The Aerodynamic Analysis of BWB Baseline Ii E5-6 Uav With Canard Aspect Ratio (Ar) of 6 at Angle of Attack of 0 Deg at 0.1 Mach Number Through CFD Simulation at Different Canard Setting Angles

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS
2009405194 JULY2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
i iv v vi vii xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Project Background Problem statement Objective Scope Of Project Significance Of Project Project Methodology
1 6 6 7 7 8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Definition 2.1.1 Blended Wing Body (BWB) 2.1.2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) 2.1.3 Canard
i
11 11 11 12
2009405194 JULY2012 12
2.1.4 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) 2.2 2.3 Research On BWB UAV Aerodynamic Overview 2.3.1 Aerodynamic force on aircraft 2.4 Turbulence Model Overview 2.4.1 Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model
13 15 15 19 19
CHAPTER 3
PARAMETER VALIDATION
3.1.
Parameter Validation 3.1.1 Geometry Selection 3.1.2 CFD Software Setup 3.1.3 Parameter Validation Procedure 3.1.4 The Results 3.1.5 Conclusion
21 21 22 24 36 38
CHAPTER 4
GRID INDEPENDENCE STUDY
4.1
Introduction to Grid Independence Study 4.1.1 What is grid independence study? 4.1.2 How to achieve grid independence
40 40 40 41 41
4.2
Grid Independence Study Process 4.2.1 Test with Various Face Settings 4.2.2 Test the boundary box size with various sizes of box 4.2.3 Test with various refinement numbers
42
47
4.3
Summary of the Parameters Obtained From GridIndependence Study 49
4.4
Test the parameters obtained in Grid IndependenceStudy 50 52

ii
4.5
Conclusion
2009405194 JULY2012
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1
Aerodynamics Analysis for BWB Baseline II E5-6 5.1.1 Lift Coefficient, CLAnalysis 5.1.2 Drag Coefficient, CDAnalysis 5.1.3 Pitching Moment Coefficient, CMAnalysis 5.1.4 Lift-to-drag ratio analysis 5.1.5 Static Pressure Contour Analysis 5.1.6 Mach Number Contour Analysis 5.1.7 Velocity Vector Analysis 57 59 60 63 65 54 55 56
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 6.2
Conclusion Recommendations
68 69
REFERENCES References 70
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Static pressure contour for every canard setting angle, viewed from the top and bottom surface of the BWB Baseline II E5-6
74
APPENDIX B
Mach number contour for every canard setting angle, viewed from the top and bottom surface of the BWB Baseline II E5-6
76
iii
2009405194 JULY2012
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, Most Merciful, the author would like to express his greatest acknowledgement for giving all of strengths during the completion this thesis. First and foremost, i would like to thank to my beloved parents Abd Adzis and Mek Eshah and not forgotten to Siti Salwa for their support through their greatest motivation and financial. Thanks to Professor Dr. Wirachman Wisnoe as the project supervisor and Pn. Zurriati Ali as co-supervisor, on behalf of their guidance towards the finer aspects of finishing this project paper. They also showed great patience in helping to understand the aerodynamics behavior of the aircraft and provide great explanation needed. Despite of that, the author would like to thanks to the entire team member for their help and support throughout discussion session among them. Finally, the author would like to express gratitude to all parties such as my best friends who had contributed directly and indirectly in completion this project especially all friends for their help and support. Thank you very much, may God repays for their kindness.
iv
2009405194 JULY2012
ABSTRACT
This thesis presents a study of the effects of canard on the aerodynamic of a Blended Wing Body (BWB) Baseline II E5 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV).The objective of this project is to obtain the aerodynamic characteristics such as lift coefficient (CL), drag coefficient (CD) and pitching moment coefficient (CM) of BWB Baseline II E5-6 UAV with canard and also to obtain the aerodynamic visualizations such as pressure contour and Mach number contour. In this project, a pair of canard with aspect ratio of 6 is fitted on the BWB Baseline II E5. This thesis starts with literature overview, then followed with parameter validation, grid independence study and final simulation. Forces and moments are measured and value of CL, CD and CM are obtained and compared at 0.1 Mach number with respect to variation of canard setting angle, at 0o angle of attack, . Pressure contours and Mach number contours, both extracted from CFD analysis, are plotted. An extensive discussion of the results, conclusion and recommendation is presented at the end of the chapter.
2009405194 JULY2012
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
TITLE
PAGE
Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.4 Table 4.5
Atmosphere parameter for the experimental condition selected force vector values of X and Y component Comparison between CL and CD Face setting parameters seven different box sizes with initial mesh values parameters for CFD simulation for box test Results and cell numbers from box test Results obtained from the refinement number test summary of the parameters obtained from grid independence study
22 23 36 41 43 44 45 47 49
Table 5.1
results obtained from the simulation
54
vi
2009405194 JULY2012
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
TITLE
PAGE
Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3 Figure 1.4 Figure 1.5 Figure 2.1 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7
three axes of rotation for aircraft motion tail assembly (left) and canard (right) BWB Baseline I (left) and BWB Baseline II (right) The design of BWB Baseline II E5 Methodology flowchart Force vector on aerofoil Half model of BWB Baseline-II E4 The BWB half model imported into the HEXPRESS Boundary box setup BWB domain setup (left) and the domain result (right) Boundary condition for the BWB The initial mesh setup for the BWB Mesh adaptation process. Refinement number (upper right) and trimming parameters (bottom)
2 3 4 5 9 15 21 24 25 26 26 27 28
Figure 3.8 Figure 3.9 Figure 3.10 Figure 3.11 Figure 3.12
Mesh adaptation result Snap to geometry process Snap to geometry result Mesh optimization process command Applying a viscous layer on the mesh process
vii
28 29 29 30 30
MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS Figure 3.13
2009405194 JULY2012 30
Successful mesh with viscous layer surrounded the BWB
Figure 3.14 Figure 3.15 Figure 3.16 Figure 3.17 Figure 3.18 Figure 3.19 Figure 3.20
Fluid properties selection Fluid model properties Boundary condition setup Initial solution properties setup Numerical model properties setup Output parameter setup for vector component Control variable to set the iteration number and convergence criteria
31 32 32 33 33 34 34
Figure 3.21 Figure 3.22 Figure 3.23 Figure 4.1
CFD simulation process running Graph of CL versus angle of attack graph of CD versus angle of attack Graph of CL versus number of cell (left) and CD versus number of cell (right)
35 37 37 46
Figure 4.2
Graph of CL versus refinement numbers (left) and CD versus refinement number (right)
48
Figure 4.3
graph of CL versus angle of attack obtained from the simulation and from the wind tunnel experiment
50
Figure 4.4
Graph of CD versus angle of attack obtained from the simulation and from the wind tunnel experiment
51
Figure 4.5
Graph of CM versus angle of attack obtained from the simulation and from the wind tunnel experiment
51
viii
MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS Figure 5.1
2009405194 JULY2012 55
graph of CL versus (left) and linear region at low canard angle (right)
Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3
graph of CD versus graph of CM versus (left) and linear region at low canard angle (right)
56 58
graph of L/D versus Static pressure contour of 0o canard angle viewed from cutting plane of BWB (left) and top of BWB (right)
59 60
Figure 5.6
Static pressure contour of 8o canard angle viewed from cutting plane of BWB (left) and top of BWB (right)
61
Figure 5.7
61
Figure 5.8
61
Figure 5.9
Mach number contour of 0o canard angle viewed from bottom surface of BWB (left) and top surface of BWB (right)
63
Figure 5.10
64
ix
2009405194 JULY2012
Figure 5.11
64
Figure 5.12
64
Velocity vector when canard positioned at 11o Detail on the velocity vector when canard positioned at 11o (left) and the beginning point of reverse flow zoomed from the left picture (right)
66 66
Figure 5.15
velocity profiles in the boundary layer. The flow start to separate at the 3rd picture (right)
67
2009405194 JULY2012
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AR BWB b c CFD CL CLmax CD CM D L L/D M Ma Re Sref UAV V
Angles of attack (AOA) Aspect Ratio Blended Wing Body airfoil span length airfoil chord length Computational Fluid Dynamics Lift coefficient maximum lift coefficient Drag coefficient Pitching moment coefficient Drag force Canard setting angle lift force Lift to Drag Ratio Pitching moment force Mach number Density Reynolds number Reference area Unmanned Aerial Vehicle velocity
xi
2009405194 JULY2012
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.0
Project Background
An aircraft motion divided into three primary ways, which are pitch, roll and yaw. All of these motions rotate about its centre of gravity, in its specific axes. The longitudinal axis is the axis that extends lengthwise through the fuselage from the nose to the tail. The lateral axis is the axis that extends crosswise from wingtip to wingtip. While the vertical axis passes vertically through the centre of gravity. Pitch is the movement of the aircraft nose up or down in lateral axis, roll is the rotation around the longitudinal axis, and yaw is movement of the nose to left or right in the vertical axis
2009405194 JULY2012
Figure 1.1 Three axes of rotation for aircraft motion
In conventional aircraft, it has a tail assembly known as empennage, which included an elevator, horizontal and vertical stabilizer. The horizontal stabilizer and elevator assembled together in one airfoil. The fixed section at the front is the horizontal stabilizer while the rear movable section is the elevator. Changing the angle of deflection at the elevator changes the amount of lift generated by the main airfoil and cause the pitching motion occurred. When this horizontal stabilizer placed at the front, it is known as a canard.
2009405194 JULY2012
Figure 1.2 Tail assembly (left) and canard (right)
Canard is a horizontal surface mounted ahead of the main wing to give longitudinal stability and control. It may be a fixed, movable, or variable geometry surface, with or without control surfaces. There are three major types of canard, which are control canard, lifting canard and close coupled canard. For longitudinal control during manoeuvring, control canard primarily is used and it carrying no aircraft weight in normal flight. For tailless aircraft, canard is mounted at the in front of the main wing to achieve the same function as the horizontal stabilizer and elevator at the empennage. This included the tailless aircraft such as Blended Wing Body (BWB). The BWB concept was introduced by Robert Liebeck [8] at the McDonnel Douglas Corporation (now known as Boeing Company) in 1988. The BWB concept is a blends of fuselage, wing, and the engines into a single lifting surface, which allowing the maximization of the aerodynamics efficiency.
2009405194 JULY2012
In year 2005, researchers from the Faculty Of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) has started conducting research on BWB-UAV concept and comes with the first Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) tested BWB called BWB Baseline I [2] [9]. Following to the first research, development of BWBUAV continued to the second model with different design under code name BWB Baseline II [13][16].
Figure 1.3 BWB Baseline I (left) and BWB Baseline II (right)
BWB Baseline II was a completely revised, redesigned and has a simpler planform with slenderer body than its predecessor but still maintaining the wing span. Until now, BWB Baseline II has evolved from the E1 version until E4 with several modifications done. In this study, the evolution of the BWB Baseline II will continue to the latest E5 version.
2009405194 JULY2012
Figure 1.4 The design of BWB Baseline II E5
The E5 version has a rectangular canard at the front and twisted wing. The type of canard is control canard and the design is according to NACA 2415 airfoil design. This model will be named as BWB Baseline II E5-6 (where after this will referred as BWB). The E5 represent the fifth generation or evolution of BWB Baseline II while the number 6 is the canard aspect ratio (AR). The canard setting angles is set to12various different angles. There are two types of aerodynamics analysis that can be done, which are by using wind tunnel and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software. For this study, CFD software will be used to obtain the aerodynamics results of the canard. Because of the simulation must deal with the turbulent flow, it is known that the turbulent flow in the air is hard to be calculated. Therefore, it is easier to simulate with the existing turbulence models. In CFD software, it provides a various turbulence models such as Spalart-Allmaras, k-Epsilon (k-) and k-Omega (k-)
2009405194 JULY2012
turbulence model. For this study, only one types of turbulence models will be used which are Spalart-Allmaras models.
1.1 Problem Statement The BWB has a several weakness and one of its weaknesses was a stability issues when pitching up and down. For BWB, its weight during flight mostly is carried by the main wing and the additional control-canard airfoil will be used to control the longitudinal movement and pitching motion. Thus, a control-canard mostly operates only as a surface controller and is usually at zero angle of attack. Therefore, a study needs to be carried out to determine the effect of the canard when the canard is set to specific setting angle, shape, and aspect ratio. In addition, the aerodynamics of the BWB with canard at the in front of its main wing needs to be determined to get the overall results.
1.2
Objective The objective of this study is to obtain the lift (CL), drag (CD) and pitching
moment (CM) coefficient of the BWB with canard through the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation at different canard setting angle. Together with the simulation, CFD visualizations such as pressure contour, Mach contour, and velocity vectors will be obtained.
2009405194 JULY2012
1.3
Scope of Project In this study, a rectangular canard with aspect ratio (AR) of 6 will be fitted
on the BWB with 12 various canardsetting angles, . Then the test will be done at 0.1 Mach number through the CFD simulation software at 0 degree angle of attack. The simulation will run in Spalart Allmaras turbulence model. Aquired data for aerodynamics characteristics such as coefficient of drag (CD), coefficient of lift (CL) and moment coefficient (CM) will be analyzed on the graph of CD, CL and CM versus canard setting angle, .
1.4
Significance Of Project The significance of this project is to know the behaviour of the canard when
it is fitted on the BWB Baseline II E5.In this study, the lift coefficient (CL), pitching moment coefficient (CM), drag coefficient (CD) and lift to drag ratio (L/D) will be obtained. Furthermore, results obtained from this project can be used as a reference and comparison to experimental study of the BWB in the future.
2009405194 JULY2012
1.5
Project Methodology
This project divided into three main stages, which are the parameter validation, grid independent study and CFD simulation of BWB Baseline II with canard. In parameter validation, an objects selection from the existing aerodynamic analysis that is obtained from the journals or research papers will be done. The object then is redraw back by using CAD software and CFD simulation will be done by following the given parameters. The obtained result then is compared with the original results to determine whether the result is same or better than the referred analysis. The mesh and CFD setup used in this section will be used in the second process, which is grid independence study.
In grid independence study, a test of simulation will be done by using several mesh setting and CFD pre-process setup that obtained from the first procedure. In this process, a BWB drawing will be converted into a solid model by using CAD software and converted into a variation of grid or mesh numbers before simulate in CFD. The best result of the CFD pre-process and mesh setup in this stage will be used for the final procedure that is the true simulation.
The last process is to run the CFD simulation of the BWB by applying the mesh and CFD pre-process setup that obtained from the grid independence study. In this stage, a 12 different mesh filesfor12 different canard setting angles will be created. Then all of these file will be simulated by using CFD software at 0o angle of attack by using Spalart Allmaras turbulence model.
8
2009405194 JULY2012
start
Object selection for parameter validation
CAD drawing
CFD simulation
N
Compare
Y
Obtain BWB drawing
CFD analysis with variation of grid number
N
Continue?
Y
CFD analysis with SpalartAllmaras with various canard o setting anglesat 0 angle of attack
analyze
Figure1.5 Methodology flowchart
2009405194 JULY2012
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter 2 give details the meaning of the main terminologies such as BWB, UAV and CFD. Other than that, this chapter will also explain briefly about aerodynamic fundamentals such as lift, drag, and pitching moment. Some research that has been done either by the UiTM researchers or outsider so far for BWB II series will be discussed in this chapter. Final part of this chapter will highlight the mathematical models such as drag, lift, and moment, and also a tubulence models which is Spallart-Almaras.
10
2009405194 JULY2012
2.1 DEFINITION 2.1.1 Blended Wing Body (BWB) BWB is an alternative design features from a traditional separated fuselage and wing aircraft. The BWB concept is a fusions of fuselage, wing, and the engines into a single lifting surface, which allowing the boosting of the aerodynamics efficiency. In reality, the BWB didnt have normal control device such as ailerons and tail stabilizer, also lacking of ability when dealing with the important pitching moments. However, this design is able to provide high lifts that can potentially decrease the fuel utilization. Besides that, BWB also have reduced surfaced area where almost conventional aircraft has, so at the same time reduced the skin friction drag.
2.1.2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, also known as Unmanned Aircraft System or Remotely Piloted Aircraft refer to the aircraft which functions either by the remote control of a navigator or pilotthat is as a self-directing entity. It usually can carry cameras, sensors, communication equipment and other payloads. An UAV has capable of controlled, sustained level flight and reciprocating engine. UAVs come in two variations which is some are controlled from a remote location and others fly autonomously based on pre-programmed flight plans using more complex dynamic automation systems.
11
2009405194 JULY2012
2.1.3 Canard Canard is a horizontal surface mounted ahead of the main wing to give longitudinal stability and control. It may be a fixed, movable, or variable geometry surface, with or without control surfaces. There are three major types of canard, which are control canard, lifting canard and close coupled canard. For tailless aircraft such as BWB, canard is attached at the in front of the main wing to achieve the same function as the horizontal stabilizer and elevator at the empennage.
2.1.4 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) CFD is one of the branches of fluids mechanics that uses numerical methods and algorithms to solve and analyze problems that involved fluid flows. Computers are used to perform the millions of calculations required to simulate the interaction of fluids and gases with the complex surfaces used in engineering. The technique is very powerful and spans a wide range of industrial and non-industrial application areas. The fundamental basis of almost all CFD problems is the NavierStokes equations or Lattice Boltzmann methods, which define any single-phase fluid flow. These equations can be simplified by removing terms describing viscosity to yield the Euler equations. Further simplification, by removing terms describing vorticity yields the full potential equations. Finally, these equations can be linearized to yield the linearized potential equations.
12
2009405194 JULY2012
2.2 RESEARCH ON BWB UAV The idea about the BWB began in 1988 when Robert Liebeck [8] introduced the first BWB concept which the aircraft concept blends with the fuselage, wing, engines into a single lifting surface, allowing the aerodynamic efficiency to be maximized. It was a totally different idea compare to the mainstream conventional aircraft that has been designed since the first aircraft was invented. According to Liebeck[8], it is possible to achieve up to a 33% reduction in surface area. This reduction comes mainly from the elimination of tail surfaces and engine/fuselage Ning Qin [11] found that, To achieve the best aerodynamic performance, the optimal spanwise lift distribution should be a fine balance of the vortex induced drag due to lift and the wave drag due to the shock wave formation at transonic speeds. For the integrated BWB shape, the elliptic distribution should no longer be the target for minimum drag design. Since the aerofoil profile design can have a significant effect on shock alleviation, it is therefore essential that the spanwise loading design is considered along with the aerofoil profile design. The study also reveals that the pressure drag is playing a much more important role in the total drag for the BWB design as compared with the conventional designs due the intrinsic nature of the lower surface to volume ratio for BWB shape. It is therefore more rewarding to minimise the pressure drag before skin-friction drag reduction techniques, such as laminar flow control, are considered. In UiTM, the development of BWB has been started since 2005. The BWB designed with 4 meter wingspan and 2 meter length and it was classified as mini UAV. This BWB research has been done either by CFD, finite element method and
13
2009405194 JULY2012
also by wind tunnel testing. Computational studies of BWB Baseline 1 using CFD shown that it can fly at a very high angle of attack before it start to stall which is the highest angle of attack it can achieve was 35 with maximum lift coefficient of 1.03 [2][14]. But the studies also revealed that a small deflection of lift curve occured at the angle of attack at 8o. Wisnoe et al. [18] found out it is occured due to the flow separation, which starts to occur on the wing part. It is found from the wind tunnel experiment where a visualization using mini tuft is done. From the wind tunnel experiments, the maximum lift-to drag ratio obtained was at 6 angle of attack while from CFD analysis, it was experiment. Since 2009, Uitm started to design a new variation of BWB named Baseline-II. It is totally differents than its predecessor where it was equipped with a pair of canards in front of its main wings. With a simpler planform, broader-chord wing and slimmer body but still maintain the wing span, it was a completely revised, redesigned version of Baseline-I BWB. The main objective and target of this new design is to boost flight performance at low cruising speed by increasing lift-to-drag ratio through planform and shape redesign and inverse twist method on airfoils throughout its span [13]. For a study of a canard, Myose [17] study the effect of canards on delta wing vortex breakdown during dynamic pitching. He found that the furthest static breakdown location of canard from the main wing increase more aerodynamic performance in term of pitching moment. Rizal et al. [15][16] studied the effect of canard on aerodynamics and static stability of Baseline-II at low sub sonic regime. They found out that canards can add lift more than it adds drag if suitable canards 3, which is lower than results from wind tunnel
14
2009405194 JULY2012
setting angle is found. A properly-sized canard with suitable setting angle may improve (L/D) max further. In 2010, there was modification on the wingspan of the BWB-Baseline-II whereby part of the wing was twisted down at certain angle and called Baseline-II E2.
2.3 AERODYNAMIC OVERVIEW 2.3.1 Aerodynamic force on aircraft The concept of the generated aerodynamic force is when a stream air flows upside or downside, or an aerofoil moves through the air. Point of impact will occur when the air separates to flow about the aerofoil. At this point, a higher pressure of area or stagnation point will be formed. Usually the high pressure area is located around the lowest part of the leading edge, depend on how is the angle of attack. The overall force produced by the aerofoil are contributed by this high pressure area[6].
Figure 2.1 Force vector on aerofoil
15
2009405194 JULY2012
The deflection force or impact pressure may exert a zero positive force at very low or zero angles of attack, or even a downward or negative force. Air passing over the top of the aerofoil produces aerodynamic force in another way. The shape of the aerofoil causes a low pressure area above the aerofoil according to Bernoulli's Principle, and the decrease in pressure on top of the aerofoil exerts an upward aerodynamic force. Pressure differential between the upper and lower surface of the aerofoil is quite small. Even a small pressure differential produces substantial force when applied to the large area of an aerofoil. The resultant force on airfoil or usually called as aerodynamic force is divided into two components which are lift and drag. The lift is defined as the component of force in the plane of symmetry in direction perpendicular to the line of flight [4][3][1]. For steady level flight, the upward lift force has to be balanced by the aircraft weight. The formula of lift is
Lift, L = CL Where L = Lift force (N) = Density (kg/m3) V = Velocity (m/s) S = Reference area (m2) CL= Lift coefficient
16
2009405194 JULY2012
By producing a greater pressure at the lower surface than the upper surface of the body, a lift force will be generated. The difference of pressure is achieved when the air speed at the upper surface is higher compared to the lower surface. Lift coefficient measures how efficient the wing is changing velocity into lift. The higher lift coefficient indicates higher efficiency in the aerofoil design compares to aerofoils with low lift coefficient[4][3][1]. The drag is defined as the resistance or force that opposes the motion of the airfoil through the air [1][5][7]. It acts on the aerofoil in parallel to the relative wind. The formula of drag is
Drag, D =
Where D = Drag force (N) = Density (kg/m ) V = Velocity (m/s)

2 3
S = Reference area (m ) CD= Drag coefficient Total Drag produced by an aircraft is the sum of the Profile drag, Induced drag, and Parasite drag. Total drag is primarily a function of airspeed. The airspeed that produces the lowest total drag normally determines the aircraft best rate of climb speed, minimum rate of descent speed for autorotation, and maximum endurance speed [5][7].
17
2009405194 JULY2012
The pitching moment is defined as the force that tends to push the nose upwards or downwards. The pitching moment is positive when it tends to push the nose upwards and negative when the nose tends to go downwards at zero lift [1][4][5]. The formula of pitching moment is
Pitching moment, M =
where M = Pitching moment force (N) = Density (kg/m ) V = Velocity (m/s)

2 3
S = Reference area (m ) CM = Pitching moment coefficient
18
2009405194 JULY2012
2.4 TURBULENCE MODEL OVERVIEW 2.4.1 Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model The Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model is the simple one-equation model that is widely used in computational fluid dynamic. Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model is one of the suitable and mostly chose in computational fluid dynamic to solve a modelled transport equation for the kinematic turbulent viscosity due to its stability, good results produced by it and the time consumption used to solve the problem. The Spalart-Allmaras model was designed specifically to solve many applications involving wall-bounded flows mostly for the aerodynamic problems such as aerospace problems.
19
2009405194 JULY2012
CHAPTER 3
PARAMETER VALIDATION
The methodology of this project consists of three main stages, which are the parameter validation, grid independence study and CFD simulation of BWB Baseline II with canard. In parameter validation, an objects selection from the existing aerodynamic analysis that is obtained from the journals or research papers will be done. The object then is redraw back by using CAD software and the CFD simulation will be done with the given parameters. The result from this simulation then is compared with the original result to determine whether the result is same or better than the referred analysis. The successful mesh and CFD setup used in this section will be used in the second process, which is grid independent study.
20
2009405194 JULY2012
3.1 Parameter Validation 3.1.1 Geometry Selection In parameter validation, the half model of BWB Baseline-II E4 is used because its aerodynamics performance already known and validated via wing tunnel testing. This model came from the previous research by Rizal et al. [16]. Also, this object was chosen due to its similarity with the BWB Baseline-II E5 except it come without a canard. The dimension of the half model as below: Reference length, Lref = 0.6548 m Reference Area, Sref = 1.3205 m2
Figure 3.1 Half model of BWB Baseline-II E4
21
2009405194 JULY2012
3.1.2 CFD Software Setup For this project, CFD software from NUMECA International is used which is the NUMECA FINE/HEXA. This CFD software package consists of HEXPRESS which is the mesher, HEXTREAM for CFD solver and CFVIEW for post processor. This software only limited to one type of mesh which is the hexa mesh. To enable the selected geometry to be manipulated in this software, the geometry is converted to the Parasolid format which is .x_t format. For the experimental condition, a fix parameter is use according to the data from the journal. The parameters used as below: Table 3.1 Atmosphere parameter for the experimental condition Condition Atmospheric pressure, Patm Air temperature Air density Air kinematic viscosity Air velocity, V value 101325 Pa 24oC or 297.5 K (average) 1.1642 kg/m3 1.5482x105 m2/s 35 m/s
22
2009405194 JULY2012
To get the value of CL and CD for each angle of attack, the value of X and Y component of flow direction is set to the angle of attack direction as below: Table 3.2 Selected force vector values of X and Y component Angle of attack 22 26 30 34 36 40 42 44 46 Drag x-component 0.927 0.898 0.866 0.829 0.809 0.766 0.743 0.719 0.694 y-component 0.374 0.438 0.499 0.559 0.588 0.643 0.669 0.695 0.719 x-component -0.374 -0.438 -0.499 -0.559 -0.588 -0.643 -0.669 -0.719 -0.694 lift y-component 0.927 0.898 0.866 0.829 0.809 0.766 0.743 0.695 0.719
23
2009405194 JULY2012
3.1.3 Parameter Validation Procedure Below are the steps involved in the parameter validation proceses: i. The selected geometry is imported into the HEXPRESS and a boundary box with size 20 times of the BWBs nose-to-wing tip length which is 2.25m is created. Then a Boolean operation is applied to the geometry where the selected geometry which is the BWB Baseline-II E4 is subtracted from the boundary box.
Figure 3 The BWB half model imported into the HEXPRESS
24
2009405194 JULY2012
Figure 3.3 Boundary box setup
ii.
The geometry then is export as a domain. The maximum length of the domain is divided into 10000 from the original length and the minimum length is divided into 10, while for the curve chordal and surface plane tolerance is divided by 10000. The parameters for the domain as below:
Minimum length: 0.00022225 Maximum length: 22.225 Curve chordal tolerance: 0.000111125 Surface plane tolerance: 0.000111125 Curve resolution: 3 Surface resolution: 3
25
2009405194 JULY2012
Figure 3.4 The BWB domain setup (left) and the domain result (right)
iii.
The domain file then is imported back into the HEXPRESS for the meshing process. Before proceed to the meshing process, all boundary conditions was grouped and named as external for the external, mirror, and BWB for the solid.
Figure 3.5 Boundary condition for the BWB
26
2009405194 JULY2012
iv.
The meshing process started with the initial mesh size selection. For xaxis and y-axis, the mesh number is set to 12 respectively while for zaxis; it was set to 7 which resulting the total of initial mesh cell number is 1008. The mesh then is generated.
Figure 3.6 The initial mesh setup for the BWB
v.
The process continued to the "adapt to geometry" process. In this process, the entire BWB surface was selected and activated to change the cell size. For this step, the cell size number is set to 0.0 for axis X, Y, and Z, and the refinement number is set to seven. While for the trimming surfaces, parameters remain as default. The mesh then is generated.
27
2009405194 JULY2012
Figure 3.7 Mesh adaptation process. Refinement number (upper right) and trimming parameters (bottom)
Figure 3.8 Mesh adaptation result
vi.
The next step is process to snap the mesh according to the geometry shape. The setting is leave as default and then the command is accept.
28
2009405194 JULY2012
Figure 3.9 Snap to geometry process
Figure 3.10 Snap to geometry result
vii.
Next, the process continues to the mesh optimization process. All setting is leave as default. The function of the mesh optimization process is to remove negative cell, twisted cell and improve the mesh quality.
29
2009405194 JULY2012
Figure 3.11 Mesh optimization process command
viii.
The last meshing procedure is to create a viscous layer around the geometry shape. The number of viscous layer computed automatically according to the object reference length, kinematic viscosity and stream velocity, which are 0.6548m,1.5482x105 m2/s and 35m/s.
Figure 3.12 Applying a viscous layer on the mesh process
Figure 3.13 Successful mesh with viscous layer surrounded the BWB
30
MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS ix.
2009405194 JULY2012
The successful mesh then exported to the HEXTREAM for computation process. The mesh parameters obtained is; Number of cells: 63618 Number of leaf cells: 63618 Number of vertices: 70627
x.
In HEXTREM, parameters for the fluid properties such as temperature, kinematic viscosity, and pressure was set according the data given in the research journal of the object as stated in table 1.
Figure 3.14 Fluid properties selection xi. The next step is to set the turbulence model, which is Spalart-Allmaras, the reference length, and reference velocity. Because the Mach number used is only 0.1, so the low speed flow option was selected.
31
2009405194 JULY2012
Figure 3.15 Fluid model properties xii. The third step for the HEXTREM process is to set the boundary conditions. For the solid, which is the BWB, it is remaining as default with the compute force and torque option selected.
Figure 3.16 Boundary conditions setup xiii. Next, the initial solution parameters are set to same as the fluid properties given in table 1.
32
2009405194 JULY2012
Figure 3.17 Initial solution properties setup xiv. For the numerical model parameters, the values remain as default except for the characteristic velocity which is set to 35 m/s and the user defined gauge parameters option was selected and set with the given pressure and temperature in table 1.
Figure 3.18 Numerical model properties setup xv. Next step is to set the output parameters, which is the value of CL, CD and CM (if any). The value of lift direction and drag direction was set as given in table 2. The output of residuals to CFView and forces and
33
2009405194 JULY2012
moments options selected. For the force and moments, the value is set as given in table 1.
Figure 3.19 Output parameter setup for vector component xvi. For the control variables, the number of iterations is set to 1000 iterations, while for the convergence criteria is set to -5
Figure 3.20 Control variable to set the iteration number and convergence criteria
34
2009405194 JULY2012
xvii.
The last step for HEXTREM is to run the CFD simulation until finish.
Figure 3.21 CFD simulation process is running
35
2009405194 JULY2012
3.1.4 The Results For the parameter validation process, nine selective angles of attack was chosen. The results from the CFD process are compared to the wind tunnel results as below; Table 3.3 Comparison between CL and CD Angle of attack (degree) 22 26 30 34 36 40 42 44 46 CL CD (reference) (reference) 0.750 0.835 0.872 0.906 0.916 0.938 0.945 0.939 0.936 0.327 0.423 0.511 0.610 0.659 0.767 0.823 0.870 0.924 CL (obtained) 0.785 0.860 0.942 0.948 0.951 0.949 0.945 0.937 0.919 % difference 4.67 2.99 8.03 4.64 3.82 1.17 0 0.21 1.82 CD (obtained) 0.358 0.469 0.580 0.664 0.709 0.801 0.847 0.892 0.932 % difference 9.48 10.87 13.50 8.85 7.59 4.43 2.92 2.53 0.87
36
2009405194 JULY2012
Figures below shows the graph of CL and CD versus angle of attack.
1
0.9
0.8
0.7 0.6
CL
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 angle of attack, (o)

experimental value NUMECA value
Figure 3.23: graph of CL versus angle of attack
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
CD
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Experimental value NUMECA value
angle of attack, (o)
Figure 3.22: graph of CD versus angle of attack
37
2009405194 JULY2012
3.1.5 Conclusion From the results obtained in this parameter validation procedure, the value of CL and CD from the simulation on the CFD has slightly low percentages of difference but still not able to be used for the final simulation process. In addition, grid independence studies need to carry on in order to get result that will not change with the grid settings. This grid independence study process will be discussed in the next chapter.
38
2009405194 JULY2012
CHAPTER 4
GRID INDEPENDENCE STUDY
This chapter will discuss about the grid independence study which is the second step after the parameter validation process. The purpose of grid independence study is to achieve a high quality mesh setting to be used for the final simulation and to ensure that the mesh was refined enough to produce adequate results. This chapter will explain how the grid independence is achieved through the several experiments using the CFD software NUMECA FINE/HEXA based on the previous BWB Baseline II E4 used in the parameter validation process.
39
2009405194 JULY2012
4.1 Introduction to Grid Independence Study 4.1.1 What is grid independence study? To produce a good result on CFD simulation, the mesh or grid must have a very goodand satisfactory qualityto ensure the result produced from the simulation is accurate enough. The result also should not change on different grid parameter. When the solution is not affected by the size or parameter of the grid, it can be said that the grid is independence. Grid independence study is the process or method to achieve the condition where the grid is no more affected on the solution even some change on the grid size, the boundary box or the initial mesh is done. Once the grid independence is achieved, the grid parameter can be used for the final simulation process.
4.1.2 How to achieve grid independence Because obtaining the correct grid setting is the most important things in this study to obtain a very good result, study on the grid independence takes lot of time before achieve it. There are several steps that can be used to achieve grid independence. The steps will be used in this study is; i) ii) iii) Test with various face settings Test the boundary box size with various box and initial mesh sizes Test with various refinement numbers
40
2009405194 JULY2012
4.2 Grid Independence Study Process 4.2.1 Test with Various Face Settings Nazreen [10] in his study found the suitable face setting that can fit to any grid settings after done several test on various values of the face settings. Table below shows the parameters of the face setting according to his study;
Table 4.1 Face setting parameters min length max length curve tolerance surface tolerance curve resolution surface resolution 0.007 /100 /1000 /1000 6 7
41
2009405194 JULY2012
4.2.2 Test the boundary box size with various sizes of box The first step in the grid independence study process is to determine the suitable boundary box size to be applied. This step was according to the study done by Nizamuddin [12]. It is important to get the most suitable boundary box size because if the boundary box is too big, the numbers of cells will probably also increase and the simulation running time will be longer. But if the boundary box is too small, the results of the boundary conditions effects on the subject body such as angle of attack and the pressure contour will probably cant be obtained as wanted. To proceed with the boundary box size testing, the boundary box is divided into seven differences box sizes with initial size of 40x40x20 (x1 = -20, y1 = -20, z1 = 0 and x2 = 20, y2 = 20, z2 = -20). To get the initial mesh value for each box, each side of the box was divided by 10. For example, a 40x40x40 box size will gives an initial mesh value of 4x4x2. For this test, face setting used according to the study done by Nazreen [10] as stated on the 4.2.1.
42
2009405194 JULY2012
Table below shows the boxes sizes and its initial mesh values:
Table 4.2 Seven different box sizes with initial mesh values
Box no. 1
Box scale 1x x1 x2 -20 20 -30 30 -40 40 -50 50 -60 60 -70 70 -80 80
Box size y1 y2 y1 y2 y1 y2 y1 y2 y1 y2 y1 y2 y1 y2 -20 20 -30 30 -40 40 -50 50 -60 60 -70 70 -80 80 z1 z2 z1 z2 z1 z2 z1 z2 z1 z2 z1 z2 z1 z2 0 -20 0 -30 0 -40 0 -50 0 -60 0
14 12 10 8 6 4
Initial mesh
4 2
1.5x
x1 x2
2x
x1 x2
2.5x
x1 x2
10
3x
x1 x2 x1
12
3.5x x2 x1 -70 0 -80
14
4x
x2
16
16
43
2009405194 JULY2012
The parameters for CFD simulation used in this studyare same as used in the parameter validation. The parameters as below:
Table 4.3 Parameters for CFD simulation for box test
Conditions velocity Angle of attack Refinement number Pressure Density of air Air kinematic viscosity Reference area Length Moment centre Target cell size
Value 35 m/s 0o 8 101325 Pa 1.1642 kg/m3 1.5482x105 m2/s 1.3205 m2 0.658 m 1.16 m x : 0.01, y : 0.01, z : 0.01
44
2009405194 JULY2012
The results obtained from the simulation of parameters above as shown in table below:
Table 4.4 Results and cell numbers from box test
Box no. 1
CL 0.310
CD 0.031
CM -0.140
No. of cell 399,515
Running time 1H 26Min
0.314
0.031
-0.142
384, 038
2H 34Min
0.311
0.031
-0.141
400,332
1H 35Min
0.311
0.031
-0.141
386,789
1H 15Min
0.315
0.031
-0.143
384,795
1H 21Min
0.314
0.031
-0.143
400,937
1H 23Min
0.316
0.031
-0.144
386,262
2H 13Min
The results obtained from this study then are plotted on the graph to determine which the best parameter to be used. Figures below shows the results obtained from the boundary box test plotted in two graphs which is graph of CL versus box number and CD versus box number.
45
2009405194 JULY2012
Graph of CL vs number of cell

0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0
Graph of CD vs number of cell
CL
CD
number of cell
number of cell
Figure 4.1: Graph of CL versus number of cell (left) and CD versus number of cell (right)
From the graphs above, it can be seen that the value of CL does not change much for the boundary box 1 until 4. It can be seen also that the value of CDalmost nearly constant for any boundary box sizes. From the observation of the graphs, it can be said that the boundary box number 4 satisfy the conditions where it has an average number of cells plus with the lowest running time compare to the others which only takes1 hour and 15 minutes. This result then will be used for the second test which is the refinement number test.
46
2009405194 JULY2012
4.2.3 Test with various refinement numbers The second step of grid independence study is to test the refinement number to find the most suitable refinement number. A suitable refinement number will give a good result without causing too much cell numbers produced which will lead to the increasing of simulation running time. In this test, parameters used in the previous test in section 4.2.1 will be used with only 1 parameter value changed which is the refinement number. For this test,Wan Zulhazri [19]suggested that the refinement number is tested from 7 until 13. Table 4.5 below shows the results obtained from the simulation with 7 difference refinement numbers.
Table 4.5 Results obtained from the refinement number test
Refinement no. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
CL 0.317 0.317 0.314 0.314 0.314 0.314 0.314
CD 0.039 0.029 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
CM -0.144 -0.146 -0.144 -0.144 -0.144 -0.144 -0.144
No. of cell 222772 619581 1841955 1841955 1841955 1841955 1841955
47
2009405194 JULY2012
Graph of CL vs refinement numbers

0.35 0.3 0.25 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CD 0.2
Graph of CL vs refinement numbers

0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Figure 4.2: Graph of CL versus refinement numbers (left) and CD versus refinement number (right)
CL
Figure 4.2 above shows the graph of CL and CD versus refinement numbers. From the observation of the graph, it can be seen that the value of CL and CD are constant starting from the refinement numbers of 9 until 13. From this observation, it can be conclude that the most suitable refinement number to be used for the next final simulation for BWB Baseline II E5-6 is 9. This is together with the parameters used in the section 4.2.1. These parameters also will be used to run the simulation of BWB Baseline II E4 and then will be compared with the wind tunnel results in the next section.
48
2009405194 JULY2012
4.3Summary of the Parameters Obtained From Grid Independence Study Below is the summary of the grid parameters obtained from the grid independence study process. These parameters now are ready to be tested on the BWB Baseline II E4 where the results obtained from the simulation will be discussed in the next section.
Table 4.6 Summary of the parameters obtained from grid independence study
Parameter x1 Box size x2 min length max length curve tolerance surface tolerance curve resolution Surface resolution Initial mesh Refinement number Target cell size Y+ x 0.01 y x 10 y 50 -50
Value y1 y2 -50 50 z1 z2 0 -50
0.007 /100 /1000 /1000 6 7 10 8 0.01 5 z 0.01 z 5
49
2009405194 JULY2012
4.4 Test the parameters obtained in grid independence study For this section, the parameters obtained from the previous grid independence study in section 4.1 and mentioned in section 4.3 will be tested on the BWB Baseline II E4 and then the results will be compared with the results obtained from the wind tunnel test. Figures below shows the results obtained after the simulation.
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4
CL
0.2 0 -5 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
exp cfd
-20 -15 -10
Angle of attack, (o)
Figure 4.3 Graph of CL versus angle of attack obtained from the simulation and from the wind tunnel experiment
50

1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
2009405194 JULY2012
CL
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -10 -0.1 0
exp cfd
-20
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 4.4 Graph of CD versus angle of attack obtained from the simulation and from the wind tunnel experiment
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 -20 0 -10 -0.05 0 -0.1 -0.15 -0.2 -0.25 -0.3 -0.35 -0.4 -0.45 10 20 30 40 50 60 exp cfd
CM
Figure 4.5 Graph of CM versus angle of attack obtained from the simulation and from the wind tunnel experiment
51
2009405194 JULY2012
From the observation of graphs above, it can be seen that the parameters obtained from the grid independence study gives a good results for lift coefficient test and a slightly inaccurate for the drag coefficient and moment coefficient test.
4.5 Conclusion From the overall results, it can be said that the parameters obtained from the grid independence study is refined enough and satisfy the required qualities for grid independence where the grid must independence and the result must not change on the different grid settings. As the conclusion, these grid independence study achieve its objective and the grid parameters is said to be ready to use for the final simulation of the BWB Baseline II E5-6 which will be discussed in the next chapter.
52
2009405194 JULY2012
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter will discusses the aerodynamics results obtained from the simulation of BWB Baseline II E5-6 at 0o angle of attack at different canard setting angles through computational fluid dynamic. Aerodynamics coefficients such as CL, CD and CM obtained from the simulation will be discussed in detail. This chapter also will discuss the visualization obtained from the simulation such as Mach number contour, pressure contour, velocity vector and streamline.
53
2009405194 JULY2012
5.1
Aerodynamics Analysis for BWB Baseline II E5-6 Table below show the results from the CFD simulation of BWB Baseline II
E5-6 with canard aspect ratio of 6 at 0o angle of attack. These results obtained from 12 differences canard setting angles starting from -6o to 11o.
Table 5.1 Results obtained from the simulation
Canard setting angle, (o) -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11
CL 0.276 0.291 0.303 0.316 0.329 0.341 0.347 0.352 0.361 0.365 0.369 0.368
CD 0.044 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.040 0.041 0.042 0.043 0.045 0.055 0.056
CM -0.187 -0.161 -0.131 -0.103 -0.075 -0.047 -0.033 -0.023 -0.007 0.00045 0.0051 0.00192
L/D 6.337 7.406 7.694 8.027 8.447 8.523 8.489 8.410 8.376 8.059 6.743 6.576
54
2009405194 JULY2012
5.1.1
Lift Coefficient, CL Analysis
Lift can be described as the effect of the average pressure differences between the upper and the lower surface of the airfoil. Figure below shows the variation of lift coefficient, CL as the canard setting angle, increase.
0.38 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.35
CL
0.33 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.27 -4 -2 0
0.33
CL
0.32 0.31
CL = 0.0063 + 0.3159
2 4 6 8 10 12 0.3 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
-8
-6
canard angle, (o)
canard angle, (o)
Figure 5.1 Graph of CL versus (left) and linear region at low canard angle (right)
From the graph above, it shown that the trend of graph is linear starting from -4o to 6obefore the CL values start to increase gradually until the maximum point at 10o. This linear region is the condition where the flow over the airfoil moves smoothly and still attached over most of the airfoil surface. The linear region given
55
2009405194 JULY2012
by the equation of CL = 0.0063 + 0.3159. The maximum lift, CLmax is at 10o which is the max before it starts to decreaseat 11o.At this 11o point, flow over the canards top surface commonly at the trailing edge,start to separate and creating a large wake or relatively dead air behind the airfoil [6]. From the graph also it shows that even the canard was positioned at the 0o, it still able to generate lift.
5.1.2
Drag Coefficient, CD Analysis
Figure 2 below shows the variation of drag coefficient,CD as the canard setting angle, increases.
0.058 0.056 0.054 0.052 0.050
CD
0.048 0.046 0.044 0.042 0.040 -8 -6 -4 0.038 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
canard angle, (o)
Figure 5.2 Graph of CD versus
56
2009405194 JULY2012
From the graph, it can be seen that the increament of CD is a little bit slow for canard setting angle below 8o. The graph also shows that the increament value of CD between -4o to 2o are almost constant with very tiny percentage of differences. The increament of drag value is linear starting from 2o until 7o. At this condition, the flow still attached on the BWB wing surface but slowly seperated from the canard surface. Higher grows rate of CD occured at 8o and it continue to hike due to the increasing of air resistance. Something interesting here is the value of CD at canard angle of 2o is a little bit lower than the value at 0o. Even the percentage of difference is just about 1% but it is still unexpected due to the assumption that the resistance of air at 2o should be higher than at 0o.
5.1.3
Pitching Moment Coefficient, CM Analysis
Figure 3 below presented the graph of pitching moment coefficient, CM versus canard setting angle, . The pitching moment is measured 1.16 m from the nose of the BWB.
57
2009405194 JULY2012
0.02 0.00 -4 -2 0 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -10 2 4 6 8 10 12 -5
0 0 5 10
-8
-6
-0.04
-0.08
CM
-0.10 -0.12 -0.12 -0.14 -0.16 -0.18 -0.20 -0.2
CM
-0.08
-0.16
CM = 0.0141 - 0.1031
canard angle (o)
canard angle (o)
Figure 5.3 Graph of CM versus (left) and linear region at low canard angle (right)
From the curve above it can be seen that the value of CM increased as the value of canard setting angle, increased until the maximum point it can reach at 10o. The graph also shows that the pitching moment is linear starting from the lowest at -5o before it starts to deflect at 5o which corresponds to the flow separation at the upper surface of the airfoil. Based on the graph it can be said that the canard possible to change the BWB nose position which is the angle of attack of the BWB while cruising from 0o angle of attack to certain unknown angle of attack.
58
MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS 5.1.4 Lift-to-drag ratio analysis
2009405194 JULY2012
Lift-to-drag ratio is the amount of lift divided by drag which is CL/CD. It is one of the important aerodynamics parameter to study to find the optimum flight configuration of the airplane. Figure 4 below presented the curve of lift-to-drag ratio (L/D) as a function of canard setting angle, .
8.8 8.6 8.4 8.2 8.0 7.8 7.6 L/D 7.4 7.2 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.2 6.0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
canard setting angle, (o)
Figure 5.4 Graph of L/D versus
It is noticed that the L/D value increased from the lowest canard setting angle, until it reach the maximum angle at 4o. This point which gives the value of L/D = 8.52 indicated the optimum flight configuration of the BW. The value of L/D continues to dropped gradually after the 4o angle until 7o.
59
2009405194 JULY2012
5.1.5
Static Pressure Contour Analysis
Static Pressure contour is the visualization method that indicates the pressure distribution around the subject or body simulated on the CFD software. It is known that the lift only can be generated when there is a pressure differences between the upper and lower surface of the airfoil. By analyze the static pressure contour, pressure distribution behavior and characteristic on the BWB can be obtained. Figures 5.5 until 5.8 below shows the static pressure contour taken at canard setting angle of 0o, 8o, 10o and 11o.
Figure 5.5 Static pressure contour of 0o canard angle viewed from cutting plane of BWB (left) and top of BWB (right)
60
2009405194 JULY2012
Figure 5.8: Static pressure contour of 11o canard angle viewed from cutting plane of BWB (left) and top of BWB (right)
61
2009405194 JULY2012
At 0o, the lift are mostly generated by the main wing of BWB as it can be seen that the pressure around the upper surface at the leading edge of the wing is lower than at the upper surface of the canard. Above this angle, the canard starts to produce lift to the BWB. As can be seen on 8o, the canard upper surface is starts to be surrounded by a blue color along its leading edge while at the main wing the pressure is slightly higher compare to the condition at 0o. This indicated that the pressure around this region is getting lower due to the air resistance caused the flow over the canard moving slower than the surrounding. The lift reached its maximum point at 10o as can be seen that the canard upper surface now is fully covered with a low pressure region. From the cutting plane, it can be seen that the low pressure region only focused at the leading edge of the canard and main wing. This lowest pressure region around the top leading edge of canard and main wing then starts to be fragmented at 11o caused the pressure difference between the upper and lower canard surface become lower than at 10o.
62
2009405194 JULY2012
5.1.6
Mach Number Contour Analysis To investigate more detail about what actually happened on the BWB when
the canard change its angle, Mach number contour can be used to see the air speed profile on the BWB surface especially on the canard surface. Mach number is a ratio of air speed over the speed of sound. It can be obtained by using the simple equation of Mach number, M = v/ . Mach number study is one of way to determine the
flow separation phenomenon occurs on the airfoil. Figures 5.9 until 5.12 below shows the Mach number contours of top and bottom of BWB surface when the canard positioned at 0o, 8o, 10o, and 11o.
Figure 5.9 Mach number contour of 0o canard angle viewed from bottom surface of BWB (left) and top surface of BWB (right)
63
2009405194 JULY2012
64
2009405194 JULY2012
At 0o canard deflection, the low velocity region indicated with the dark blue color only occurred on the lower surface of the canard and also with a small partition along the trailing edge at the upper surface of canard. At this point, the flow separation only developed along the trailing edge of the canard and main wing. At 8o canard deflection, the low velocity regions begin to spread on the upper surface of canard while maintaining at the trailing edge of the main wing. At the lower surface of canard and BWB, the velocity is getting higher. It can be seen that at this point, the flow separation is getting higher until the maximum lift point the BWB can reach which is at 10o of canard deflection. The flow was fully separated from the upper surface of the canard at 11o canard deflection angle. It can be seen that at 11o, the velocity at the lower surface of the BWB is getting lower and this low velocity region start to spread from the body to the main wing. This phenomenon causes the loss of lift to BWB.
5.1.7
Velocity Vector Analysis Figures below shows the velocity vector viewed on the upper surface of
canard at the cutting plane when the canard was positioned at 11o. It can be seen that the reverse flow on the boundary layer on the upper surface of the canard starts to formed due to the flow separation.
65
2009405194 JULY2012
Figure 5.13 Velocity vector when canard positioned at 11o
Figure 5.14 Detail on the velocity vector when canard positioned at 11o (left) and the beginning point of reverse flow zoomed from the left picture (right)
66
2009405194 JULY2012
According to Anderson [6], flow separation happened to the airfoil upper surface when the boundary layer on the surface travels far enough against an adverse pressure gradient. When this happened, the speed of the boundary layer relative to the object dropped and becomes almost zero. At this situation, the fluid flow becomes unable to attach to the airfoil surface. Figure below show the process of the flow separation;
Increasing distance downstream
Figure 5.15 Velocity profile in the boundary layer. The flow start to separate at the 3rd picture (right)
By referring to the Figure 5.14 above, it can be understand that he increasing of distance downstream will lead to the flow separation on the boundary layer of the canard upper surface, creating a reverse flow on the bottom of the boundary layer. This reverse flow keep growing due to the increasing of the distance downstream, causing the velocity flows on the surface getting lower and slowly transform the upper surface of the canard into a condition which called as a dead air.
67
2009405194 JULY2012
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1
Conclusion
The study on the aerodynamic characteristics of BWB Baseline II E5-6 with canard aspect ratio of 6 at 0o angle of attack by CFD simulation has been done at 12 various canard setting angles. Aerodynamic characteristics obtained from the CFD simulation such as CL, CD, CM, and L/D was plotted in the related graph to shows the aerodynamic performance of the BWB. The investigation on aerodynamics characteristic obtained from the simulation of CFD shows that the BWB can achieve a maximum coefficient of lift value, CLmax which is 0.369 at 10o canard setting angle before the flow separation starts to occure. The separation of flow occured on the upper surface of the canard only. From the study, it is found that the optimum flight condition of the BWB is at 4o canard setting angle.
68
2009405194 JULY2012
6.2
Recommendations Based on the results obtained from the simulation, the flow separation is
founded to be occured at 11o canard setting angle. This angle seems like quite low and should can be extended. So in order to achieve higher lift and delay the flow separation, further study on modification of the canard type or size can be done such as by replacing the canard with a thicker airfoil such as NACA 2316, NACA 2416, or NACA 4415 for example. A thicker airfoil can helps to reduce the drag at the higher angle of attack or at the higher canard setting angle, and also the blunt leading edge of the thick airfoil will make the airflow over the upper surface remain attached to the surface which will resulting of delaying on the flow separation. For the simulation process using the CFD software, a deeper understanding on the CFD software used which is NUMECA FINE/HEXA should be done in order to fully utilized the software to get a better results in the next time. Also, for the NUMECA software, the running time are very slow especially when simulate or generate a large number of cell. The problem came from the firewall restriction problem due to the share license used. This problem need to be solved in order to do grid independence study with a large number of cell.
69
2009405194 JULY2012
REFERENCES
[1] A. C. Kermode, Mechanics of Flight Tenth Edition, Pearson Education Ltd., 1996.
[2] A.M.E. Mamat, et al., "Aerodynamics of Blended Wing Body (BWB) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)," Journal of Mechanical Engineeringvol. 5,pp. 15-27, 2008.
[3] Antony Jameson, A Perspective on Computational Algorithms for Aerodynamic Analysis and Design, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University, Stanford, USA
[4] Barnard R. H. & Philpott D. R., Aircraft Flight, 2nd edition, Longman
[5] David F. Anderson and Scott Eberhardt, Understanding Flight, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2000
[6] John D. Anderson Jr, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics Fourth Edition, McGrawHill, New York, 2001
[7] John J. Bertin, Aerodynamics For Engineers,4th edition. Prentice Hall

70
2009405194 JULY2012
[8] Liebeck, R.H., Page, M.A., and Rawdon, B.K. (1998). Blended-Wing-Body Subsonic Commercial Transport. AIAA Paper 98-0438
[9] Mamat, A. M. I., Mohd Nasir, R. E., and Ngah, Z. (2005). Aerodynamics Of Blended Wing Body (BWB) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). UiTM Malaysia IRDC Research No. 600-IRDC/ST 5/3/1025
[10] Muhammd Nazreen B Zulkarnain, The Aerodynamic Analysis of BWB Baseline II E5-8 UAV with Canard Aspect Ratio (AR) of 8 at Angle of Attack of 10 deg at 0.1 Mach Number through CFD Simulation at different canard setting
angles,Undergraduate Thesis, July 2012, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA Malaysia.
[11] N Qin, A Vavalle, A Le Moigne, M Laban, KHackett, P Weinerfelt. Aerodynamics Studies forBlended Wing Body Aircraft. 9th
AIAA/ISSMOSymposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis andoptimization, 4 6 September (2002), Atlanta,Georgia.
[12] Nizammuddin Bin Daud, The Aerodynamic Analysis of BWB Baseline II E5-6 UAV with Canard Aspect Ratio (AR) of 6 at Angle of Attack of 10 degree at 0.1 Mach Number through CFD Simulation at different canard setting angles, Undergraduate Thesis, July 2012, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA Malaysia.
71
2009405194 JULY2012
[13] Rizal E. M. Nasir, Wahyu Kuntjoro, Wirachman Wisnoe, Zurriati Ali, Nor F. Reduan, Firdaus Mohamad, Shahrizal Suboh. PreliminaryDesign of Baseline-II Blended Wing Body(BWB) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV):Achieving Higher Aerodynamic EfficiencyThrough Planform Redesign and Low FidelityInverse Twist Method. Proceedings of EnCon2010, 3rd Engineering Conference on Advancement in Mechanical and Manufacturing for Sustainable Environment, 14-16 April (2010), Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia,
[14] R. E. M. Nasir, et al., "Aerodynamics of Sub-Sonic Blended Wing Body (BWB) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)," inInternational Conference on Mechanical & Manufacturing
Engineering(ICME2008), Universiti Tun HusseinOnn Malaysia (UTHM), Malaysia., 2008.
[15] R. E. M. Nasir, et al., "The effect of canard on Aerodynamics and Static Stability of Baseline-II Blended Wing-Body Aircraft at Low Subsonic Speed," in Conference on Engineering and TechnologyEducation,World Engineering Congress 2010, Kuching, Sarawak,Malaysia, 2010.
[16] Rizal E. M. Nasir, Wahyu Kuntjoro, Wirachman Wisnoe, Zurriati Ali, Nor F. Reduan, Firdaus Mohamad, The Aerodynamics Performance of Blended Wing Body Baseline-II E2, In proceedings of 2011 International Conference on Computer and Communication Devices (ICCCD 2011)
72
2009405194 JULY2012
[17] Roy Y. Myose, Shigeo Hayashibara, Ping-Chian Yeong, and L. Scott Miller, Effect of Canards on Delta Wing Vortex Breakdown During Dynamic Pitching,Journal Of AircraftVol. 34, No. 2, March April 1997
[18] W. Wisnoe, et al., "Wind Tunnel Experiments of Blended Wing Body (BWB) Unmanned AerialVehicle (UAV) At Loitering Phase," inProceedings of International Conference on Mechanical &Manufacturing Engineering (ICME2008), Universiti Tun HusseinOnn Malaysia (UTHM), Malaysia., 2008.
[19] Wan Zulhazri, The Aerodynamic Analysis of BWB Baseline II E5-8 UAV with Canard Aspect Ratio (AR) of 8 at Angle of Attack of 0 degree at 0.1 Mach number through CFD Simulation at different canard setting angles, Undergraduate Thesis, July 2012, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA Malaysia.
73
2009405194 JULY2012
APPENDIX A - STATIC PRESSURE CONTOUR FOR EVERY CANARD SETTING ANGLE, VIEWED FROM THE TOP AND BOTTOM SURFACE OF THE BWB BASELINE II E5-6 Top surface Bottom surface
-6
-4
-2
74
2009405194 JULY2012
Top surface
Bottom surface
10
11
75
2009405194 JULY2012
APPENDIX 2 - MACH NUMBER CONTOUR FOR EVERY CANARD SETTING ANGLE, VIEWED FROM THE TOP AND BOTTOM SURFACE OF THE BWB BASELINE II E5-6 Top surface Bottom surface
-6
-4
-2
76
2009405194 JULY2012
Top surface
Bottom surface
10
11
77

The Aerodynamic Analysis of BWB Baseline Ii E5-6 Uav With Canard Aspect Ratio (Ar) of 6 at Angle of Attack of 0 Deg at 0.1 Mach Number Through CFD Simulation at Different Canard Setting Angles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Aerodynamic Analysis of BWB Baseline Ii E5-6 Uav With Canard Aspect Ratio (Ar) of 6 at Angle of Attack of 0 Deg at 0.1 Mach Number Through CFD Simulation at Different Canard Setting Angles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

GRID INDEPENDENCE STUDY

Summary of the Parameters Obtained From GridIndependence Study 49

Test the parameters obtained in Grid IndependenceStudy 50 52

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

results obtained from the simulation

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS Figure 3.13

Successful mesh with viscous layer surrounded the BWB

Figure 3.21 Figure 3.22 Figure 3.23 Figure 4.1

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS Figure 5.1

Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3

Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

Figure 5.13 Figure 5.14

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

AR BWB b c CFD CL CLmax CD CM D L L/D M Ma Re Sref UAV V

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

Figure 1.1 Three axes of rotation for aircraft motion

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

Figure 1.2 Tail assembly (left) and canard (right)

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

Figure 1.3 BWB Baseline I (left) and BWB Baseline II (right)

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

Figure 1.4 The design of BWB Baseline II E5

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

Object selection for parameter validation

CFD analysis with variation of grid number

Figure1.5 Methodology flowchart

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

Figure 2.1 Force vector on aerofoil

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

Where D = Drag force (N) = Density (kg/m ) V = Velocity (m/s)

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

where M = Pitching moment force (N) = Density (kg/m ) V = Velocity (m/s)

S = Reference area (m ) CM = Pitching moment coefficient

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

Figure 3.1 Half model of BWB Baseline-II E4

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

Figure 3 The BWB half model imported into the HEXPRESS

MUHAMMAD HILMI BIN ABD ADZIS

Figure 3.3 Boundary box setup