very short calculation time for real time simulation
• no elevator and ﬁn
• complex wing (dihedral, winglets, swept wings , etc.)
• asymmetrical incident ﬂow
• rotation speed of the wing which must be regarded for damping the move ment about pitch, roll and yaw axis
• asymmetrical ﬂap deﬂection
• sideslip angle which must be regarded
• uncomplicated implementation
• consideration of the proﬁle information
Methods which achieve these speciﬁcations:
• lifting line method (described in section 3.1.3)
• nonlinear lifting line method (described in section 3.1.4 )
• lifting surface method or even more complex panel methods (described in section 3.1.5 )
5
3
METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION
3.1 Vortex Methods
Inner e ﬀ ects Inner e ﬀ ects are e ﬀ ects which are acting in the boundary layer due to viscous motion. The boundary layer is extremely small in comparison with other dimensions. The results shown in Table 3.1 give an impression of the boundary layer’s dimensions.
Table 1: Boundary layer, laminar and turbulent [19]
These inner eﬀ ects can not be neglected, they comprise the information about the viscous drag. This problem can be split up and separately be calcu lated, because its inﬂuence on the outer boundary is small. So the calculation of the viscous drag is carried out separately. However, there are many programs which can calculate viscous drag, for example:
• Xfoil
• Wineppler
Outer e ﬀ ects Pressure forces are e ﬀ ects which act outside of the boundary layer. They are calculated with vortex methods. Details are described in [8], page 18. Examples of programs, which can calculate potential ﬂow, are listed below.
• Tornado (MATLAB code)
• AVL
• XFLR
• Miarex (MATLAB code)
6
3
METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION
3.1.1 Theoretical Background on Vortex Methods
With the vortex methods listed above, the ﬂow around the wing gets modelled as a potential ﬂow. This means that only linear aerodynamics can be studied,
e ﬀects of stall and other e ﬀ ects at high angles of attack are negligible. The ﬂow behaviour at high mach numbers is also negligible. The process of modelling the potential ﬂow happens with an intelligent vor tex arrangement, which models the ﬂow around the wing. The mathematical background for these methods are given in this section.
Biot Savart The induced velocity from a vortex line is calculated with formula 1. This is the velocity ﬁeld, which generates a vortex line with a constant circulation strength.
z
(1)
Figure 1: Vortex ﬁlament and the induced velocity
If the vortex ﬁlament is a line, the integral is transformed to:
(2)
Figure 2: Vortex ﬁlament as a line
If the vortex ﬁlament is inﬁnitely long, the formula is:
u _{ϑ} =
Γ
4π r
^{(}^{3}^{)}
Force on a vortex line According to the KuttaJoukovsky theorem, a vortex Γ moving with the velocity v experiences a force F .
^{−}^{→} F
= ρ ( ^{−}^{→}
V
× ^{−}^{→} Γ ) · l
(4)
7
3
METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION
3.1.2 Lifting Line Method and Nonlinear Lifting Line Method in General
Vortex arrangement / Singularity Element The ﬂow is modelled as a potential ﬂow. As singularity element, for the Lifting Line Method as well as for the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method, a horseshoe vortex is chosen. The singularity element is placed, in order that the side vortex lines are leaving the wing in ﬂow direction, and the bound vortex is laying on the wing in the direction of the leading edge. Assuming that the angle are small the trailing vortices can be laid in the xy plane of the body coordinate system. A better physical arrangement is, if the trailing vortices are leaving the wing in ﬂow direction. These diﬀ erent arrangements are shown in ﬁgure 5. The trailing vortices in the wake (behind the wing) have to be aligned in x direction or better in ﬂow direction, because in this case there will not be any force acting on the trailing vortices.
^{−}^{→} v × Γ −−−−→
_{W} _{a}_{k}_{e} = 0
(5)
The arrangement is shown in Figure 3.1.2.
Figure 3: Horseshoe vortex arrangement
a) with elementary wings
b) Prandtl method
ﬁgure copied from [24], page 24
The bound vortex is laid on the 1/4 line of the wing, and the collocation points are lying on the 3/4 line of the wing in the middle of the trailing vortices. On the collocation points the no slip condition is made. The detailed vortex arrangement of the Lifting Line method is shown in Figure 4.
8
3
METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION
Figure 4: Vortex arrangement and normal vectors in the collocation points with the starting vortex in inﬁnity, copied from[8]
Figure 5: Trailing vortex arrangement left: trailing vortex leaving the wing in ﬂow direction but following the proﬁle right: trailing vortex leaving the wing in ﬂow direction Copied from [8]
Vortex Theorems A vortex is always closed. This means that vortices are closed ﬁlaments, or vortex rings. The horseshoe vortex is also closed, with the starting vortex in inﬁnity. Thus its inﬂuence is negligible. A second important assumption is, that the circulation strength along the vortex ring is constant.
Forces The lift force of a single element is calculated (Kutta Joukovsky Theorem):
9
3
METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION
Lif t(i) = ρ _{∞} · V _{∞} (i) · Γ (i) · ∆ y
V _{∞}
ρ _{∞}
∆ y
Γ (i)
speed of the ﬂow
density of air (1.225 kg/m ^{3} )
width of a horseshoe vortex
circulation strength of element i
The lift force is generated by the inﬁnite ﬂow speed on the bound vortex. The lift force is aligned vertically to the ﬂow speed (see formula 4 on page 7). The induced drag is calculated with the induced ﬂow speed of the trailing vortices. They generate a downwash, which induces a velocity on the bound vortex. The induced velocity on the bound vortex generates a force. This force is the induced drag. Only the trailing vortices have an inﬂuence on the induced drag.
Drag _{i}_{n}_{d}_{u}_{c}_{e}_{d} = ρ _{∞} · V _{i}_{n}_{d} (i) · Γ (i) · ∆ y
The forces are placed on the 1/4 line on each bound vortex.
Tre ﬀ tz Analysis The induced drag can also be calculated in the so called Tre ﬀ tz plane, far behind the wing. The induced velocity is much easier to calculate in the Tre ﬀ tz plane than over the wing, because the trailing vortices can be modelled as inﬁnitely long in both directions.
10
3
METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION
3.1.3 Lifting Line Method
Boundary Condition In the classic Lifting Line Method, the circulation strength is calculated with a no slip condition. No ﬂow can penetrate the proﬁle. The sum of induced velocity, inﬁnite velocity and induced velocity of the wake, projected on normal direction, is zero. This equation is valid at the collocation points.
w
induced · n
solid + w i · n
solid +
V _{∞} · n
solid = 0
(6)
_{i}_{n}_{d}_{u}_{c}_{e}_{d} velocity of the bound vortex
w
w _{i}
induced velocity of the wake (trailing vortices)
V _{∞}
The normal vectors of the wing n _{s}_{o}_{l}_{i}_{d} are vertical to the chord line, so the boundary condition takes only the chord as proﬁle information, cambering is negligible. To have better proﬁle information in the boundary condition, the following methods integrate the proﬁle better. Equation 6 gives for each collocation point a linear equation with the un known circulation strength Γ (i). The enormous advantage of the vortex method is, that the circulation Γ is linear in equation 1, 2 and 3. So equation 6 can be written as a matrix and vector equation:
incident ﬂow velocity
K · Γ = RHS
(7)
K 
nxn matrix 
Γ 
vector with length n 
RHS 
incident ﬂow ( V _{∞} ) projected on normal vector n 
In order to solve this equation for the circulation vector Γ , only a matrix inver sion has to be done. Closed analytical solutions of equation 6 are given in [24], page 710. The numerical solution of this equation is described in section Implementation. It is more or less arbitrary to evaluate this equation in a point, which is laying on the 3/4 line. However this alignment is commonly used and provides good results. It might be useful to analyse, where that point has to lie with
di ﬀ erent proﬁles. A sample calculation, why the collocation point is laying on
the 3/4 line is shown in [12], page 23
11
3
METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION
3.1.4 Nonlinear Lifting Line Method
The Nonlinear Lifting Line Method was developed in 1946, see [25].
Circulation Strength In Weissinger’s Nonlinear Lifting Line Method, the circulation strength is calculated by iteration. At ﬁrst the induced angle must be calculated:
(8)
α _{i}_{n}_{d} = arctan(V _{i}_{n}_{d} /V _{∞} )
The downwash is calculated on the collocation points. See Figure 6 depicting a geometrical interpretation of equation 8.
Vind
Proﬁle data With the induced angle, the angle of attack can be calculated:
(9)
With the eﬀ ective angle, the local lift force can be calculated. This is done with known airfoil polars (measurements, Xfoil, Wineppler). With this informa tion, nonlinear proﬁle behaviour can be coupled with the circulation distribution and the lift force. Especially at high angles of attack this information is essen tial, as the proﬁle then shows a highly nonlinear behaviour and can not be modelled as a perfect ﬂat plate with a linear behaviour.
α ef f ective = α geometric − α induced
Iterative Process
1. An initial circulation distribution is estimated.
2. The induced angle of attack α _{i}_{n}_{d} is calculated.
3. The local angle of attack (angle between inﬁnite velocity and chord minus the induced angle) is calculated.
4. The lift distribution with known airfoil polar data is calculated.
5. With the Kutta Joukovsky theorem, a new circulation distribution can be calculated.
6. The old and the new circulation distributions are compared. A new circu lation distribution with both of them is iteratively generated. The iterative process begins with point 1.
12
3
METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION
The new circulation is calculated with the following formula: [18], page 277
(10)
D is the damping factor, D ≈ 0 .05 . The iteration is made, until the maximal
Γ _{n} _{+}_{1} (i) = (1 − D ) Γ _{n} (i) + D Γ new (i)
di ﬀ erence between new and old circulation is small enough. References: [8, 18, 17]
Advantages, Disadvantages and Limitations of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method
It is important to know the limitations of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method. The main advantage is the inclusion of the nonlinear proﬁl data. Even experi mental proﬁl data can be coupled with the potential ﬂow.
Advantages
• Only few calculations are necessary.
• Nonlinear eﬀ ects of the proﬁle can be studied.
• Flap deﬂections are not integrated in the K matrix.
Disadvantages
• Momentum distribution: The fact is, that the lift force is not always placed in the quarter of the chord, as it is for non swept wings (the sweep angle is measured at the chord quarter line). For a ﬂying wing the momentum equilibrium is essential. It has an inﬂuence on the centre of pressure, thus on the positioning of the centre of gravity. It is of great importance to know the centre of gravity, not only for the construction, but also for the mass of stability. The measure of stability is deﬁned as the distance between the centre of gravity and the neutral point of the aircraft ^{1} . This means that the proﬁle data of C _{M} is not exactly the value which can be extracted from the local angle of attack. This problem can only be solved with a panel method with several panels in the chord direction, see section
3.1.5.
• For the lift calculation, all proﬁle data is needed. So a look up table of proﬁle data is necessary, which is also needed for viscous drag calculation.
• The wake is modelled in a simple way.
Limitations
• According to NACA technical note [26], ’The calculations are subject to the limitations of lifting line theory and should not be expected to give accurate results for wings of low aspect ratio and large amounts of sweep’
^{1} There are some di ﬀerent deﬁnitions of the neutral point, there is a geometrical and an aerodynamical neutral point, mostly they are nearly the same points. Commonly the measure of stability is given in percent of the mean aerodynamical chord length. More details of geometrical and aerodynamical neutral points see [19], page 104
13
3
METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION
3.1.5 Vortex Lattice Method
The Vortex Lattice Method, implemented in this thesis, is a Lifting Surface Method. Therefore the theoretical information which is given in this section is limited to the Lifting Surface Method. The method is similar to the Lifting Line Method, it is only enriched with more singularity elements in chord direction. The boundary condition includes proﬁle information, so the cambering has an inﬂuence on the lift coeﬃ cient. However, the inﬂuence of the whole proﬁle is not as strong as in the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method. Viscous drag can not be calculated with these methods either, this is done with experimental proﬁle polars or with software solutions. More complex panel methods are mathematically similar to the low order panel method, but there are other boundary conditions and other singularity elements. They use a Dirichlet boundary condition for a thick body, and for modelling the potential ﬂow they use doublet panels (vortex rings) or constant strength sources. The method, implemented in this thesis, is similar to the method presented in [6], this method is also known as ”A Multilifting Line Method and its Ap plication on Design and Analysis of Nonplanar Wing Conﬁguration”.
Singularity element Basically a vortex ring or a combination of a ring and a horseshoe vortex may be chosen as a singularity element. The choice is depending on the e ﬀ ects which would be studied and on the provided calculation time. For the Vortex Lattice Method implemented in this thesis, the horseshoe vortex is chosen as singularity element.
Mesh and Vortex Arrangement The wing is divided into several el ements in wingspan direction as well as in chord direction. The result is a rectangular mesh over the whole wing surface. In each of these rectangular panels a horseshoe vortex is laid. The arrangement is shown in Figure 7. It is important for the trailing vortices, that they are laid on the surface of the wing. If they are not laid on the surface, e ﬀects such as twist do not have a su ﬃciently strong inﬂuence. The following Figures 8 and 9 show more geometrical details of the horseshoe vortex placement.
14
3
METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION
Collocation Point
Trailing
Vortex
Figure 7: Vortex arrangement of the Vortex Lattice Method
Figure 8: Detailed horseshoe vortex and alignment in a panel, copied from [8]
15
3
METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION
Figure 9: Trailing vortices and twist, the trailing vortices are not parallel, copied from [13]
Wake The wake modelling in this simple model does not take the wake roll up and the unsteady ﬂow into account. For more precise results, the wake would be modelled by vortex panels with time variant circulation strength. The wake in this implementation contains all trailing vortices which are following the local chord direction.
Boundary Condition and Proﬁle Information To take care of proﬁle information, the boundary condition must be improved. The boundary condi tion is made on the skeleton line, so that the cambering has an inﬂuence on the circulation distribution. So the normal direction on the skeleton line is cal culated, and in this direction the total ﬂow must be zero. This simply means, that no ﬂow can go through the skeleton line. This is an approximation of the proﬁle, it is assumed that the proﬁle is thin (see Figure 10). This approximation is commonly used. See in [6, 18, 8, 12, 21, 11]
Figure 10: Inﬂuence of the cambering in the boundary condition. The Figure is copied from [13]
System of Equations The resulting equation for the calculation of the circulation strength in a collocation point is the same as equation 6. This equation is solved for each panel and the resulting system of equations can be
16
3
METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION
solved for the circulation strength in each panel. The system of equations can be written in a matrix form, similar to equation 7. To solve the system of equations, only a matrix inversion must be done.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the VLMethod in general
Advantages
• A force distribution over the chord and the span is made. This provides a better momentum distribution.
• The centre of gravity can be calculated more exactly.
Disadvantages
• The wake arrangement with inﬁnite trailing vortices is an enormous sim pliﬁcation.
• The Kutta condition is a steady Kutta condition and neglects dynamic ﬂow behaviour.
• E ﬀ ects of ﬂow separation and transition are neglected in the potential ﬂow, but they are not negligible in the airfoil viscous drag.
17
4
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD
4 Implementation of a Suitable Method
There are various existing programs, which can calculate aerodynamic forces.
• Tornado (MATLAB code) [21]
• AVL [11]
• XFLR [10]
• Miarex (MATLAB code) [23]
The best results can be obtained with panel methods. There is an Open Source tool called Tornado [21]. It was tested, if this software could be used for a dynamic simulation. Unfortunately the calculation times are too long and a vast look up table would be necessary, because the program has to calculate a new mesh and a new inﬂuence matrix for each ﬂap deﬂection. There is another Open Source tool from Mark Drela [11], which is a Vortex Lattice Method as well, but the calculation time is also too long, similarly to Tornado. Flap deﬂections must always be meshed again. Another problem is, that these two programs do not care about the friction of the proﬁle. Therefore the friction force is only the induced drag. For the whole drag force it is necessary to integrate the lift distribution with proﬁle data. This has to be calculated separately and again increases the calculation time. XFLR is another program with great potential which calculates with di ﬀ er ent methods. Often comparisons with XFLR are made in this thesis. Integrating XFLR in a dynamic simulation would not pe possible either, the geometry for each ﬂap deﬂection would have to be changed. In XFLR ﬂap deﬂections are deﬁned as a new proﬁle. Therefore for each change of the proﬁle, the proﬁle coeﬃ cients have to be recalculated for the interpolation. Miarex is a kind of Nonlinear Lifting Line Method combined with Xfoil, but not e ﬃ cient enough either for dynamical solutions. Miarex is also limited in the wing geometries. Some requirements, which do not allow to generate a look up table, are:
• asymmetrical ﬂap deﬂections
• sideslip angles
• angular rates for damping the movement in yaw, pitch and rollaxes
These variables generate too many ﬂight states. After checking the qualities and limitations of the di ﬀ erent programs, a Lift ing Line Method was chosen, which has the great advantage that ﬂap deﬂections are not cared about in the inﬂuence matrix of the vortices. The ﬂap deﬂections are only considered in the iteration. A reduced look up table would be gener ated with the only parameter β , the sideslip angle. Unfortunately the results were insu ﬃ cient, because the method does not care about a force distribution in chord direction. Finally a Vortex Lattice Method was implemented. The method was opti mised for a fast calculation, so that the method can be used for dynamical simu lation. Some simpliﬁcations with ﬂap deﬂections were made. In both methods, simpliﬁcations are made in the wake modelling. Otherwise, the simulation time would be much longer.
18
4
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD
4.1 Nonlinear Lifting Line Method
The main idea of this implementation is, to split up the calculations. The meaning is to calculate as much as possible before the simulation starts so that during the simulation only the most important calculations must be carried out. A simple structure of the program is shown in Figure 11, listing the most important functions and procedures.
Nonlinear Lifting Line Method Process Diagramm
Figure 11:
The following chapter gives more detailed information about the most im portant functions.
4.1.1 Inputs
The geometry can be a 3D wing geometry with ﬂaps, dihedral, twist and sweep angle. Even discontinuous functions of the twist angle and the geometry are possible. As inﬂow information, the ﬂow velocity must be deﬁned in three components, and the angular rates have to be initialised.
4.1.2 Mesh Generation
The coordinate system is deﬁned as commonly used in aircraft design. The yaxis is in the spanwise direction, the xaxis goes backwards of the wing and
19
4
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD
the zaxis is looking away from the earth. This deﬁnition is di ﬀ erent than the deﬁnition of the dynamics. As singularity element, the horseshoe vortex is chosen. The trailing vortices are aligned in xdirection in this implementation . The wing geometry can be devided into several partitions. Each partition is a trapezoid with geometry data listed below. The geometry of the wing is only deﬁned for a wing half, then the geometry is mirrored.
b_root 
root chord, skalar 
b_tip 
tip chord skalar 
alpha_g 
geometrical angle to the body xaxis, this is a vector and contains the root angle and the tip angle 
s 
span of the partition 
n 
number of single panels 
phi 
sweep angle at leading edge 
x0 
reference point, where the partition has to be placed, it is deﬁned at the tip of the root chord for each partition and therefore is a matrix. 
With this parameters the function generate_Mesh.m gives as output the mesh data for the vortex placements and some other geometry data, which are used for the force calculation. The most important outputs are:
T_left 
all left horseshoe points 
T_right 
all right horseshoe points 
A 
all collocation points 
The trailing vortices are leaving the wing in xdirection. This is a small angle approximation of the wake. Physically they have to leave the wing in the ﬂow direction behind the wing. Therefore twist eﬀ ects are neglected in the vortex arrangement. The eﬀ ect of the wing’s geometrical angles are taken into account in the calculation of the new Gamma distribution ( Γ ), see Algorithm 1 in Ap pendix A . The new Gamma circulation is calculated with the geometrical and the induced angle and then damped with the old circulation.
4.1.3 Sideslip Angle
The whole geometry is rotated with an angle β around the zaxis. The sideslip angle is calculated:
1
betha_in = atan ( global_flow_speed (2) / global_flow_speed (1) );
However, the trailing vortices are still pointing into the xdirection.
20
4
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD
4.1.4 Inﬂuence Coe ﬃ cients
The Kutta condition is fulﬁlled at each collocation point. The induced velocities of all horseshoe vortices must be calculated at the collocation point i, and then be compared with the incident ﬂow V _{∞} projected on the local geometrical normal vector. For all collocation points the system has the following form:
Coll. Points
1
2
3
4
N
a
a
a
a
1 , 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 1
Matrix K
a
a
a
a
1 , 2 2 , 2 3 , 2 4 , 2
a
a
a
a
1 , 3 2 , 3 3 , 3 4 , 3
a
a
a
a
1 ,N
2 ,N
_{3} _{,}_{N}
4 ,N
·
Gamma
Γ
Γ
Γ
Γ
1
2
_{3}
4
Γ _{N}
=
Boundary Cond.
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS 4
_{3}
2
1
RHS _{N}
Table 2: System of linear equations of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method
The inﬂuence coe ﬃ cients a _{i}_{,}_{j} are calculated with the function vortex.m, vor tex_left.m, vortex_right.m. They are principally vectors, projected on each normal vector in the collocation point. The function is plotted in Algorithm 2 Appendix A . The circulation Gamma can be excluded from the calculation of the inﬂuence coeﬃ cients, because it is linear in the equation. The right hand side of the equation is the free stream ﬂow projected on the normal vector.
RHS _{i} = −(U _{∞} , V _{∞} , W _{∞} ) · n _{i}
The inﬂuence coeﬃ cients are only depending on the geometry and the sideslip angle β . The assumption is, that the wake is stationary, so that the vortex ar rangement, despite a variation in the angle of attack, rests always the same. This inﬂuence matrix is saved for several sideslip angles and later interpo lated at the desired sideslip angle.
(11)
4.1.5 Initial Guess
The initial function for the circulation strength is chosen in this implementation as:
1 Gamma_start = inv (K) * RHS
This is a linear approach which later is iteratet with nonlinear proﬁle infor maion. The RHS is:
1 RHS = v_abs .* sin ( alpha_g )
v_abs
alpha_g geometrical angle, a vector
norm of the velocity, v_abs is a vector
The twist eﬀ ect is neglected in the RHS, because the inﬂuence of twist on the normal vector in the collocation points is neglibible.
21
4
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD
4.1.6 Iterative Process / Coupling the Proﬁle Information
The iteration is started with the following commonly used parameters.
1 
% 
Damping Factor 
D =0.05; 

3 
% 
Stop criteria 
min =0.001; 

The iteration function is the core of the total program, it is plotted in Algo rithm 1 on page 60 Appendix A . A short description of what the function does: 

The induced velocity w_i here is calculated with the Tre ﬀtz analysis. It is calculated with the following formula: 

w_i =1/2*( K_far * Gamma_alt ) ; 

K_far is the inﬂuence matrix for the Tre ﬀ tz analysis. The e ﬀective angle of attack is calculated: 

1 
alpha_i = atan ( w_i ./( v_abs ’) ); 
The induced angle alpha_i could also be simpliﬁed to: alpha_i=w_i./v_abs. The new circulation Gamma_new is calculated with the following two for mulas:
KuttaJoukovsky
L = ρ · Γ · v · ∆ y
(12)
Proﬁle_CL
2
L = CL · ρ · ^{v} _{2}
· ∆ y · b
Therefore the circulation Gamma is:
(13)
(14)
The CL value is calculated with an interpolation function between several polars. In the interpolation, the ﬂap angle and the angle of attack are the input values. With the CL distribution, the viscous drag CD is interpolated from the proﬁle polars. The convergence process of the iteration is not a robust process. So the damping factor and the stop criteria have to be chosen carefully. The practice has shown, that the values given here mostly provide good results.
Γ = CL · ^{v} · b
2
4.1.7 Force and Moment Calculation
The lift force is calculated with the CL distribution. It is projected on the speed normal direction, vertical to the ﬂow speed vector and vertical to the bound vortex. The induced drag force is calculated with the formula:
D _{i}_{n}_{d}_{u}_{c}_{e}_{d} (i) = −ρ · Γ (i) · w _{i}_{n}_{d}_{u}_{c}_{e}_{d} · ∆ y
(15)
The viscous drag is calculated with the integration of the local viscous drag over the span of the wing which is calculated with proﬁle polar information. The drag force is projected in ﬂow speed direction. The point of attack of the
22
4
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD
/0
forces is on the bound vortex. The resulting moment is evaluated in the origin of the wing. To the resulting moment the local momentum coe ﬃ cient of the proﬁle integrated over the span of the wing is added.
4.1.8 Evaluation of the Nonlinenar Lifting Line Method
Unfortunately in the Tre ﬀ tz analysis sweep angles are neglected. So a variation of the sweep angle does not change the induced velocities in the Treﬀ tz plane. For swept wings, it is important to include the inﬂuence of the sweep angle, so
a solution is searched to include the sweep angle. This is done by calculating
the induced velocitities on the bound vortex. The Tre ﬀtz plane only recognises
the inﬁnite vortex lines, the di ﬀ erence of the starting point’s xcomponent is neglected because it is too far away. On the bound vortex, the inﬂuence of
di ﬀ erent xcomponents of the trailing vortex starting point is considered. This
causes an inﬂuence on the sweep. The implementation results showed, that the
inﬂuence is too strong and gives a qualitatively incorrect distribution of lift. To illustrate the eﬀ ect of Treﬀ tz and bound analysis, a Figure with the
di ﬀ erence of the two analysis types is added, see Figure 12. The wing is a swept
wing without dihedral. The geometry deﬁnition is listed below.
Wing deﬁnition of the test wing:
1 
p 
=3; 
% number % Dihedral of the Partitions 
of Partitions 

ny =[0 ,0 ,0]* pi /180; 

3 

n 
=[10 ,10 ,7]; 
% Number % Span % root of collocation points of partition chord 

5 
s 
=[0.5;0.3;0.2]; 

b_root =[0.2;0.2;0.2]; 

7 
b_tip =[0.2;0.2;0.2]; phi =[20 ,20 ,20]* pi /180; positive 
% tip chord % Sweep angle , back is ← 

9 

% 
geometrical twist angles 

11 
alpha =[0 2 2 3 3 3.8]* pi /180; 
Figure 12: Di ﬀerences between alternative calculations of the induced angle Angle of attack: 6 degrees Calculations made with Nonlinear Lifting Line Method Gohl
The test wing from above is compared with other results. Here compared are the CL distributions, the circulation distribution curve is qualitatively the
23
4
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD
Figure 13: Comparison of the Lifting Line Method with a Panel calculation for the swept wing with twist angle of attack: 5°
Advantages of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Implementation
• Nonlinear behaviour of proﬁle information inﬂuences the circulation dis tribution.
• Flap deﬂections do not need to be regarded in mesh generation. The ﬂap inﬂuence is regarded in the iterative function where the local lift coe ﬃcient is interpolated.
• The calculation is very fast.
Disadvantages of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Implementation
• The twist eﬀ ect is not modelled well, because all trailing vortices are leav ing the wing and not following the local chord direction.
• This method does not provide accurate results for wings with low aspect ratios.
• The results of swept wings are not usable, because sweep angle e ﬀ ects are neglected.
• An interpolation between Reynolds numbers is not done in this imple mentation. When proﬁle polars are made, the Reynolds number must be estimated.
24
4
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD
4.2 Vortex Lattice Method
The Vortex Lattice Method is implemented as a consequence of the unsatisfac tory results provided by the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method and the limitations of the method (see section 3.1.4 on page 12 and section 3.1.4 on page 13). The Vortex Lattice implementation is similar to the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method. However there are some signiﬁcant changes in the mesh composition and in the structure of the linear system of equation, and there are other mod iﬁcations, which are shown in this section. The basic problem of the Vortex Lattice method is, that the dimension of the inﬂuence matrix is much higher. If a vortex lattice method should be implemented in a dynamic simulation, the calculation time is a severe problem. To reduce the computing time, some im portant modiﬁcations in saving the data and in calculating the inﬂuence matrix are done. The most important steps in the program are shown in a ﬂow diagram, see Figure 14
Vortex Lattice Method Process Diagramm
Figure 14: Process diagram of the Vortex Lattice Implementation
25
4
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD
! ,./
0
4.2.1 Inclusion of the Proﬁle
The proﬁle coordinates can directly be included in the implementation. Then the mean line is calculated from the proﬁle data, as an example see the proﬁle MH45 in Figure 15:
, ! ,./
Figure 15: Mean line of the proﬁle MH45 calculated with proﬁle.m
4.2.2 Mesh Generating
The wing is divided into rectangular elements in spanwise direction and in chord direction. In each of the panel a horseshoe vortex is laid. The trailing vortices in this implementation are following the chord direction, otherwise the twist e ﬀ ect would be neglected. The arrangement in top view is shown in the theoretical part (see Figure 7 on page 15). For details about di ﬀ erent mesh arrangements and results, see in section 4.2.8 on page 31. A detailed description of a panel is shown in Figure 16
26
4
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD
The mesh points are saved in matrices:
T lef t X =
T lef t X 1 , 1 T lef t X 1 , 2 T lef t X 2 , 1 T lef t X 2 , 2 T _{l}_{e}_{f} _{t} X _{3} _{,} _{1}
T lef t X 1 , 3
T _{l}_{e}_{f} _{t} X _{m}_{,}_{n}
Figure 17: Organisation of the indices of the mesh points
With this matrix structure, MATLAB can calculate faster, because the basic vector calculations can be calculated much faster. The normal vector is now calculated at the mean line of the proﬁle, see Figure 16. It is calculated with the cross product:
(16)
_{} _{r} 1 _{×} _{r} 2 _{} = ^{−}^{→} n
For the calculation of the normal direction, the collocation point must lie on the proﬁle mean line.
r _{1} × r _{2}
4.2.3 Sideslip Angle
If the ﬂow has a ycomponent, the mesh must be changed. In this implemen tation, the trailing vortices only are rotated around the zaxis. The inﬂuence coeﬃ cients are saved for a range of sideslip angles and then the desired sideslip angle is interpolated between this data.
27
4
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD
4.2.4 Inﬂuence Coe ﬃ cients
The inﬂuence coeﬃ cients are organised as the following Table shows:
Coll. Points
p 1 , 1 : 
a 1 , 1 
a 1 , 2 
a 1 , 3 
p 2 , 1 : 
a 1 , 1 
a 1 , 2 
a 1 , 3 
p 3 , 1 : 
a 1 , 1 
a 1 , 2 
a 1 , 3 
p _{1} _{,} _{2} : 
a 1 , 1 
a 1 , 2 
a 1 , 3 
p _{2} _{,} _{2} : 

p _{3} _{,} _{2} : 

p _{1} _{,} _{3} : 
Matrix K
a
a
a
a
2 , 1
2 , 1
2 , 1
2 , 1
a
a
a
a
2 , 2
2 , 2
2 , 2
2 , 2
a
a
a
a
2 , 3
2 , 3
2 , 3
2 , 3
·
Γ _{1} _{,} _{1} Γ _{1} _{,} _{2} Γ _{1} _{,} _{3}
Γ
Γ
Γ
_{2} _{,} _{1} _{2} _{,} _{2} _{2} _{,} _{3}
=
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
, 1
2
3
, 2
_{2} _{,} _{2}
_{3} _{,} _{2} _{1} _{,} _{3} _{2} _{,} _{3} _{3} _{,} _{3}
1
1
, 1
, 1
Table 3: System of linear equations
The boundary condition is evaluated at each collocation point, like for ex ample, the equation for the collocation point 1,1:
a 1 , 1 · Γ 1 , 1 + a 1 , 2 · Γ 1 , 2
+ a 1 , 3 · Γ 1 , 3 +
+ a 2 , 1 · Γ 2 , 1 +
−→
+ a m,n · Γ m,n = − V ∞
· ^{−}^{→} n (17)
Attention, many errors can occur if the numbering of the circulation vec tor and the numbering of the RHS vector are exchanged. There are writ ten functions, which can rewrite the numbering of these vectors (rewrite.m, rewrite_RHS.m ). The calculation of inﬂuence coe ﬃ cients is basically similar to the calcula tion in the nonlinear implementation. The principle to calculate the inﬂuence coe ﬃ cients of a vortex line is described below. The basic formula to calculate the induced velocity of a straight vortex ﬁlament is given in the theoretical part. So the cosines of the angles between R_0 and R_1, R_1 and R_0 must be found. These angles are calculated with the help of the dot product. The geometrical illustration is shown in Figure 18.
cos( Θ) =
^{R} ^{0} ^{·} ^{R} ^{1} _{R} _{1} _{} R 0 ·
(18)
The distance r is calculated with the help of the cross product:
_{r} _{=} R 0 × R 1
R 0
(19)
The resulting induced velocity is calculated with the principle of equation 18 and 19:
_{a} _{=}
R 1 × R 2
4π 1 _{(} R 0 · R 1 _{−} R 0 · R 1
R 1
R 2
R 1 × R 2 ^{2}
)
(20)
The value R 0 in equation 20 can be cancelled.
28
4
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD
Figure 18: Vortex inﬂuence coe ﬃcient
A numerical problem in calculating the inﬂuence coe ﬃ cients can occur, if a
collocation point lies too close to the vortex line. The induced velocity then rises to inﬁnite. To avoid this problem, a region is deﬁned in which the velocities are
set to zero. The problem occurs if:
R 1 < 
(21) 
R 2 < 
(22) 
R 1 × R 2 ^{2} < 
(23) 
If one of these three equations is fulﬁlled, then the value of a is set to zero.
So the equation 20 for all values of the denumerators is always deﬁned. The idea is, to calculate the induced velocity from all bound vortices, left trailing vortices and right trailing vortices for one collocation point i at once. This is much faster. All the operations of the equations 18, 19 and 20 can be calculated with matrices. The function vortex_panel.m needs as input all points in matrix structures and gives out the coe ﬃcients. The structure of a (see equation 20) is therefore a matrix. The indices are organised in the way, that the coeﬃ cient a _{m}_{,}_{n} is the inﬂuence of the panel m,n on the collocation point i. These coeﬃ cients are directly rewritten as vectors, so that they are in the structure of a row of the inﬂuence matrix, see the system of equation in Table 3 The function is added in Algorithm 3, Appendix A The calculation of the inﬂuence matrix for one collocation point is made in a loop for each collocation point. See the function in Algorithm 4, Appendix A
.
29
4
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD
For lift forces, the calculation of the inﬂuence coeﬃ cients is done with the collocation points on the 3/4 line of the panel. For induced drag forces, the calculation of inﬂuence coe ﬃ cients is done on collocation points lying on the bound vortex. Then the K matrix is saved as the inverted matrix, so that during the simulation no matrix inversion is needed.
4.2.5 Flap deﬂections
Flap deﬂections in this implementation are made with the boundary condition. All surface normals which lie in the ﬂap region are rotated around the yaxis with the angle of the ﬂap deﬂection.
4.2.6 Force and Moment Calculation
The lift forces act on the bound vortices. They are calculated for each panel:
Lif tforce =
n m
i =1 j =1
ρ · Γ _{j}_{,}_{i} · y _{j}_{,}_{i}
(24)
The induced drag is calculated with the following formula:
Drag induced =
n m
i =1 j =1
−ρ · sign( Γ _{j}_{,}_{i} ) · Γ _{j}_{,}_{i} · w _{i}_{n}_{d}_{j}_{,}_{i} · y _{j}_{,}_{i}
(25)
The term w _{i}_{n}_{d} is the induced velocity from the trailing vortices. It is calcu lated with the following formula
(26)
K _{b}_{o}_{u}_{n}_{d} is the inﬂuence matrix of the trailing vortices on the bound vortices. It is calculated with the following formula:
w _{i}_{n}_{d} = K _{b}_{o}_{u}_{n}_{d} · Γ
K bound =
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.