TSINGHUA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

ISSNll1007-0214ll19/21llpp94-99
Volume 14, Number S2, December 2009

Aerodynamics of a Multi-Element Airfoil near Ground

QIN Xuguo (**), LIU Peiqing (), QU Qiulin ()
School of Aeronautics Science and Technology, Beihang University, Beijing 100083, China
Abstract: Two-dimensional wing sections were investigated numerically both in clean and high lift configurations operating in ground effect. The compressible Navier-Stokes equations are solved by the finite-volume
method, and shear-stress transport k- turbulence model is used. The effects of flight height on the aerodynamics of the multi-element airfoils are found obviously different compared with clean airfoils. The results
indicate that, with a reduction in height, the lift increases for the multi-element airfoil, but decreases for the
clean airfoil, while the drag and nose down moment decrease for both airfoils. The cause of the reduction of
lift is that the losses of suction side of upper surface are more than the increases of pressure side of lower
surface. The separated region becomes larger as the height reduces.
Key words: ground effect; high lift configuration; numerical simulation

Introduction
A wing operating in the proximity to the ground introduces different flow physics from that in free stream[1].
The effects of ground proximity become measurable at
a height above the ground of one wing-span and increase in magnitude as the height above the ground
decreases. The flight near ground is important for takeoff and landing of jet transport aircraft. For modern
wing design of modern transport aircraft, multi- element wing is often used to satisfy the need for a highlift system. Both theoretical and experimental investigations indicate that ground proximity produces an
increase in the lift-curve slope, a decrease in drag, and
a reduction of nose-up pitching moment for most aircrafts in the clean configuration[2,3]. However, high-lift
configurations deviate from this trend, which depends
on the configuration of the airfoil[4,5].
For modern wing design of modern transport aircraft,
multi-element wing is often used to satisfy the need for
a high-lift system[6]. The high-lift devices are comReceived: 2009-05-08; revised: 2009-06-20

** To whom correspondence should be addressed.

E-mail: qinxuguo@ase.buaa.edu.cn; Tel: 86-10-82315463

monly composed of leading-edge slats and trailingedge flaps to increase lift performance in takeoff and
landing[7]. The multi-element wing system with small
gaps complicates mesh generation and flow features.
Flow is complicated due to boundary layer transition,
flow separation, and interaction of wake of each element and boundary layer[8]. Recently, efforts to validate and improve computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
have been promoted for high-lift systems[9]. There
have been a large number of researches in the field of
multi-element aerodynamics. From the review of recent turbulence models used for multi-element airfoil[10,11], it can be found that early algebraic model and
k- model have been proved to be incorrect in
multi-element simulation. The shear-stress transport
(SST) k- model[12], developed since 1990s, has been
proved to be more superior. Melvin and Martinelli[13]
and Zhang and Zerihan[14] investigated inverted double
element wing in ground effect which is used in race car
to get downforce. Little information is placed in public
domain about a high-lift airfoil in ground effect which
is used in the process of landing and takeoff of aircraft.
In this paper, two-dimensional airfoil sections, both
in clean and high lift configurations, are investigated

95

QIN Xuguo ( )et al.Aerodynamics of a Multi-Element Airfoil near Ground

numerically in ground effect. Compressible NavierStokes equations, based on finite volume method, are
solved. SST k- two-equation turbulence model is
used to calculate the aerodynamic characteristics of the
airfoils at various distances from ground and various
angles of attack. Numerical results are presented to
show the effects of the ground on the aerodynamic
characteristics of the airfoil sections. The pressure distributions on the airfoils are given to show why the
aerodynamic characteristics of the airfoil sections
change and the streamline shows the effects of the
ground on the flow field.

Numerical Method

1.1

Governing equations

Based on the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations, the governing equations can be given as:
Continuity equation,
wU
w
( U ui ) 0

(1)
wt wxi

Momentum equation,
w
w
( U ui ) 
( U ui u j )
wt
wx j
Energy equation,
w
1 w
U h  ui2 

wt
2 wx j

wp wW ij


wxi wx j

1 2

U u j h  2 ui

wT
uiW ij  O

wx j

where W ij is the stress tensor and h is the total

thalpy given by
wu wu 2 wu
W ij P i  j  P l G ij
wx

j wxi 3 wxl
h cpT
wp
w

wt wx j

Ideal gas state equation,

P U RT

(2)

(3)
en-

(4)
(5)
(6)

The finite volume method is used to solve the twodimensional unsteady Reynolds-averaged NavierStokes equations. The momentum equations are discretized using second order upwind scheme options.
Viscous terms are discretized using central differences.
Velocity and pressure are coupled and solved in all
computations. The temporal integration is accomplished with one order implicit scheme. The velocity

was set to zero on the airfoil surface. The ground was

set as a moving wall with the velocity same as free air
to simulate the factual flight more accurately. A pressure far-field boundary condition is used for the far
field flow condition.
1.2

Turbulence modeling

To close the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations, SST k- turbulence model was used in this study
which can effectively blend the robust and accurate
formulation of two turbulence models. The k- model
was solved in the near-wall region and the k- model
was solved in the far field. The k and  transport equations are:
wu
w
w
w
wk
(U k )
( U kui ) W ij i  E Z k 
( P V k Pt )
,
wt
wxi
wx j
wx j
wx j
wu
J
w
w
( UZ ) 
( UZui )
W ij i  EUZ 2 
Xt wx j
wt
wxi
w
wx j

1 wk wZ
wZ
)  2(1  F1 ) UV Z 2
( P V Z Pt )
Z
x
w
wx j wx j

(7)

The constants  of the model (including k, , , *,

and ) are calculated from the constants 1 and 2 as
follows:
M F1M1  (1  F1 )M2
(8)

The constants of set 1 (1) applied to the flow in the

boundary layer are:
V k1 0.85, V Z1 0.5, E1 0.075, E 0.09,

0.41, J 1

E1 / E  V Z1N 2 / E .

The constants of set 2 (2) applied to the flow out of

boundary layer are
V k 2 1.0, V Z 2 0.856, E 2 0.0828,

0.09, N

0.41, J 2

E 2 / E  V Z 2N 2 / E .

The blending function F1 is defined as

F1 tanh(arg1 ) 4

(9)

k
500X 4 UV Z 2 k
min max
; 2 ;
(10)
2

0.09Z y y Z CD kZ y

1 wk wZ
CD kZ max 2 UV Z 2
;1020
(11)

Z wx j wx j

where y is the distance to the solid surface. And the

eddy viscosity is defined as
D1k
Xt
; D1 0.31 ,
max(D1Z; : F2 )

arg1

Tsinghua Science and Technology, December 2009, 14(S2): 94-99

96

where : is the absolute value of the vorticity

: | wu / wy | and F2 is given by
F2

arg 2

tanh(arg 22 )

2 k 500X
max
; 2
0.09Z y y Z

Results and Discussion

2.1

Validation

(12)
(13)

It is necessary to ensure that the result of the flow calculation can be relied on comparison to experimental
data. The experimental database for the flow around a
multi-element airfoil is a 3-element airfoil called
L1T2-configuration shown in Fig. 1[7].

Fig. 1 Grid for the calculation of the flow around L1T2

configuration

Pressure coefficient on the surface, total pressure

profiles of the boundary layers, the free wakes for a
selected angle of attack of =20.18, and the  dependency of the lift coefficient are provided. The flow
conditions are given with Ma=0.197 and Re
3.52106. The used grid contained 267 000 structured
cells in 8 blocks so that each surface part is covered
within a C-type grid and another outer C-type grid is
surrounding the others. Figure 2 shows the computed
overall pressure distribution, in which X is the horizontal coordinate. The results show good agreements
with experimental data. Only a few differences can be
found in the suction peak on the slat.

A critical item for flow simulation around multielement airfoils can capture the mixing of the boundary layers with the wakes of the preceding elements.
Therefore, the total pressure profiles are a good criterion to compare the mixing behavior of the RANSsimulation against experimental data. This is shown in
Fig. 3 for a station at the trailing edge of the flap. First,
it has to be stated, and the total pressure profiles near
the wall match the experiments very well. Also the
distance of the wakes of the preceding airfoil elements
agree closely to the experimental data. As expected the
boundary layers are thicker, the wakes are wider for
the fully turbulent calculations, and the wakes for these
calculations are slightly more far off the surface. It is
obvious that the total pressure peaks especially for the
slat/main wake interaction are not as pronounced as in
the experiments and the outer bound of the shear flow
region is smeared out, which is due to the reduced grid
resolution in this region. Another point of view is looking at the dependencies of the aerodynamic coefficients from the angle of attack, which is shown in Fig.
4. It can be observed that at moderate angle of attack
the lift coefficients are slightly lower than the experiment, but the error is lower than 5% at different angle
of attack.

Fig. 3 Calculated total pressure profiles compared

with experimental data

2.2

Fig. 2 Calculated pressure distributions compared

with experimental data

Results and analysis

A two-dimensional airfoil section is investigated both

in clean and high lift configurations, which has been
shown in Fig. 5, and the high lift airfoil is for landing

97

QIN Xuguo ( )et al.Aerodynamics of a Multi-Element Airfoil near Ground

The results show that for the clean airfoil at =6, with
the decrease of distance between the airfoil and ground,
the lift and the nose down moment increase, and the
drag decreases.

Fig. 4 Calculated aerodynamic coefficients compared

with experimental data

setting. The flow conditions are given with Ma=0.168

and Re =1.31107, which are based on the chord
length of clean airfoil. The grid of multi-element airfoil
contains 572 100 structured cells at the lowest height,
and 677 100 cells at the highest height. The grid of
clean airfoil contains 70 920 cells at the lowest height,
and 81 390 cells at the highest height. The grids are
shown in Fig. 6. The flight height is h/c=0.15, 0.20,
0.40, 0.70, and 1.0, where c is the chord of the clean
airfoil and h is the height between the rear of the airfoil
and ground. For the clean airfoil, the incidence of the
airfoil is =3, 6, 9, and 12. For the clean airfoil,
=6.

Fig. 5

(a) CL

(b) CD

Multi-element airfoil in ground effect sketch

(c) CM
(a) High-lift configuration section

(b) Clean configuration section

Fig. 6 Grid for the calculation of the flow around airfoil sections

Figure 7 shows the effect of ground on the aerodynamic characteristics, especially for high lift airfoil.

Fig. 7 Aerodynamic coefficients versus ground distance for the airfoils

For the high lift configuration, the results are in

some contrast to the results for a clean airfoil. With the
decrease of distance between the airfoil and ground,
the lift, the nose down moment, and the drag all decrease. The losses of the lift are very considerable in
ground proximity. The effect becomes stronger as the
angle of attack increased. At  = 3, the lift decreases
17.64% from h/c = 1.0 to h/c = 0.15, and at  = 12, the

98

Tsinghua Science and Technology, December 2009, 14(S2): 94-99

loss of lift grows to 20.79%. No positive ground effect

can be found for the high lift configuration.
Figure 8 shows pressure distributions of the clean
airfoil for different distances. With the reduction of
height, higher values of pressure coefficient are found
on the lower surface, and the pressure distribution on
the upper surface does not show obvious variation,
which results in higher lift force.

(a) =6

Fig. 8 Pressure distributions of clean airfoil for different ground distances,  = 6

Figure 9 shows pressure distribution of the high-lift

section for different distances and different angles of
attack. There is a well ordered shift of the pressure distribution curves on the upper surface to lower suction
value with a decreasing ground distance. Slat, flap, and
vane show similar effects as the main wing. The suction side of the airfoil system is affected (suction losses)
more than the pressure side (pressure gains), especially
for higher angel attack. This is in contrast to the results
of the air-foil in clean configuration.
Figure 10 shows the streamline distributions at different heights and different angles of attack. It can be
found that the region of separated cove flow becomes
smaller with the increase of the angle of attack. At
 = 3 and  = 6, the flow on the upper surface of the
flap is the separated flow, and the separated region becomes larger as the height reduces. At  = 9, the flow
on the upper surface of the flap becomes attached, and
the confluent flow becomes stronger in the wake behind the airfoil as the height reduces. At  = 12, the
flow on the upper surface of the flap retains attached.
As the height reduces, two vortices can be found in the
wake of the airfoil because of the strong confluent flow
from the gap and the wake of the main wing. The vortices become stronger as the height reduces so the direction of the jet flow from the vane gap and the wake

(b) =12
Fig. 9 Pressure distributions of high-lift airfoil for
different ground distances

=3

=6

=9

=12
(a) h/c = 1.0
Fig. 10

(b) h/c = 0.15

Streamline distributions at different heights

QIN Xuguo ( )et al.Aerodynamics of a Multi-Element Airfoil near Ground

behind the main wing changes with the angle of attack.

With the angle of attack increasing, the jet flow from
the gap begins to blow away the separated flow on the
upper surface of the flap, but the confluent flow between the flap and the wake from the main wing becomes more dominant.

99

[2] Hsiun C M, Chen C K. Aerodynamic characteristics of a

two-dimensional airfoil with ground effect. Journal of Aircraft, 1996, 32(2): 386-392.
[3] Qu Q L. Numerical simulation and analysis of aerodynamics of a WIG craft in cruise over ground. Acta Aeronautica
Et Astronatica Sinica, 2006, 27: 16-22. (in Chinese).
[4] Steinbach D, Jacob K. Some aerodynamic aspects of wings

Conclusions

This paper investigated two-dimensional wing sections

numerically both in clean and high lift configurations
operating in ground effect. The SST k- turbulence
model and the finite volume method were used. Numerical results show that for the airfoil in clean configuration, with the decrease of distance between the
airfoil and ground, the lift coefficient and nose down
moment coefficient increase but the drag coefficient
decreases. The increases of pressure coefficient are
found on the lower surface with a reduction in height,
which results in higher lift force.
For the high lift configuration, the results are in contrast to the results of the clean airfoil. With a reduction
in height, the lift, nose down moment, and drag all decrease. The losses of suction side of upper surface are
more than the increases of pressure side of lower surface with a reduction in height, especially for higher
angles of attack. The region of separated cove flow
becomes smaller with the increase of the angle of attack. At small angles of attack, separated flow can be
found on the upper surface of the flap and the separated region becomes larger as the height reduces. At
larger angles of attack, the flow appears being attached
on the upper surface of the flap, but two vortices can
be found in the wake behind the airfoil because of the
confluent flow from the gap. The vortices become
stronger as the height reduces.
In conclusion, the effect of ground proximity on the
aerodynamics changes for different airfoils. It depends
on the configuration of the airfoil.
References
[1] Halloran M, OMeara S. Wing in Ground Effect Craft Review. Melbourne: DSTO Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, 1999.

near ground. Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 1991, 34(104): 56-70.
[5] Hoak D E, Finck R D. USAF Stability and DAR 303. 1974:
A2-1to A2-12.

[6] Rudolph P K C. High-lift systems on commercial subsonic
airliners. NASA CR 4746, 1996.
[7] Van Dam C P. The aerodynamic design of multi-element
high-lift systems for transport airplanes. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2002, 38: 101-144.
[8] Smith A M O. High lift aerodynamics. Journal of Aircraft,
1975, 12(6): 501-530.
[9] Rumsey C L, Ying S X. Prediction of high lift: Review of
present CFD capability. Progress in Aerospace Sciences,
2002, 38: 145-180.
[10] Liou W W, Liu F. Computational modeling for the flow
over a multi-element airfoil. AIAA Paper, 2000, 99-3177:
569-577.
[11] Catalano P, Amato M. An evaluation of RANS turbulence
modelling for aerodynamic applications. Aerospace Science and Technology, 2003, 7: 493-509.
[12] Menter F R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA Journal, 1994, 32(8):
1598-1605.
[13] Melvin A, Martinelli L. Aerodynamic shape optimization
of multi-element airfoils in ground effect. In: Proceedings
of the 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit.
Reno, Nevada, USA, 2008: 2008-327.
[14] Zhang X, Zerihan J. Aerodynamics of a double-element
wing in ground effect. AIAA Journal, 2003, 41(6):
1007-1016.