Passive Flow Control On Civil Aircraft Flaps Using Sub-Boundary Layer

No SBVGs With SBVGs
AWIATOR Project Perspectives:

Passive Flow Control on Civil Aircraft Flaps using
Sub-Boundary Layer Vortex Generators
David Sawyers
Aerodynamics R&T Co-ordinator
Airbus UK Limited
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008

Presentation Overview
• Background
Passive Flow Control for High Lift Applications
What are SBVGs and how do they work?
Potential Benefits of using SBVGs on Trailing Edge Flaps
Previous Work on SBVG design
• SBVGs in the AWIATOR Programme

SBVG Design
Wind Tunnel Testing
© AIRBUS UK LTD. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.
Flight Testing
Concluding Remarks
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 2

Background
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008
Page 3
• Motivation
Extended ranges for civil aircraft means that the take-off and
landing performance (low speed) is a critical factor in design.
• Conventional ways to Improve Low Speed Performance
Increase the wing area (potentially increased drag & reduced
range).
Design a more mechanically complex high-lift system (increased
weight).

• The use of Simple (Passive) Flow Control Devices
Increases the efficiency of high lift systems whilst maintaining
simplicity.
• High lift performance is limited by boundary layer separations.
Two approaches to reduce separation:
– (1) careful optimisation of flap gap ( increased gap sensitivity, more
difficult to manufacture within tolerances)
– (2) limit flap angle ( loss in potential performance CLmax)
Sub Boundary-layer Vortex Generators (SBVGs):
– (1) Reduce flow sensitivity to flap gap.
– (2) Re-attach separated flow for high flap angles without incurring a
large drag penalty at cruise and take-off.

SBVGs
• What are they?
Surfacemounted vortex generators where the VG height < BL height
• How they work?
These SBVG’s control the flap boundary layer by adding momentum to the
boundary layer, at the flap surface.
By doing so SBVG’s control (delay) the boundary layer separation.
These SBVGs are mounted on the flap upper surface so that they delay
flap boundary layer separation only when the flap is deployed.
– When the flap is stowed, the SBVG’s are contained in the cove region, under
the shroud.
h
Vortex Influence
Paths
Direction of onset flow
SBVG on Flap

Potential Benefits of SBVGs on Flaps
• Existing Aircraft Application (i.e. as a retrofit) Higher flap angle
Increase CL CL
– At high flap angles the flap becomes

separated but SBVGs can re-attach the flap
and allow the a/c to cash in the benefit of
increased lift from the increased flap angle.
• potential to decrease approach speed and D
hence approach noise
With SBVGs
Decrease Sensitivity to Gap (risk mitigation)
– Can be used at take-off or landing to reduce
separations due to flap gap geometry CL
sensitivity.
Increase Drag at Landing
– Increasing the flap angle will have a drag

increase without any loss in CL max which D
may be favourable in cases where the option
of a steep approach would be beneficial.

Potential Benefits of SBVGs on Flaps
• New Aircraft Design
New a/c variant that requires higher CL, can use SBVGs to achieve
higher flap angles without having to go to a complex system
Design a simplified high lift system with a smaller flap at higher
angles (reduce weight and complexity) but give the same landing
and take-off performance.

Previous Work
• National High-Lift research
programmes with Airbus & QinetiQ
-2000.00 -1595.96 -1191.92 -787.88 -383.84 20.20
examined SBVG designs (shape,

size, angle) in a simple 2D BL test. 15
(CARAD) 10
x/h
• Looked at different SBVG designs 5
and their effectiveness for more

complex applications. (NEXUS) Boundary-layer Testing
Full complex configuration, at high Re No. (6m) (2001)

SBVGs in AWIATOR

SBVGs in AWIATOR
• AWIATOR (Aircraft WIng with Advanced Technology OpeRation)
The aim of this project was to contribute to new future aircraft designs by
applying and integrating new technologies. (CEC FP5)
Demonstration by various flight tests on an A340 after having first been
simulated using a number of computational methods and validated in wind
tunnel and other aircraft ground tests.
• Objectives of SBVG task (T3.4)
To demonstrate technologies for improving the performance of trailing
edge flap systems using simple flow control devices.
To demonstrate if SBVGs can be used to:
– increase the trailing edge flap angle 32° to 35°
– by doing this increase CL throughout the incidence range without incurring a
loss in L/D for take-off.
• Phases
Phase 1: SBVG Design

Phase 2: Wind Tunnel Testing
Phase 3: Flight Testing

SBVG Design
• CFD study (ONERA)
Structured mesh
Navier-Stokes calculations (elsA code)
Data on the sensitivity of the flap boundary layer to
Reynolds Number.
Experimental pressure data was used to validate
the CFD for the baseline and finally complex CFD
calculations with SBVG representation was also
used to refine the final SBVG design.
• BL Calc (QQ)
Using the CFD calculations as an input boundary
layer calculations were performed F1 Wind Tunnel Test
CALLISTO code
Scaled SBVGs for the boundary layer of the
aircraft.
• Output CFD
The output of this collaborated design work was a

baseline array of SBVGs, which was taken forward
to be optimised and demonstrated in a series of
wind tunnel tests.

Wind Tunnel Testing

Wind Tunnel Testing Overview
• Model
A340 high-lift half model
– Model scale 1:14.4
• Tunnel Entries
Entry 1: Airbus LS Tunnel, Filton
– June 2004
– Atmospheric (Re=2.2m)
– ID optimum SBVG arrangement
Entry 2: ONERA F1 Tunnel
– July 2004
– Pressurised to 3bar (Re=6.6m)
– Examine Re effects
• Measurements
Forces & Oil flow visualisations

Wind Tunnel Testing – Airbus FLSWT Test
• Objective:
To assist in determining the optimum SBVG arrangement to be
fitted to the flaps for the AWIATOR test flight to allow an increased
trailing edge flap deflection angle with acceptable flow quality.
• Main Observations:
The optimised SBVG array significantly reduced the extent of
boundary layer separation of the flap at an increased flap deflection
of Gf = 35°.
The addition of SBVGs to the flap at Gf = 35° deflection increased
the lift coefficient by up to 2.2% over a wide incidence range
compared to the baseline configuration of Gf = 32° without SBVGs.
The effect of SBVGs at a fixed landing flap deflection increased the
lift coefficient by 'CL = 0.01 to 0.04 over part of the incidence
range indicating, as expected, that the vast majority of the lift

increase is due to increase in flap angle.
A trend to a small increase in drag of 4 counts (Cd=0.0004) in take-
off configuration is within the repeatability of the wind tunnel
balance and therefore deemed not significant.
Wind Tunnel Testing – Airbus FLSWT Results
No SBVGs No SBVGs No SBVGs

With SBVGs
With SBVGs
With SBVGs

Wind Tunnel Testing – ONERA F1 Test
• Objective:
Toinvestigate Reynolds number effects on the optimised SBVG array as defined in
the Airbus LSWT test (Filton).
• Main Observations:
Good correspondence of CL-alpha curves and drag increments was observed
between FLSWT and F1.
At high Reynolds number (Re=6.6m) the optimised SBVG array from the Filton test
(ref height of h1) significantly reduced the extent of boundary layer separation of the
flap at an increased flap deflection of Gf = 35°, see Figure.
With an increase in Re the incidence range of CL improvements due to higher flap
deflection and SBVG application is extended, see Figure.
At Re=6.6 the level of CL improvement at a reference alpha (approx 0.8 CLmax
SBVGs off) is slightly larger (2.25%) than at atmospheric conditions (Re=2.2m)
SBVGs of smaller heights (h2 and h3) could not cure flap flow separation at the
highest Reynolds number.
With higher Reynolds numbers a drag increase in take-off configuration due to
SBVGs installation at atmospheric pressure is not observed outside the tolerance of
the balance.

Wind Tunnel Testing – ONERA F1 Results
No SBVGs No SBVGs
With SBVGs With SBVGs


Wind Tunnel Testing – ONERA F1 Results
AWIATOR 3.4 SBVG LSWT Test
Modell 419B, G s =19.6°/23°/23°, Gf =32°, 35°
Ma=0.2, Re=2.2x106 , 6.6x106
Gf=35q with SBVGs (Re=6.6m) Reference Data

Run 865, df=35°, Re=2.2E6, SR1opt Run 524, df=32°, Re=2.2E6, no SBVGs
Run 591, df=35°, Re=6.6E6, SR1opt Run 702, df=32°, Re=6.6E6, no SBVGs
Gf=35q with SBVGs (Re=2.2m)
Increase in CL of 2.25% at ref alpha

Delta CL
Gf=32q no SBVGs
Alpha
X:\A erodynamic s\B61\HLWD\K arsten\AWIATOR\One ra F1\OneraF1_FLSWT_forces_prel_datasorted_0721z.exy SB VG Improvement Po tenti al DCL a V2

Flight Testing

Flight Testing - Overview
• Main Objective:
To demonstrate, on a full scale-aircraft, that SBVGs can be used to increase the
trailing edge flap angle beyond the current maximum whilst maintaining attached flow.
This would release an additional lift increment whilst minimising any increase in
buffeting.
• Tests Completed:
The optimised SBVG arrangement as identified from wind tunnel testing was tested at
aircraft scale on the A340-300 MSN 1 flight test aircraft.
The aircraft was tested at stall and climb performance conditions with and without
SBVGs installed to allow a full comparison of results.

Flight Testing – Aircraft Modifications
• Modification of the flap kinematics
• Mechanism changes to allow flaps to
deploy to 35°
New rear links as detailed Flap
System
Adaptor wire installed on MSN1
Spoiler extension on spoilers 3-5
• Mounting of SBVGs on the flaps
Design & Manufacture
– SBVGs cut out of aluminium strips
Mounting of SBVGs
– Strips mounted across full span of

I/B & O/B flap
– Mounted using speed tape

Flight Testing – Flight Test Instrumentation
• Flight Test Instrumentation
• Lift and drag measurements (Onboard)
• Pressure measurements
Slat-wing-flap(1 station)
Flap (additional station)
wing pressure measurement

• Flap deformation measurements (EDT)
flap deformation measurement (EDT)
2 stations with stereo arrangement
(DLR)
• Flow cones & cameras

On the slats 3/4, wing & flap
• Indication of Tail Plane buffeting

Accelerometer mounted on HTP

Flight Testing – Main Observations
• Flap Flow Behaviour
Flowcones indicated improvement in flap flow
with SBVGs on at 35°.
Flap flow at 35° without SBVGs was not as
separated in 2005 as expected from previous
experience.
The flow behaviour observed on the wing with
the SBVGs installed was more noticeably
improved for the flap at 35° than with the flap at
32°.
At 35° there is no clear improvement on the
inboard flap as it remains largely separated. On
the outboard flap there is improvement whatever
alpha.
• CL-Alpha Plots
32-35 CL-alpha trend is as expected, increase in
CL of approx 2.5% at reference alpha.
CL increase across the range but 35° stall is 0.3
degree early.

Concluding Remarks
• This work has demonstrated, at aircraft scale, that by reducing flap flow
separation SBVGs can be used to enable low speed improvements
associated with increased flap angle to be exploited on civil aircraft.
• The increase in flap angle leads to an increase in lift that can be

exploited in landing across the CL range without incurring a significant
drag penalty in take-off.
• SBVGs provide a simple, effective, innovative means of enabling the

increase of the performance of an existing under-performing flap
system with imposing any significant weight, complexity, cost penalty.
• SBVGs have the future potential to adopt a simpler, lighter, cheaper

flap system to give a similar performance by exploiting the following
characteristics:
Same lift despite non-optimum flap gap geometry
Allow an increase in the maximum flap deployment angle

Thanks…
…any Questions?

© AIRBUS UK LTD. All rights reserved. Confidential and
proprietary document.
This document and all information contained herein is the sole
property of AIRBUS UK LTD. No intellectual property rights
are granted by the delivery of this document or the disclosure
of its content. This document shall not be reproduced or
disclosed to a third party without the express written consent
of AIRBUS UK LTD. This document and its content shall not
be used for any purpose other than that for which it is
supplied.
The statements made herein do not constitute an offer. They
are based on the mentioned assumptions and are expressed
in good faith. Where the supporting grounds for these
statements are not shown, AIRBUS UK LTD will be pleased to
explain the basis thereof.
AIRBUS, its logo, A300, A310, A318, A319, A320, A321,
A330, A340, A350, A380, A400M are registered trademarks.
KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 4/5/2008 Page 27

Passive Flow Control On Civil Aircraft Flaps Using Sub-Boundary Layer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Passive Flow Control On Civil Aircraft Flaps Using Sub-Boundary Layer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

No SBVGs With SBVGs

AWIATOR Project Perspectives:

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008

• SBVGs in the AWIATOR Programme

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 2

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 4

large drag penalty at cruise and take-off.

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 5

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 6

– At high flap angles the flap becomes

– Increasing the flap angle will have a drag

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 7

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 8

examined SBVG designs (shape,

• Looked at different SBVG designs 5

and their effectiveness for more

Full complex configuration, at high Re No. (6m) (2001)

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 9

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 10

 Phase 1: SBVG Design

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 11

 The output of this collaborated design work was a

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 12

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 13

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 14

range indicating, as expected, that the vast majority of the lift

No SBVGs No SBVGs No SBVGs

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 16

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 17

With SBVGs With SBVGs

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 18

Gf=35q with SBVGs (Re=6.6m) Reference Data

Gf=35q with SBVGs (Re=2.2m)

Increase in CL of 2.25% at ref alpha

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 19

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 20

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 21

– Strips mounted across full span of

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 22

wing pressure measurement

• Flow cones & cameras

• Indication of Tail Plane buffeting

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 23

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 24

• The increase in flap angle leads to an increase in lift that can be

• SBVGs provide a simple, effective, innovative means of enabling the

• SBVGs have the future potential to adopt a simpler, lighter, cheaper

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 25

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 Page 26

KATnet II Separation Control Workshop - 01-03 April 2008 4/5/2008 Page 27

You might also like

Phase 1: SBVG Design

The output of this collaborated design work was a