Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NOVERDO SAPUTRA
Certified by:
NOTES : * If the thesis is CONFIDENTAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with the letter from the
organization with period and reasons for confidentiality or restriction.
I hereby declare that I have read this thesis and in my opinion this
Signature :
Name : Professor. Dr. Adi Maimun Bin H. Abdul Malik
Date : September 2011
LONGITUDINAL STABILITY AND MOTION OF
TRIMARAN WING IN GROUND EFFECT MODEL
DURING TAKE-OFF
NOVERDO SAPUTRA
SEPTEMBER 2011
ii
DECLARATION
I declare that this thesis entitled Longitudinal Stability and Motion Wing in Ground
Effect model during take-off is the result of my own research except as cited in the
references. The thesis has not been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently
submitted in candidature of any other degree.
Signature :
Name : Noverdo Saputra
Date : September 2011
iii
DEDICATION
Nothing is impossible in this world; keep trying, learning and seeking blessing from
the God until the end of your life
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1 All Aerodynamic Laboratory staff for the assistance given during the wind
tunnel test.
2 All Marine Laboratory staff for the assistance given during the hydrodynamic
test.
3 All Centre of Composite Laboratory staff for the assistance given during
making model and prototype.
4 All Structure Laboratory staff for the assistance given during strength
assessment.
5 All my fellow colleagues in the Marine Laboratory, Saeed Jamee, Mobasser,
Ike Suharyanti. Mr. Rahimudin, Mr. Nurcholis, Mr.Yogi, Syaril.
v
ABSTRACT
ABSTRAK
TABLE OF CONTENT
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT vi
ABSTRAK vii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background and problem statement 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Historical ground effect vehicles 7
3, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 21
3.1 Introduction 21
5. EXPERIMENTAL WORK 56
5.1 Wind Tunnel Test 56
5.1.2.3 Testing 70
xi
REFERENCES 154
APPENDIX A 159
APPENDIX B 163
APPENDIX C 170
APPENDIX D 177
APPENDIX E 189
APPENDIX F 191
APPENDIX G 196
APPENDIX H 210
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
6.12 CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1.5, endplate he/c
= 0.05 93
6.13 CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 2, endplate he/c
= 0.05 94
6.14 CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1 95
6.15 CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1.5 96
6.16 CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 2 97
6.17 CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1 98
6.18 CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1.5 99
6.19 CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 2 100
6.20 CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1, endplate he/c =
0.05 102
6.21 CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1.5, endplate he/c
= 0.05 103
6.22 CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 2, endplate he/c =
0.05 104
6.23 CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1, endplate he/c =
0.05 105
6.24 CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1.5, endplate he/c
= 0.05 106
6.25 CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 2, endplate he/c =
0.05 107
6.26 CL versus h/c every AOA for AR = 1.25 rectangular-
dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model without
endplate using VLM 109
6.27 CL versus h/c every AOA for AR = 1.25 rectangular-
dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model with
endplate 0.05c using VLM 110
6.28 CD versus h/c every AOA for AR = 1.25 rectangular-
dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model without
endplate using VLM 111
6.29 CD versus h/c every AOA for AR = 1.25 rectangular-
dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model with
endplate 0.05c using VLM 112
xvi
6.45 Total drag trimaran WIG model result from free running
test 131
6.46 Comparison drag trimaran Wig model every speed
between numerical result (SM) and experimental work
(free running test) 132
6.47 Draft change during take off 132
6.48 SSM wing without endplate, h/c= 0.06 - 0.3 134
6.49 SSM wing with endplate, h/c= 0.06 - 0.3, he/c = 0.06c 135
6.50 SSM wing with endplate and tail, h/c= 0.06 - 0.3 he/c =
0.06c 136
6.51 Short Period Pitch Oscillation (SPPO) Trimaran WIG
every ground clearance (h/c) during take-off 137
6.52 Short Period Pitch Oscillation (SPPO) trimaran WIG
every angle of attack (AOA) during take-off 138
6.53 Long Period Pitch Oscillation (Phugoid) trimaran WIG
every ground clearance (h/c) during take-off 139
6.54 Long Period Pitch Oscillation (Phugoid) trimaran WIG
every angle of attack (AOA) during take-off 139
6.55 Comparison trimaran WIG during take-off between
Simulink Flightgear simulation and free running test 140
6.56 Pitch motion trimaran WIG model 146
6.57 Heave motion trimaran WIG model 147
xviii
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Aerodynamic
sweep Angle ( 0 )
air density
vortex strength
F influence function geometry of single horshoe
S wing area (m2)
U free stream velocity (m/s)
u backwash velocity (m/s)
v sidewash velocity (m/s)
xxvi
Subscript
U backwash
V sidewash
w downwash
n index for elemental panel
H hydrodynamic pitch
OGE out ground effect
IGE in ground effect
E with endplate
WE without endplate
Hydrodynamic
Fa Aerodynamic force
Fh Hydrodynamic force
Fc Control force
Fd disturbance force
Fg gravitational force
Fp Propulsion force
Superscript
a related to aerodynamics
h related to hydrodynamics
perturbation value
Subscript
0 value at the equilibrium state
h derivative with respect to height
Experiment formula
Yw width of wake
q local dynamic pressure
q free stream
C mLE moment coefficient from leading edge
x(dc ) distance from leading edge (or other selected reference point)
P
pressure difference at each location
q
Pa pressure at inlet
Pb pressure at outlet
Y error every airspeed
xxxi
LIST OF APPENDICES
INTRODUCTION
Moving marine vehicles at high speed has been one of the biggest challenges
faced by naval architects and hydrodynamic researcher over the years especially after
the invention of aircraft, much thought have been given to find different methods that
can move ships quickly, Wing In Ground Effect (WIG) Craft is the most successful
one in terms of gaining high speed. The phenomenon of ground effect was observed
by many researchers since early in the birth of aviation. The advantages of using a
high speed craft in ground condition are commonly acknowledged by reduce drag
and increase lift. Wieselsberger (1921), Reid (1937) and Carter (1961),
hypothetically and experimentally was analyzed the influence of the ground on
aerodynamics wings. Analysis of experimental drag of wing with endplate shown
effect endplate in aerodynamic characteristic has investigated by Hemke (1927).
Absolutely, ground clearances and endplate ratio have influence in static stability
margin (SSM). Kumar (1968), Irodov (1970), Zhukov (1974), and Staufenbiel
(1988), Chun, and Chang (2002), all of them tell about the problem of longitudinal
stability in ground condition, where position aerodynamic centre in pitch (ACP) and
position aerodynamic in height (ACH) was influenced from the scenery of the
longitudinal stability every comparative position. Plentiful studies have been
conducted analyzing the influence of the ground effect on wing performance.
2
All problems above tell us about longitudinal static stability and longitudinal
dynamic stability during cruise which means that only aerodynamic affects the
stability. However, the stability problem that often occurs on the small WIG craft is
when WIGs phase change from hydrodynamic-aerodynamic phase into pure
aerodynamic phase during take-off. Collu et al (2010) has been tried to solve
advance mathematical framework for the longitudinal stability of a high-speed craft
with planing hull and aerodynamic surfaces. Eventually, a complete kinematics
model is been developed. Their observation illustrates a mathematical method for
performance Aerodynamically Alleviated Marine Vehicle (AAMV) in dynamic
condition. That vehicle was designed to take advantage of combination aerodynamic
forces and hydrodynamic force in high speed craft to get fuel efficiency and to reach
further and with a greater payload.
There are similarities between an AAMV with a WIG, when the WIG in
phase "aero-hydro" during take-off. Not only the aerodynamic force that worked
when she takeoff, but both of aerodynamic force and hydrodynamic force that
worked at that moment. In this research, observations were performed to determine
aerodynamic characteristic of NACA 6409 dihedral rectangular wing (50-50) of
aspect ratio 1-1.5 with taper 0.8. The observation were conducted using vortex lattice
method and investigating the influence of flat ground and endplate on enforcement
of a trimaran WIG for relative ground clearances of 0.01 < h/c < 0.2, with ratio
endplate 0.015< he/c <0.1 on angles of attack between 0 and 8. Planing hull has
been chosen for the Wig as high speed is necessary to takeoff .In 1964; a
comprehensive paper that summarized previous experimental studies on the
hydrodynamics of prismatic planing surfaces was presented by Savitsky. He
presented a method for application of these results for the design of moving ships.
Besides, many laboratories and research centers have conducted hydrodynamic
3
studies on several fundamental planing hull phenomena. All numerical result will be
validated with experimental results or other published work.
After that, the old concept Static Stability Margin (SSM) was modified by
adding hydrodynamic factor. Thus, SSM during takeoff will be presented with the
new configuration with three criteria, first, the position Aerodynamic centre in
Pitch (ACP) should be located downstream of the position Aerodynamic Centre in
Height (ACH) , second, the position of center of gravity (COG) of the craft should
be located upstream of the aerodynamic center of pitch (ACP) and third, the
position Aerodynamic Centre in Height (ACH) should be located upstream of
Hydrodynamic center in Pitch (HCP). The classical aircraft motion has been
modified by calculating the aerodynamic force, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
forces, using a small perturbation assumption the full equations of motion WIG
during takeoff are derived and solved.
The first chapter provides about the background and problem statement of the
study, purpose and objective of the study, scope of the study, significant of the study.
Finally, thesis managing is presented.
The second chapter tells about literature review; history of vehicles on ground
condition, aerodynamic characteristic of vehicles on ground condition,
hydrodynamic of ground effect vehicles, longitudinal static stability of ground effect
vehicles, and dynamic stability of ground effect vehicles.
Chapter five provides procedure experiment in wind tunnel test at Low Speed
Tunnel (LST) UTM and free running test.
Chapter seven presents the conclusion and suggestion which can be used for
further research.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Around 1920, for the first time this effect was described and was carried out
in this field. The seaplane Dornier DO-X could cross the Atlantic Ocean by flying
low over the waves of the sea. This concept is intended to save fuel when they should
return to his base with a damaged engine condition during the Second World War
(SE 1996, Korolyov 2007).
8
After seeing some of the potential of the ground effect, some countries began
to seriously entered research and develop this effect to be used in the aviation world,
with the low flying can reduce fuel usage. In 1935, Toivo J. Kaario, try to develop
the Aerosledge No.8, but did not receive enough funding for further development (SE
1996, Rozhdestvensky 2000, Rozhdestvensky 2006,Chun 2008).
In 1963, the KM Caspian Sea Monster most famous ekranoplan was built by
Russia with displacement 500 ton (Halloran 1999). Also in 1963 was developed the
small single seat Collins X-112 aerofoil boat with low aspect ratio reverse delta
wing, dihedral and forward sweep, designed by German Scientist Alexander
Lippisch and built in America (SE 1996, Halloran 1999, and Leon 2007).
In 1979, the Soviet was built A-90 Orlyonok. Designed in 1974, only five
was built from the proposed 120, and were designed to quickly transport with larger
payloads (SE 1996, Leon 2007).
In 1987, the Lun-class Ekranoplan was proposed by the USSR. This craft was
equipped with missile launchers for anti submarine warfare. The MD-160, one kind
of this type was trialed for three years but was never used in operation (Leon 2007).
In 1990, the Aerocon Dash 1.6, large wingship was built by the US Company
Aerocon. This vehicle has thrust 5000 tons and is capable of a cruise speed of 400
knots (740km/h) (Rozhdestvensky 2006, Leon 2007). In thats year, Pelican was
developed by Boeing Phantom Works. The craft has capability to fly in ground effect
with altitude 20ft but also can fly over ground effects with altitude around 20,000 ft,
with span twice that of the worlds largest aircraft (the An-225), 0.4 Ha (SE 1996,
Leon 2007).
At the last 1990, Airfish-3 for four seat model was tested at speeds of
120km/h and was able to reach a range of 370 km. This vehicle was designed to
operate in ground effect with maximum dynamic jumps around 4.5m. After
successfully launching thats product, launched a new product Flightship 8 (FS-8)
for eight seat people and 2 crew members (Rozhdestvensky 2006).
has designed for eight seater and cruising speed of approximately 144 km/h (BPPT
2007).
The frictional drag of the endplates can reduce induced drag, is sufficiently
large to increase the efficiency of the wing. Analysis of experimental drag of wing
with endplate has done by Hemke (1927).
11
Margason and Lamar (1971) has done made Vortex Lattice Method (VLM)
program for calculate subsonic aerodynamic characteristic of complex planforms
using FORTRAN.
Zhang et al. (2002) reported the influence of tip vortex characteristics on the
aerodynamic performance of a cambered airfoil. Tip vortices generated by a
cambered, single element wing operating in ground effect were studied using a range
of methods including Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV), Laser Doppler Anemometry
(LDA), surface pressures, force balance measurements, and surface flow
visualization. They showed vortex breakdown occurred as the wing was lowered to
the ground, leading to a slowdown in the force enhancement. They equipped wing
with end plates and operated in ground effect.
the dynamic motion on a wig .So to get a solution of this problem (reducing drag) is
a worthy effort (Noverdo 2010). There are some option hulls forms can be used for
WIG craft. Research and development of advanced hull forms is a continuous to
developed, though not necessarily for reduced drag at high speed craft. Because of
the high speed requirements of WIG craft, displacement hulls are poor candidates, as
hull resistance is much too high (Todd 2002). Figure 2.1 shows the large range of
high-speed hull forms.
Planing hull has been chosen for the Wig as high speed is necessary to take-
off .In 1964 a comprehensive paper that summarized previous experimental studies
on the hydrodynamics of prismatic planing surfaces was presented by Savitsky
(1964). He presented a method for application of these results for the design of
moving ships. Besides, many laboratories and research centers have conducted
hydrodynamic studies on several fundamental planing hull phenomena. The
underlying principles of high speed planing craft resistance have been treated by
DuCane, Clyton and Bishop. Viscosity and free surface effects, including spray and
overturning waves, play significant roles, making both experimental and numerical
13
predictions of suitable hull parameters very difficult. The planing hull is a kind of
hull that is specifically designed for a craft to achieve relatively high speed on the
surface of water. A planing hull makes the water to be pushed down and to the sides
as the hull moves forward. By the wake depression behind the hull, the downward
motion of the water is observed. The pushing of the water sideways can be observed
by the spray produced to the sides of the hull. Figure 2.2 show downward and
sideways movement of water builds pressure under the hull (Saunders 1957).
The total wetted area surface of a planing hull is actually divided into 2
regions (Figure 2.3), the pressure area and spray area. The pressure area is the load
carrying area of the planing hull. The spray area contributes to the drag, but is not
considered to support any portion of the load (Savitsky 1964). The configuration will
be present as follows by (Todd 2002).
14
Figure 2.4: Hydrostatic lift & hydrodynamics lift component (Savitsky 1964)
15
The investigation hydrodynamic planing hull has been widely applied to the
researchers. Many methods have been used to estimate. Hassan Ghassemi, Mahmoud
Ghiasi, has been tried to combine Boundary Element Method (BEM) for predicted
induced drag, the frictional drag (the boundary layer theory), and the spray drag
(practical method) .All combination has been used to determine hydrodynamic force
of planing hull in the calm water condition. In this investigation was investigated by
an amount of elements with steady speed latent every element, where induced force
was investigated using the free surface elevation condition and the Kutta condition at
the transom stern. And induced drag and lift force was investigated by intended
distributions of dynamic pressure (see Figure 2.4). The frictional resistance was
investigated using the boundary layer analysis method, based on estimation of the
momentum integral equation. The area of spray has present by a particular practical
approach (Ghassemi 2007).
In1997, Couser has used form factor to estimate the total viscous component,
where form factor has influenced on frictional resistance of the velocity
augmentation and changes in the boundary layer due to the modified pressure field
around the demihulls (1997). Takinaci et al, has presented to predicted predict the
flow around a three-dimensional rectangular foil section including the effect of
boundary layer used potential-based Surface Panel Method (SPM), where that
method based on boundary-integral formulation (Morino formulation) (2002).
S.C. Rhodes and A.T. Sayers (2009) was investigated the effect of flat
ground on the aerodynamic force slender un-cambered DHMTU rectangular wing
with aspect ratio 3. The investigation were performed with comparison between
experimental work result and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) for investigate
influence of non-flat ground on the performance piece of rectangular wings in
ground condition, and was investigated in an open jet wind tunnel test with a flat
moving ground plane. The position ACH was found downstream of position the
ACP. The SSM were primarily unenthusiastic at all ground clearances (h/c), from
that result that rectangular wing was unstable in ground condition.
Hiromichi Akimoto, Syozo Kubo and Motoki Tanaka (2004), has tried to
applied canard stabilizer instead of horizontal tail and forward mounted propeller in
Wing in Surface effect Ship (WISES) to get stability requirement in the surface
effect.
17
The dynamics in ground effect is quite dissimilar with the regular airplane
cause influenced by the ground, since the aerodynamic force and moment
coefficients, which in turn depend on height and angle of attack. Rozhdestvensky
(1998) has described longitudinal motion of ekranoplan in extreme ground effect for
very small relative ground clearances using singular asymptotic method, where
derivation of quartic and quintic characteristic equations of unsteady perturbed
motion is offered. In this analysis he shown in very close propinquity to the ground
parameters of stability and motion of the lifting system depend on curvature of the
lower side of the wing to relative ground clearance and ratios of design pitch angle.
In the other hand, the distances of the order of the chord from the moment of
perturbation the vehicle performs matching induced motions in height and pitch in
the same velocity.
compared with experimental data obtained for planing and flight condition of
motion.
The basic concept dynamic motion WIG come from conventional dynamic
motion airplane (see Figure 2.5), where mathematical dynamic motion airplane can
be expressed as (Chun 2002, Tulapurkara 2006).
(i)
19
X (ii)
Xh =
h
Z
Zh = (iii)
h
M
Mh = (iv)
h
20
After arranging equation (ii), 0, (iv) into equation (i), mathematical model
dynamic motion WIG craft can be expressed as (Chun 2002):
(v)
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The model of WIG catamaran vehicle of current study designed use Maxsurf,
initial hydrodynamic calculation using Hidromax Maxsurf, for estimating weight
distribution using Workshop Maxsurf. The initial design of model and its principal
dimension are shown in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1.
22
In this thesis, using a VLM that will be combined with ground effect
Wieselsberger theory and Hemke theory used to determine the effect endplate to
aerodynamic characteristics. Richard and. Lamar method used to analyze the
complex wing shapes. Vortex lattice method was developed in three main category
algorithm using language programming Matlab to make certain code portability
transversely model, where categories are the preprocessor, the solver and the
postprocessor.
The preprocessor have function to set up the vertices and the boundary
environment beginning inputs. The preprocessor has several steps; such as input,
layout and meshing. See Figure 3.2 for illustration.
24
The calculation planning hull using the Savitsky method was set up in
Microsoft excel combine with Microsoft Visual Basic for iteration. The develop code
for this program similar with vortex lattice method, with three main phase,
preprocessor, processor and postprocessor. See Figure 3.5 for flowchart illustration.
26
Experimental Work will be do using the wind tunnel test LST-UTM to get the
aerodynamic force and the free running test to get the hydrodynamic force Lift force,
drag force, moment and centre of pressure of wing of a Trimaran WIG model (foil
NACA 6409) are experimentally will be done in LST-UTM wind tunnel with wind
speed 25.5 m/s, where its generated by a single stage fan that delivering maximum
air speed 80 m/s and propeller by 430 KW AC motor from ABB with Allen Bradley
system. Aerodynamic characteristic are deliberate with various primary aerodynamic
parameters such as clearance of ground, angle of attack and aspect ratio (AR) in test
section 2.0 m wide x 1.5 m high x 5.5 length with windows on both sides, settling
chamber with a acceptable flow quality, where velocity uniformity <0.15,
temperature uniformity <0.2C, flow angle uniformity <0.15 and turbulence
intensity <0.06%). Visualizing the flow of the air including the tip vortices around
the wing and wake subsequent the wing during test has been done using smoke trace
test and the model test has support with 3-strut support system with various ground
clearance (h/c) and angle of attack (). Aerodynamic forces, moments, and pressure
distribution are measured with electronic pressure scanner 128 port scan valve
27
system and 6-component balance with accuracy of the balance within 0.04% based
on 1 standard deviation. All data test have been read and stored at control room with
fully integrated automatic control.
Hydrodynamics drag obtained from the free running test. Telemetry system
used to obtain the data directly. Then the data were found will be converted using
equation from the calibration rig.
GET DATA
GET DATA
(NUMERICAL)
(EXPERIMENT)
VALIDATE DATA
N VALIDATE DATA
(PUBLISH WORK & N
(MEASUREMENT SET
COMMERCIAL
UP AND FLOW
Y
Y
RESULT
RESULT
VALIDATION
N CHECK N
DATA
4.1 Introduction
The traditional representation for flat wing is shown in equation (vi), see
Figure 4.1 for illustration (Margason 1971):
Equation (viii) show wing from upstream toward the trailing edge of the right
half of the wing span and see Figure 4.3 for illustration.
Figure 4.3: Looking from upstream toward the trailing edge (Margason 1971)
= l = r (ix)
W = v tan U (x)
32
Related from Figure 4.4, equation (viii) (ix) (x) can be expressed for
downwash influenced coefficient:
x
( )
x ' + s cos tan ' cos tan ' ( y + s cos ) cos + ( z + s sin )
[(
x ' + s cos tan '
2 2
)
+ ( y + s cos ) + ( z + s sin )
2
]
x
( '
s cos tan '
)cos tan '
(y s cos )cos + (z s sin )
[(x '
s cos tan '
) 2
+ (y s cos
2
) + (z s sin )2
]
33
x
x
( '
+ s cos tan '
)cos tan '
(y + s cos ) cos + (z + s sin )
[(x '
+ s cos tan '
) 2
+ (y + s cos
2
) + (z + s sin
2
) ]
(x '
s cos tan '
)cos tan '
(y s cos ) cos
+ (z s sin )
[(x '
s cos tan '
)
2
+ (y s cos
2
) + (z s sin 2
) ]
x
(x '
+ s cos tan '
)cos tan '
(y + s cos ) cos + (z + s sin )sin
[(x '
+ s cos tan ' ) +
2
(y + s cos )2 + ( z + s sin ) 1
2
]
(x '
s cos tan '
)cos tan '
(y s cos ) cos + (z s sin ) sin
[(x '
s cos tan ' ) +
2
(y s cos )2 + ( z s sin ) 1
2
]
x
(
x ' + s cos tan ' cos tan ) '
(y + s cos ) cos + (z + s sin )sin
[(
x ' + s cos tan '
2
+ ) (y + s cos
2
) + (z + s sin )
1
2
]
(x '
s cos tan '
)cos tan '
(y s cos ) cos + (z s sin )sin
[(x '
s cos tan ' ) +
2
(y s cos )2 + ( z s sin ) 1
2
]
We have known, infinitive vortex lines induces a flow field have been
expressed by Biot-Savart, and have been modified by Bertin & Smith. It takes the
form of equation:
1 r .r r1 r2 (xiv)
U= n 1 2 r0
4 [r1 .r2 ]2 r1 r2
From equation (xi) (xii) (xiii) (xiv), downwash, sidewash, backwash velocity
could be expressed as:
1 (xv)
U u ,v , w = n Fu , v , w ( x , y , z , s , , )
4
n (xvi)
(Fw Fv tan ) = U
4
N
2
n =1 4
(Fw ,n Fv ,n tan n ) = U (xvii)
The lift per unit length of a vortex filament for wing with dihedral can be
written as Kutta-Joukowski theorem (Margason 1971):
l ~ = V (xviii)
lt~ 2 V (xix)
Clt = = cc
qSref Sref U U
Like equation (xix) the expression a spanwise bound vortex filament divided
by free stream dynamic pressure and reference area can be expressed as:
l s~ 2 u v
Cl s = = (2 s ) 1 + tan cos (xx)
qSref Sref U U U
36
Finally, the total lift coefficient in out ground effect can be expressed as:
N /2
2 l s~ lt~
Cl (OGE ) = 2 +
n S qSref n qSref n (xxi)
2
C S (xxii)
C Di ( IGE ) = (1 ) L 2
b
Where:
37
h
1 1.32
= c (xxiii)
h
1.05 + 7.4
c
b2 1
C L ( IGE ) = C Di (xxiv)
s 1
1
C L ( IGE ) = C L ( OGE ) (xxv)
1
The frictional drag of the endplates can reduce induced drag, is sufficiently
large to increase the efficiency of the wing. Analysis of experimental drag of wing
with endplate has done by Paul E. Hemke (1927).
2
C S
C Di (WE ) = (1 ) L 2 (xxvi)
b
Where:
38
2he (xxvii)
1.66
= c
2h
1 + 1.66 e
c
Just like equation (xxv) coefficient with endplate could be shown:
1 (xxviii)
C L (WE ) = C L ( NWE )
1
i. For the first time we should know centre of pressure planing hull. Centre of
pressure for a flat planing surface is given by J.B. Hadler (1966):
39
LCP 1
Cp = 0.75 ( ) (xxix)
LM Cv 2
5.21 + + 2.39
2
Where:
( LK + LC )
= (xxx)
2B
b tan (xxxi)
L K = LM +
2 tan
b tan (xxxii)
LC = LM
2 tan
LCP = C P = C P LM
(xxxiii)
Planing hull also has hydrodynamic lift; Savitsky method involves the
following empirical equations:
Vs
Cv = (xxxiv)
gb
40
The lift coefficient for flat planing hull (zero dead rise) is given by the
following equation Savitsky (1964):
Displ
C Lo = (xxxv)
0.5 V 2 b 2
Also can be described with parameter angle of trim and speed coefficient by
Savitsky (1964):
0.00552.5
C Lo = 1.1 (0.0120.5 + 2
) (xxxvi)
Cv
0.6
C L = C Lo 0.0065 C Lo (xxxvii)
0.5
VM 0.0120.5 1.1 0.0065 (0.0120.5 1.1 ) 0.6 (xxxviii)
1
VS cos
viscous drag acting tangential to the bottom in both of pressure area and
spray area Savitsky (1964).
Df
D = tan + (xxxix)
cos
C f V12 (b 2 )
Df = (xl)
2 cos 4
Where Cf is applied according ITTC, 1959 friction line, and is given by the
following:
0.075
Cf = (xli)
( LogRe 2) 2
VM xLM xbxVs V
Re = = x M (xlii)
VS
Calculate Total Moment from moment due to displacement and moment due
to drag force:
42
M T = M + M Df (xliii)
Where:
f
(xlv)
M Df = Df a c tan
cos
cos( 0 + )
RT =
cos
[
sin 0 + D f 0 ] (xlvii)
Where:
M BH 1 ( 2 1 ) (xlviii)
0 = 1
M BH 2 M BH 1
Df 2 Df1
Df 0 = Df1 + 0 1 (xlix)
2 1
TT = RT xMfactor (l)
Where:
WIG should be stable in pitch like an airplane, if rigid body have been
disturbed should be return to undisturbed position (Chun 2008), and mathematically
give as:
C M < 0 (lii)
dCM
CM = CL < 0 (liv)
dCL
If:
44
C L > 0 (lv)
So:
dC M (lvi)
<0
dC L
Where:
dC M X X ac (lvii)
= cg
dC L c
dC M X cg X ac (lviii)
= <0
dC L c
WIG also need to have stability in the vertical dimension. The mathematical
can be expressed as Kumar (1968):
C M
C Mh = C Lh < 0 (lxi)
C L
C Lh < 0 (lxii)
So:
dC M (lxiii)
>0
dC L
Where:
dC M X Xh (lxiv)
= cg
dC L c
C M X cg X h (lxv)
= >0
C L c
46
From equation (lxv) we can describe the position center of gravity (COG)
craft behind of aerodynamic center in height (ACH).
(lxvi)
X ac X h > 0
(lxvii)
SSM = X ac X h > 0
The above formula only for cruise condition but for takeoff condition,
hydrodynamic forces also affect the static stability margin. Planing hull have pitch
stability, and mathematically give as (Savander 2003):
C M
C MH = CLH < 0 (lxix)
CL
47
If:
So:
dC M (lxxi)
<0
dC L
Where:
C M X cg X H (lxxii)
=
C L c
Refer to equation (lviii) and equation (lxv) derivatives could be written as:
C M X cg X H (lxxiii)
= <0
C L c
From equation (lxxiii) we can describe the position center of gravity (COG)
of the craft should be located upstream of the Hydrodynamic center of pitch (HCP).
The position HCP WIG during take-off similar with prediction Collu et Al [0]
for AAMV, where the position hydrodynamic centre in heave (HCH) should be
located downstream of the aerodynamic centre in height (ACH) and aerodynamic
centre of pitch (ACP).
48
Positive and negative signs from above formula, only to indicate the position
of force in front of or behind the centre of gravity (COG), positive for behind COG,
negative for in front of COG.
The new configuration static stability margin can be illustrated from the
Figure 4.5.
F = Fa + Fh + Fp + Fc + Fg + Fd (lxxv)
Each force with equilibrium state with subscript (0) and perturbation from the
datum with subscript () can be expressed as;
F = F0 + F ' (lxxvi)
The traditional aircraft motion can be expressed like equation (i) and after
add height derivatives into that equation, equation WIG motion become equation (v),
after taking into equation (lxxvi) and Tailor linear expansion equation can be
expressed as:
50
Where:
F0a = ( X 0a Z 0a M 0a ) T (lxxviii)
a a a
'
a a a
'
X . X . X . . X u.. X w.. X q.. ..
u u u
w q
X ha
a ' a . a ..
F a' = Z h h + Z . Z a. Z a. a a
w + Z u.. Z w.. Z q.. w (lxxix)
M a u w q
. .
h a
q q..
M . M a. M a. M ..a M a.. M ..a
u w q
u w q
(lxxx)
F h = F0h + F h '
51
Where:
F0h = ( X 0h Z 0h M 0h ) T (lxxxi)
h h h
'
h h h
'
h h
0 X w X q X . X . X . . X u.. X w.. X q.. ..
u u u
' u w q
h' h h
F = 0 Zw Zq w + Z h Z h Z h
. h h h
..
u. . . w + Zu.. Zw.. Zq.. w (lxxxii)
q w q
. ..
0 M h M h h q h q
w q
M . M h. M h. M .. M h.. M ..h
u w q
u w q
In this thesis thrust from propulsion system equal with total drag WIG during
take-off. Control force is zero with assume control system are fixed. Disturbance
from environmental, and other disturbance are neglected. Forces are expressed as:
F p = F0p (lxxxiii)
F c = F0c (lxxxiv)
Fd = 0 (lxxxv)
52
Where:
F0g = (0 mg 0) T (lxxxvii)
F g ' = ( mg 0 0 ) (lxxxviii)
T
0 = X 0a + X 0h + X 0p + X 0c + X 0d + X 0g
0 = Z 0a + Z 0h + Z 0p + Z 0c + Z 0d + Z 0g
(lxxxix)
0 = M 0a + M 0h + M 0p + M 0c + M 0d + M 0g
..
X = m u'
.. .
Z = m( w' q 'V0 )
..
M = I q q' (xc)
After under taking equation (xc) into equation (lxxxix) and eliminating the
insignificant conditions, the numerical equation of motion a trimaran WIG during
take-off written in the aero-hydrodynamic axis system can be shown as:
.. .
u u u
.. . w + [D ]h = 0 (xci)
[A] w + [B ] w + [C ]
.. .
q q q
Where, matrix [A] is the amount of the mass matrix, the hydrodynamic added
mass derivatives and the aerodynamic added mass. Usually in aerodynamics
aerodynamic added mass they are not called added mass terms, but simply
acceleration derivatives, so matrix [A] can be expressed as:
54
'
h a h h
m X .. X .. X .. X ..
u w w q
(xcii)
A = Z ..h m Z a.. Z h.. Z ..h
u w w q
M ..h M a.. M h.. I 55 q..
M h
u w w
'
a h a h a
h
X . X . X. X. X. X.
u u w w q q
B = Z a. Z h. Z a. Z ..h a
Z. Z. h
(xciii)
u u w w q q
M .a M .h M a. M h. M a. M h.
u u w w q q
'
h
h
0 X w X q
h
C = 0 Z wh Zq (xciv)
0 M wh h
Mq
Matrix [D] defines as effect of the ground clearances above the surface on the
aerodynamic characteristic, equation expressed as;
55
'
h h
0 X w X q
h (xcv)
C = 0 Z wh Zq
0 M wh M qh
'
[A] [B] [A] [C] [A] [D]
1 1 1
(xcvi)
H = [I ]3x3 [0]3x3 [I ]3x1
0 0 1 0 0 V0 0
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
The wind tunnel is tunnel where model of an airplane or object test set in
there and windblown through it at a certain speed to study the way air moves around
the model. The wind tunnel has function to measure air velocity and pressures model
of an airplane or object test, where air rapidity during the investigation (called the
throat) is dogged by Bernoulli's principle, the dynamic pressure, the static pressure,
and the temperature measure in the air stream for compressible flow only. The route
of air stream roughly a model test can be resolute by tufts of thread attached to the
aerodynamic model surfaces and aerodynamic model surface can be visualized by
increasing air stream around test model, also can be use smoke trace or bubbles trace
to visualized air stream on test model. Pressures distributions on the test model are
regularly considered with beam balances where the model test connect to strut,
strings, and multi-tube manometers. Also can be considered using pressure-sensitive
paint where elevated restricted force is indicated by lowered fluorescence of the
paint at that point. Sensitive pressure belts furthermore can be utilize for determine
pressure distribution and multiple ultra-miniaturized pressure sensor modules are
incorporated into a stretchy shred, where the shred is close to the aerodynamic model
surface with adhesive and it transfer data depicting the distribution of pressure along
its model surface. There are various techniques can be used to study the actual air
57
stream roughly model test and system of process using Reynolds number and Mach
number (2008).
5.1.1 Facility Low Speed Wind Tunnel Universiti Technology Malaysia (LST -
UTM)
Low Speed Wind Tunnel University Technology Malaysia (LST -UTM) has
capability to deliver airspeed inside the test section with maximum speed 80 m/s,
where test section size area is 2.0 m wide x 1.5 m height x 5.5 m length. LST -UTM
have high accuracy and good repeatability of wind tunnel test results with capability
an excellent flow quality, where flow uniformity less than 0.15%,temperature
uniformity less than 0.2, flow angularity uniformity less than 0.15, and turbulence
less than 0.06%). LST-UTM also has capability to provide wide range of testing
include aircraft, ground surface vehicle and industrial aerodynamics such as building,
bridges, street-lantern light and wind turbine. LST-UTM has three important
components in the wind tunnel which is known as test section, fan-motor and settling
chamber (see Figure 5.2) (2008).
Pressure/Temperature : Atmospheric
Lift force from airfoil generally developed by lower pressures above the wing
(downwash) below the wing (upwash) and side the wing (sidewash) with deference
to the pressure of the resembling air. Lift coefficient increases with higher angle of
attack up to an essential angle and ground clearance. This essential angle the lift
coefficient decreases drastically, generally are called stalled. Generally pressure
distribution considered with little tubes implanted in model test and connected to
anxiety transducer with 128 inlet port, where inlet port are placed at various percent
chord on both superior and inferior surfaces. The distribution of pressure ought to
extrapolate the previous dimensions on the superior and inferior surfaces of the
model test, where coefficient of pressure (Cp=0) at the trailing edge of the model
test. Function of the impetus theory will be use to indicated drag coefficient on the
model test, where air stream ought to equivalent with lessening in linear impetus that
flow stream. Since the air stream resembling the model test is homogeneous, the
coefficient drag could be written as (Rae 1984):
Yw
2
YW 1 (xcvii)
CD =
c qc qdy
Yw
2
The wake assessment is through as far from behind the model test as probable
to deliver the static pressure possessions insignificant. On the testing could be verdict
that the wake turf the coefficient drag obtained in the held up arrangement disagrees
with additional drag, and they ought to observe the assumptions completed in the
61
1 P
C mLE =
c2 q x(dc) (xcviii)
Model for wind tunnel test should have significant strength to suffer
aerodynamic forces. The opportunities of the material selection to make the model
are aluminum with scale 1: 10, for detail specification model test see Table 5.1.
Model for wind tunnel test made use aluminum block ( Figure 5.3), than shaping
with 3 axis CNC Milling MAHO 500 E2 (Figure 5.4) with cold milling technique
(Figure 5.5). Finally model can be show at Figure 5.6.
Figure 5.7: Set up fan power for wind speed (Suhaimi 2008)
the centre of the test section and has a capability to measure aerodynamic
forces and moment in 3-dimensional (Figure 5.10). LST-UTM also can
be tested at various wind direction by rotating the model via turntable
with accuracy of the balance is within 0.04% based on 1 standard
deviation and maximum load range is 1200N for axial and side loads.
LST-UTM balance originally furnished with 3-strut support system (
Figure 5.11). Also provide street lantern light using single-strut support
(Figure 5.12) (Suhaimi 2008).
Figure 5.12: Street lantern light using single-strut support (Suhaimi 2008)
68
Figure 5.13: Data Acquisition and Reduction System LST-UTM (Suhaimi 2008)
69
5.1.2.3 Testing
The experiment is carried out at the wind speed of 25 5 ms-1. For this class of
experiment, the determining apparatus used is a 3-Components Balance which is
capable of determining aerodynamic force (Suhaimi 2008).
i. Barometer and thermometer have been use in the laboratory to determine the
density of the air stream in section area test.
ii. Pitot probe (Figure 5.16) or air stream check apparatus (Figure 5.17) have been
use to calibrate the section area of wind tunnel by create a graph of velocity
(m/sec) versus frequency motor (0- 60 Hz) and processed that result using
Bernoulli's equation.
1 1
Pa + aU a2 = Pb + bU b2 where (xcix)
2 2
Ua = 0 U b = U (c)
,
1
Pa Pb = U 2 = q or (ci)
2
Pa Pb = 1 hg e and (cii)
1
2 (Pa Pb ) 2
U = or (ciii)
1
hg e 2
(civ)
U = 1
72
1
f
(x )
i 2
Y =
2
i (cv)
i xi
Y = f ( xi ) (cvi)
iv. A pressure wing is mounted vertically in the wind tunnel. The pressure tubes
(128 with locations indicated above) from wing are connected to the inlet
nipples of the multiplexed tunnel pressure sampling system. The static pressure
of the test section is connected to the reference connection of the pressure
transducer. The dynamic pressure of the air stream is measured with the Pitot
probe. Dividing the pressure measured with the sampling system by gives the
pressure coefficient at the point of the measurement.
v. Operate the tunnel at airspeeds of 25.5 m/sec and make pressure measurements
on the wing at angles of attack of 0, 1, 2, 3, until 10. Check the zero
velocity pressure measurements from the wing and pitot probe before each data
set, measure and correct for any offsets in the pressure transducer at zero
velocity.
Collecting data is very important, because the wrong data will cause errors in
the study. There are several stages in the data collection (Suhaimi 2008).
73
i. Plot the pressure coefficient data points (upper and lower surface) as a
function of distance along the chord line of the wing and integrate to find
the Normal Force coefficient Cn which is given as:
c
1
C n = (C PL C PU )dx (cvii)
c0
Find this normal force coefficient for all angles of attack, ground
clearance and wind speeds.
ii. Determine the Lift coefficients CL from CN and Plot CL versus angle of
attack and ground clearance for each wind speed. Show the results on one
graph for comparison purposes.
iii. On a separate graph plot CD versus angle of attack and ground clearance
for each wind speed. Note that this method does not measure drag viscous
forces due to shear stresses and thus may underrepresented the total drag
force on the wing. The drag force and drag coefficient measured in this
experiment is the component of the normal force in the direction parallel
to the free stream flow, and increases as the angle of attack increases.
c
1
Cmref = 2 (C PL C PU )(X X ref )dx (cviii)
c 0
74
a. Calculate the leading edge pitching moment C mLE for the airfoil
X cp CmLE
= (cix)
c CN
vi. Determine the effect of Reynolds Number on lift, drag, and 1/4 cord
pitching moment coefficients. (Plot the lift and pitching moment coefficient
from the pressure wing measurements, and the drag coefficient from the wake
measurements versus Reynolds number for all available angle of attack and
ground clearance.)
After we get and process result from wind tunnel, results must be corrected
with several corrections. Ishak et al (2006) has been corrected result from LST-UTM
for blockage effect, buoyancy effect, wall interference correction and STI (Strut, Tare
and Interference) correction, because all effect are donate rather considerably to the
finishing result.
i. Blockage Effect
There are two type blockages during experiment, such as: Solid Blockage,
where velocity around the model increases, because that model (size,
thickness, and thickness distribution) decrease the region during test.
Wake blockage, where velocity around the model increase, because wake
behind model have a signify velocity lesser than the free stream velocity
where the exterior velocity wake in a near wall should be elevated than
the free stream velocity. Although steady amount of stream could
overtake during test, if the exterior wakes have higher velocity so, it has
an inferior pressure and boundary film raise on the model test (Ishak
2006). Total blockage correction can be expressed as:
So, uncorrected free stream velocity and dynamic force can be corrected
using by empirical formula:
Vc = Vu (1 + total ) (cxi)
( ( )
qc = qu 1 + 2 M 2 total ) (cxii)
qu
CLc = CLu (cxiii)
qc
qu
CDc = CDu (cxiv)
qc
qu
CMc = CMu (cxv)
qc
dC p S F
C D = (cxvi)
dx SW
77
dC p SF
Where =2,28E -03 (Ishak et al (2006)), =1 if model test without
dx SW
fuselage.
The free running test done because of limited facilities at UTM Towing tank,
because the required maximums speed for testing about 14.4 m/s. The free running
test is divided into two parts, the telemetry data records and calibration RIG.
Telemetry data system will provide results directly, where the data we can get are
rpm versus speed. Calibration test rig was conducted to determine the amount of
thrust for each rpm DC motor. Then the data that is obtained from the telemetry
78
These validations have been done by Adi et.al (2010). The investigation using
a model of NACA 6409 rectangular wing section were performed using Vortex
Lattice Method, where numerical VLM has made using Matlab software (detail
programming can be seen at Appendix) with three different aerodynamic characters
such as aspect Ratios (AR 1, AR 1.5 and AR 2), angle of attack ( = 0o, 2o, 4o, 6o and
8o), Reynolds Number 5 x 106, ground clearance (h/c) 0.1 and 0.3, height endplate
ratio 0.05 c .Ground clearance (h/c ) is ratio of distance between wing trailing edge
and ground surface (h) to wing chord length (c). The number of span wise panel 450
elements and number of chord wise panel 1000, totally number of panel around
450,000 panel elements (see Figure 6.1).
81
Figure 6.3 - Figure 6.7 shows the comparison results of lift coefficient (CL)
between VLM simulation, CFD simulation (has done by Saeed et al (2010)), and
experimental data (done by Jung et. al. (2008)) for wing only. The validation is
summarized in Table 6.1 Table 6.6. The lift coefficient varied with angle of attack
for three Aspect ratios (AR = 1, 1.5, and 2) and two ground clearances (h/c = 0.1 and
0.3). The influence of aspect ratio on lift coefficient in VLM models would be
declared on CFD simulation and experimental simulation. The magnitude of lift
coefficient increases with increment of aspect ratio, angle of attack, and ground
clearance. According to Figure 6.3 - Figure 6.7 lift coefficients of VLM at 0o - 2o
angle of attack less accurate than CFD results, where CFD closer to experimental
results. At 4o - 8o, VLM results better than CFD results, because near experimental
results.
82
Table 6.1: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.1, based on
VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR = 1
attack VLM CFD Experimental
0 0.357952302 0.254 0.25
2 0.379089462 0.367 0.3
4 0.404755018 0.469 0.356
6 0.460767795 0.561 0.451
8 0.54730893 0.65 0.551
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
CL
0.3
VLM
0.2
CFD
0.1
EXPERIMENT JUNG
0
0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10
Table 6.2: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.1, based on
VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR = 1.5
attack VLM CFD Experimental
0 0.392493514 0.345 0.27
2 0.460781729 0.491 0.402
4 0.533152467 0.614 0.515
6 0.628637532 0.719 0.603
8 0.745457613 0.82 0.702
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
CL
0.4
VLM
0.3
0.2 CFD
0.1 EXPERIMENT JUNG
0
0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10
Figure 6.3: CL versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1.5
84
Table 6.3: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.1, based on
VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR = 2
attack VLM CFD Experimental
0 0.340190829 0.367 0.32
2 0.450304116 0.492 0.45
4 0.564994997 0.612 0.58
6 0.674853409 0.727 0.69
8 0.800041768 0.836 0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
CL
0.4
VLM
0.3
0.2 CFD
0.1 EXPERIMENT JUNG
0
0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10
Table 6.4: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.3, based on
VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR = 1
attack VLM CFD Experimental
0 0.275981291 0.233 0.2
2 0.301317573 0.316 0.28
4 0.347455144 0.395 0.34
6 0.402863156 0.477 0.42
8 0.478528676 0.56 0.51
0.6
0.5
0.4
CL
0.3
VLM
0.2
CFD
0.1
EXPERIMENT JUNG
0
0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10
Table 6.5: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.3, based on
VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR = 1.5
attack VLM CFD Experimental
0 0.311971724 0.323 0.27
2 0.366250308 0.432 0.38
4 0.454401137 0.51 0.47
6 0.535782214 0.62 0.54
8 0.635346937 0.723 0.64
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
CL
0.4
0.3 VLM
0.2
CFD
0.1
EXPERIMENT JUNG
0
0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10
Figure 6.6: CL versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1.5
87
Table 6.6: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.3, based on
VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR = 2
attack VLM CFD Experimental
0 0.42799614 0.417 0.326
2 0.5283454 0.582 0.489
4 0.633181255 0.724 0.624
6 0.756297897 0.842 0.727
8 0.896594578 0.945 0.85
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
CL
0.4 VLM
0.3 CFD
0.2
0.1 EXPERIMENT JUNG
0
0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10
Figure 6.8 Figure 6.13 shows the comparison results of lift coefficient (CL)
between VLM simulation, and experimental data (Jung et. al. (2008)) for wing only
with endplate. The validation is summarized in Table 6.7 - Table 6.12. The lift
coefficient varied with angle of attack for three Aspect ratios (AR = 1, 1.5, and 2),
two ground clearances (h/c = 0.1 and 0.3), and height endplate ratio 0.05c (chord).
The influence of aspect ratio on lift coefficient in VLM models would be declared on
experimental simulation. The magnitude of lift coefficient increases with increment
of aspect ratio, angle of attack, and ground clearance. According to Figure 6.8
Figure 6.13 lift coefficients of VLM at 0o - 4o angle of attack bigger than
experimental results. At 6o - 8o, VLM results less than experimental results.
Table 6.7: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.1, endplate
ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR=1
attack VLM EXP
0 0.391986373 0.316129032
2 0.415133252 0.367741935
4 0.471442712 0.470967742
6 0.53668419 0.574193548
8 0.637483897 0.709677419
89
Figure 6.8: CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1, endplate he/c = 0.05
Table 6.8: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.1, endplate
ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR=1.5
attack VLM EXP
0 0.429811761 0.317460317
2 0.504592812 0.457142857
4 0.583844553 0.615873016
6 0.688408329 0.749206349
8 0.816335653 0.86984127
90
Figure 6.9: CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1.5, endplate he/c = 0.1
Table 6.9: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.1, endplate
ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR=2
attack VLM EXP
0 0.468689973 0.4125
2 0.578580431 0.56875
4 0.693384069 0.69375
6 0.82820663 0.825
8 0.981842706 0.9875
91
Figure 6.10: CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 2, endplate he/c = 0.05
Table 6.10: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.3, endplate
ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR=1
attack VLM EXP
0 0.302221566 0.258
2 0.329966819 0.335
4 0.380491146 0.406
6 0.441167347 0.477
8 0.524027137 0.554
92
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
CL
0.2
VLM
0.1
EXPERIMENT JUNG
0
0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10
Figure 6.11: CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1, endplate he/c = 0.05
Table 6.11: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.3, endplate
ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al.
Angle of AR=1.5
attack VLM EXP
0 0.341633967 0.298412698
2 0.401073353 0.4
4 0.497605554 0.501587302
6 0.586724337 0.603174603
8 0.695755664 0.73015873
93
Figure 6.12: CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1.5, endplate he/c = 0.05
Table 6.12: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.3, endplate
ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR=2
attack VLM EXP
0 0.372536141 0.36875
2 0.459882082 0.475
4 0.551133244 0.6
6 0.658296357 0.7
8 0.780413308 0.8375
94
Figure 6.13: CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 2, endplate he/c = 0.05
Figure 6.14 - Figure 6.19 shows the comparison results of drag coefficient
(CD) between VLM simulation, CFD simulation (has done by Saeed et al. (2010)),
and experimental data (Jung et. al. (2008)) for wing only. The validation is
summarized in Table 6.13 - Table 6.18. The drag coefficient varied with angle of
attack for three Aspect ratios (AR = 1, 1.5, and 2) and two ground clearances (h/c =
0.1 and 0.3). The influence of aspect ratio on lift coefficient in VLM models would
be declared on CFD simulation and experimental simulation. The magnitude of drag
coefficient increases with increment of aspect ratio, angle of attack, and ground
clearance. According to Figure 6.14 - Figure 6.19 drag coefficients of VLM at almost
all angle of attack more accurate than CFD results, where CFD far away to
experimental results.
95
Table 6.13: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.1, based on
VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR = 1
attack VLM CFD Experimental
0 0.0386313 0.044 0.034
2 0.0394554 0.052 0.037
4 0.049345 0.066 0.043
6 0.0649006 0.084 0.059
8 0.0839587 0.107 0.079
0.12
0.1
0.08
CD
0.06
VLM
0.04
CFD
0.02
EXPERIMENT JUNG
0
0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10
Table 6.14: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.1, based
on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR = 1.5
attack VLM CFD Experimental
0 0.038270726 0.042 0.028
2 0.039918994 0.05 0.031
4 0.050529721 0.065 0.041
6 0.066960894 0.084 0.052
8 0.085503911 0.108 0.071
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
CD
0.04 VLM
CFD
0.02
EXPERIMENT JUNG
0
0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10
Figure 6.15: CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1.5
97
Table 6.15: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.1, based on
VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR = 2
attack VLM CFD Experimental
0 0.038064693 0.039 0.021
2 0.04007352 0.048 0.026
4 0.050941788 0.063 0.034
6 0.067475978 0.082 0.047
8 0.086018994 0.105 0.065
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
CD
VLM
0.04
CFD
0.02
EXPERIMENT JUNG
0
0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10
Table 6.16: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.3, based on
VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al.
Angle of AR = 1
attack VLM CFD Experimental
0 0.0424303 0.046 0.036
2 0.0433355 0.054 0.039
4 0.0541977 0.065 0.049
6 0.071283 0.081 0.06
8 0.0922153 0.101 0.08
0.12
0.1
0.08
CD
0.06
0.04 VLM
CFD
0.02
EXPERIMENT
JUNG
0
0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10
Table 6.17: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.3, based
on VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR = 1.5
attack VLM CFD Experimental
0 0.042034324 0.042 0.0327
2 0.043844685 0.051 0.03758
4 0.055498885 0.062 0.04848
6 0.073545924 0.085 0.06424
8 0.093912487 0.103 0.08121
0.12
0.1
0.08
CD
0.06
VLM
0.04
CFD
0.02
EXPERIMENT JUNG
0
0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10
Figure 6.18: CD versus angle of attack for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1.5
100
Table 6.18: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.3, based on
VLM, CFD, and experimental by Jung et al.
Angle of AR = 2
attack VLM CFD Experimental
0 0.041808029 0.043 0.025
2 0.044014407 0.052 0.03
4 0.055951476 0.066 0.04
6 0.074111662 0.085 0.055
8 0.094478225 0.106 0.075
0.12
0.1
0.08
CD
0.06
VLM
0.04
CFD
0.02
EXPERIMENT JUNG
0
0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10
Figure 6.25 shows the comparison results of drag coefficient (CD) between
VLM simulation, and experimental data (Jung et. al. (2008)) for wing only with
endplate. The validation is summarized in
Table 6.19 - Table 6.24. The lift coefficient varied with angle of attack for
three Aspect ratios (AR = 1, 1.5, and 2), two ground clearances (h/c = 0.1 and 0.3),
and height endplate ratio 0.05c (chord). The influence of aspect ratio on lift
coefficient in VLM models would be declared on experimental simulation. The
magnitude of lift coefficient increases with increment of aspect ratio, angle of attack,
and ground clearance. According to Figure 6.20 Figure 6.25 drag coefficients of
VLM at almost all angles are quite similar to the experimental results. Only at AR =
2, h/c = 0.1, and endplate ratio he/c = 0.05 less accurate than experimental results.
102
Table 6.19: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.1, endplate
ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR=1
attack VLM EXP
0 0.0353822 0.03547
2 0.036137 0.038
4 0.0451949 0.048
6 0.0594421 0.059
8 0.0768973 0.0789
Figure 6.20: CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1, endplate he/c = 0.05
103
Table 6.20: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.1,
endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR=1.5
attack VLM EXP
0 0.031913548 0.02788
2 0.033288021 0.03194
4 0.042136191 0.04064
6 0.05583797 0.05297
8 0.071300793 0.07094
Figure 6.21: CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 1.5, endplate he/c = 0.05
104
Table 6.21: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.1, endplate
ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR=2
attack VLM EXP
0 0.031741738 0.0235
2 0.033416878 0.0294
4 0.04247981 0.03529
6 0.056267493 0.04706
8 0.071730316 0.06353
Figure 6.22: CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 and AR = 2, endplate he/c = 0.05
105
Table 6.22: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1, h/c = 0.3, endplate
ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR=1
attack VLM EXP
0 0.0353822 0.03547
2 0.036137 0.038
4 0.0451949 0.048
6 0.0594421 0.059
8 0.0768973 0.0789
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
CD
0.04
0.03
0.02 VLM
0
0 2 4 AOA 6 8 10
Figure 6.23: CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1, endplate he/c = 0.05
106
Table 6.23: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.5, h/c = 0.3,
endplate ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR=1.5
attack VLM EXP
0 0.035051971 0.03
2 0.036561612 0.036
4 0.046279924 0.045
6 0.061329156 0.059
8 0.078312614 0.0789
Figure 6.24: CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 1.5, endplate he/c = 0.05
107
Table 6.24: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 2, h/c = 0.3, endplate
ratio he/c = 0.05, based on VLM, and experimental by Jung et al
Angle of AR=2
attack VLM EXP
0 0.034863266 0.0341
2 0.036703141 0.03773
4 0.046657335 0.04478
6 0.061800919 0.06125
8 0.078784377 0.078
Figure 6.25: CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.3 and AR = 2, endplate he/c = 0.05
108
Figure 6.26 show results of lift coefficient (CL) from VLM simulation, for
Rectangular-Dihedral (50-50) Wing Trimaran WIG Model without endplate. The
result is summarized in Table 6.25. The lift coefficient varied with angle of attack for
Aspect Ratios (AR = 1.25), and varied with ground clearances (from h/c = 0 until h/c
= 0.4). The magnitude of lift coefficient decreases with increment of ground
clearance, otherwise lift coefficient increase with increment angle of attack. Figure
6.27 show results of lift coefficient (CL) from VLM simulation, for Rectangular-
Dihedral (50-50) Wing Trimaran WIG Model with endplate 0.05c. The result is
summarized in Table 6.26 with various angle of attack for Aspect Ratios (AR =
1.25), and various ground clearances (from h/c = 0 until h/c = 0.4). As well as at
Figure 6.27, the magnitude of lift coefficient decreases with increment of ground
clearance, and lift coefficient increase with increment angle of attack. If the result
Figure 6.26 and Figure 6.27 is compared, lift coefficients wing with endplate
increase around 14.5%.
109
Table 6.25: Lift coefficient every angle of attack (AOA) versus ground clearance
(h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model without endplate (AR =
1.25) using VLM
0 DEGREE AOA 2 DEGREE AOA 4 DEGREE AOA 6 DEGREE AOA 8 DEGREE AOA 10 DEGREE AOA
Figure 6.27: CL versus h/c every AOA for AR = 1.25 rectangular-dihedral (50-50)
wing trimaran WIG model with endplate 0.05c using VLM
Table 6.26: Lift coefficient every angle of attack (AOA) versus ground clearance
(h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model (AR = 1.25) with
endplate (he/c=0.05) using VLM
0 DEGREE AOA 2 DEGREE AOA 4 DEGREE AOA 6 DEGREE AOA 8 DEGREE AOA 10 DEGREE AOA
Figure 6.28 show results of drag coefficient (CD) from VLM simulation, for
Rectangular-Dihedral (50-50) Wing Trimaran WIG Model without endplate. The
result is summarized in Table 6.27. The drag coefficient varied with angle of attack
for Aspect Ratios (AR = 1.25), and varied with ground clearances (from h/c = 0 until
h/c = 0.4). The magnitude of drag coefficient increases with increment of ground
clearance, and drag coefficient increase with increment angle of attack. Figure 6.29
show results of drag coefficient (CD) from VLM simulation, for Rectangular-
Dihedral (50-50) Wing Trimaran WIG Model with endplate 0.05c. The result is
summarized in Table 6.28 with various angle of attack for Aspect Ratios (AR =
1.25), and various ground clearances (from h/c = 0 until h/c = 0.4). The magnitude of
drag coefficient increases with increment of ground clearance, and drag coefficient
increase with increment angle of attack. Like above comparison, if the result Figure
6.28 and Figure 6.29 is compared, drag coefficients wing with endplate decrease
around 25.17%.
Table 6.27: Drag coefficient every angle of attack (AOA) versus ground clearance
(h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model (AR = 1.25) without
endplate using VLM
0 DEGREE AOA 2 DEGREE AOA 4 DEGREE AOA 6 DEGREE AOA 8 DEGREE AOA 10 DEGREE AOA
Table 6.28: Drag coefficient every angle of attack (AOA) versus ground clearance
(h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG model (AR = 1.25) with
endplate (he/c=0.05), using VLM
0 DEGREE AOA 2 DEGREE AOA 4 DEGREE AOA 6 DEGREE AOA 8 DEGREE AOA 10 DEGREE AOA
Figure 6.30 show results of lift coefficient (CL) from wind tunnel test LST-
UTM, for Rectangular-Dihedral (50-50) Wing Trimaran WIG Model with endplate.
The result is summarized in Table 6.29. The lift coefficient varied with angle of
attack for Aspect Ratios (AR = 1.25), and with varied ground clearances (h/c = 0.06,
0.1, 0.2, 0.4). The magnitude of lift coefficient decreases with increment of ground
clearance, otherwise lift coefficient increase with increment angle of attack.
114
Table 6.29: Experimental result of lift coefficient every angle of attack (AOA)
versus ground clearance (h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG
model with endplate (AR = 1.25)
Figure 6.30: Experimental result of lift coefficient every angle of attack (AOA)
versus ground clearance (h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG
Model with endplate (AR = 1.25)
Figure 6.31 show results of drag coefficient (CD) from wind tunnel test LST-
UTM, for Rectangular-Dihedral (50-50) Wing Trimaran WIG Model without
endplate. The result is summarized in Table 6.30. The drag coefficient varied with
115
angle of attack for Aspect Ratios (AR = 1.25), and varied with ground clearances
(h/c = 0.06, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4). The magnitude of drag coefficient increases with
increment of ground clearance, and drag coefficient increase with increment angle of
attack.
Table 6.30: Experimental result of drag coefficient every angle of attack (AOA)
versus ground clearance (h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG
model with endplate (AR = 1.25)
h/c 0 deg 2 deg 4 deg 6 deg 8 deg 10 deg
0.06 0.025009 0.026429 0.0394133 0.051727 0.063488 0.07634
0.1 0.028218 0.0305842 0.0427602 0.054590 0.06711 0.08061
0.2 0.036239 0.0409713 0.051127 0.058167 0.071648 0.09129
0.4 0.052281 0.0617455 0.067862 0.0760567 0.09429 0.11264
Figure 6.31: Experimental result of drag coefficient every angle of attack (AOA)
versus ground clearance (h/c) rectangular-dihedral (50-50) wing trimaran WIG
model with endplate (AR = 1.25)
116
Based on the chapter fifth "experimental work", there are several corrections
that must be done to improve the result generated from the experiments. A very
significant correction that must be done is Blockage effect. In this experiment, only
wing (without fuselage) that has been tested in wind tunnel test, so buoyancy effect
correction negligible. Ground effect resulting from wall is needed in the calculations,
so wall interference effect correction is also ignored. .STI correction is ignored
because it does not significantly affect the results. Blockage effect has corrected by
equation (cxiii) and equation (cxiv).
Figure 6.32 Figure 6.34 shows the comparison results of lift coefficient (CL)
between VLM simulation, Experimental LST-UTM, and Experimental LST-UTM
after correction for wing only with endplate. The validation is summarized in
Table 6.31 - Table 6.33. The lift coefficient varied with angle of attack for
Aspect ratios (AR = 1.25), three ground clearances (h/c = 0.06, 0.1 and 0.15), and
height endplate ratio 0.06c (chord). The magnitude of lift coefficient increases with
increment of aspect ratio, angle of attack, and ground clearance. According all table,
lift coefficients of VLM at 0o - 8o angle of attack bigger than experimental results.
The differences that occur are 27.7% - 37.4% at 0o, 15.11% 15.9% at 2o, 7.55% -
8.9 % at 4o, 2.3% - 4.55% at 6o, 0.04% - 0.8% at 8o. While the blockage effect
correction only reduce experiment result approximately 0.01% - 4.7%.
117
Table 6.31: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25, h/c = 0.06,
endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and
experimental LST-UTM after correction.
Angle of AR = 1.25
attack VLM Experiment Exp. After Correction
0 0.376057666 0.274335 0.271591697
2 0.447666724 0.38213 0.380008174
4 0.546223472 0.508853 0.503224784
6 0.676455994 0.656465 0.645618792
8 0.802463006 0.813657 0.795767884
Figure 6.32: Comparison of CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.06 he/c=0.06 and AR =
1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM after
correction
118
Table 6.32: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25, h/c = 0.1,
endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and
experimental LST-UTM after correction
AR = 1.25
Angle of attack Exp. After
VLM Experiment Correction
0 0.361689632 0.2510218 0.248511544
2 0.423743704 0.3606635 0.356188301
4 0.521196723 0.4864629 0.474521992
6 0.635987638 0.6324594 0.60942323
8 0.754456397 0.7905743 0.753711715
Figure 6.33: Comparison of CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.1 he/c=0.06 and AR = 1.25
between VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM after
correction
119
Table 6.33: Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25, h/c = 0.15,
endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and
experimental LST-UTM after correction
AR = 1.25
Angle of attack Exp. After
VLM Experimental Correction
0 0.351298402 0.2218802 0.219661354
2 0.391123177 0.3338301 0.330942616
4 0.487401556 0.4584754 0.450601124
6 0.606848094 0.6024522 0.592498258
8 0.719888876 0.75018 0.719596239
Figure 6.34: Comparison of CL versus AOA for h/c= 0.15 he/c=0.06 and AR =
1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM after
correction
Figure 6.35 - Figure 6.37 shows the comparison results of drag coefficient
(CL) between VLM simulation, Experimental LST-UTM, and Experimental LST-
UTM after correction for wing only with endplate. The validation is summarized in
120
Table 6.34 - Table 6.36. The lift coefficient varied with angle of attack for Aspect
ratios (AR = 1.25), three ground clearances (h/c = 0.06, 0.1 and 0.15), and height
endplate ratio 0.06c (chord). The magnitude of drag coefficient increases with
increment of aspect ratio, angle of attack, and ground clearance. According to Figure
6.35 - Figure 6.37 lift coefficients of VLM approximately at 0o angle of attack bigger
than experimental results. But at 2o - 8o angle of attack less than experimental results,
difference case occur at h/c= 0.15 almost drag coefficient VLM result like
experimental results. The differences that occur are 2.9% - 6.45% at 0o, -0.3% -
1.5% at 2o, -2.7% -17.3 % at 4o, -16.3% 2.8% at 6o, -4.08% - 8.9% at 8o. While
the blockage effect correction only reduce experiment result approximately 0.01% -
4.1%.
Table 6.34: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25, h/c = 0.06,
endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and
experimental LST-UTM after correction
Angle of AR = 1.25
attack VLM Experimental Exp. After Correction
0 0.0254994 0.0250098 0.024759748
2 0.0263882 0.0264294 0.026282655
4 0.0332245 0.0394133 0.038977379
6 0.0437524 0.0517278 0.050873126
8 0.0563996 0.0600259 0.058706224
121
Figure 6.35: Comparison of CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.15 he/c=0.06 and AR =
1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM after
correction
Table 6.35: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25, h/c = 0.1,
endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and
experimental LST-UTM after correction
Figure 6.36: Comparison of CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.15 he/c=0.06 and AR =
1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM after
correction
Table 6.36: Drag coefficient versus angle of attack for AR = 1.25, h/c = 0.15,
endplate ratio he/c = 0.06, based on VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and
experimental LST-UTM after correction
AR = 1.25
Angle of attack Exp. After
VLM Experimental Correction
0 0.034119095 0.0322289 0.031906597
2 0.035308232 0.0357778 0.035468353
4 0.044455443 0.046944 0.046137699
6 0.058542147 0.0581678 0.057206728
8 0.075464487 0.0716422 0.068721441
123
Figure 6.37: Comparison of CD versus AOA for h/c= 0.15 he/c=0.06 and AR =
1.25 between VLM, experimental LST-UTM, and experimental LST-UTM after
correction
6.3.1 Result and validation Savitsky Method (SM) program with Hullspeed
Maxsurf.
Figure 6.38: Hull without step and hull with step (Clementss step) (2010)
125
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
DRAG WATER (N)
1000
800
600
400
200
SM
HULLSPEED
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
SPEED(KNOT)
Table 6.37: Drag water resistance trimaran WIG model with and without Step
Figure 6.41: Drag water resistance trimaran WIG model with or without step using
Savitsky Method
Figure 6.42: Lift coefficient planing surface with and without step
128
RPM THRUST(kg)
2085 0.18
2385 0.295
2475 0.395
3060 0.6
3175 0.69
3895 0.7
4170 0.883109
4770 1.067729
4950 1.123115
6120 1.483124
6350 1.553895
7790 1.996983
8340 2.166218
9540 2.535458
9900 2.64623
129
2.5
Thrust (kg)
1.5
0.5 THRUST(kg)
Linear
0
0 5000 10000 15000
RPM
After doing the calibration rig and then we started to retrieve data using data
telemetry system. Figure 6.44 shows the data obtained directly when the experiments
conducted, where data is obtained rpm vs. speed, and then using the Table 6.38, we
can determine how much thrust was generated every each propulsion in use. Free
running test uses 2 EDF (Electric Ducting Propeller) so that the thrust can be
multiplied 2 according with amount of propulsion in experiment. For calculate total
drag we using formula from Fox & Blound (1976). Figure 6.45 represents the results
obtained from the telemetry system after process. All result and process was
summarized at Table 6.39.
130
Table 6.39
39: Thrust from experiment free running test
Thrust 1
Thrust 2 Total
V(knot) RPM motor
motor(kg) Drag(T/Mfactor)
(kg)
0 0 0 0 0
2 2025 0.2735 0.547 0.558163265
3 2379 0.3797 0.7594 0.774897959
4 2445 0.3995 0.799 0.815306122
5 3045 0.5795 1.159 1.182653061
6 3165 0.6155 1.231 1.256122449
8 4030 0.875 1.75 1.785714286
10 3895 0.8345 1.669 1.703061224
12 4768 1.0964 2.1928 2.23755102
14 4788 1.1024 2.2048 2.249795918
16 5667 1.3661 2.7322 2.787959184
18 5789 1.4027 2.8054 2.862653061
20 5987 1.4621 2.9242 2.983877551
22 6103 1.4969 2.9938 3.054897959
25 6456 1.6028 3.2056 3.271020408
26 6678 1.6694 3.3388 3.406938776
28 6979 1.7597 3.5194 3.59122449
131
4
3.5
3
Figure 6.45: Total drag trimaran WIG model result from free running test
Figure 6.46 are shows comparison Thrust Trimaran WIG model between SM
with step, SM without step and free running test on speed range from 0 until 28 knot.
According Figure 6.46 trend line from free running test really different with trend
line from SM with step, but looks similar with without step. Its mean no more effect
stepped hull in this model, because step in this model very small. So in this moment
we assume Trimaran WIG model without stepped hull. At 0 5 knot numerical
result (SM without step) near with experimental (free running test) result (not
planing hull phase), where aerodynamic drag and side hull not more effect in this
result, but from 6-24 knot experimental result bigger than numerical result (SM
without step). This phenomena was happens because of aerodynamic drag (air drag
wing and fuselage) began to affect of experiment results, because numerical result
(SM without step) only for the hydrodynamic drag, and therefore need to be added
aerodynamic drag on the numerical results (scope other master student). From 24
28 knot numerical results (SM without step) bigger than experimental results (free
132
running test). This moment was occurred because draft fuselage Trimaran WIG was
changed or all body Trimaran WIG was began fly (take off condition). For detail
condition we can see Figure 6.47. The comparison was summarized in Table 6.40.
4.5
4
SM with step
3.5 hull
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 6.46: Comparison Drag Trimaran Wig Model every speed between
numerical result (SM) and experimental work (free running test)
Gap 4 cm Gap 5 cm
Table 6.40: Comparison drag trimaran WIG model between SM and free running test
SM
SM with
V without EXP
step
step
0 0 0 0
2 0.205746 0.226796 0.558163
3 0.411492 0.453592 0.774898
4 0.696039 0.994002 0.815306
5 0.739101 0.931861 1.182653
6 0.795435 0.912511 1.256122
8 0.921248 0.998557 1.785714
10 0.957213 1.137501 1.703061
12 0.883638 1.283672 2.237551
14 0.773276 1.458618 2.249796
16 0.666103 1.677205 2.787959
18 0.573435 1.944325 2.862653
20 0.496157 2.261427 2.983878
22 0.432272 2.629338 3.054898
25 0.356311 3.279654 3.27102
26 0.335243 3.52356 3.406939
28 0.298167 4.05462 3.591224
the takeoff, tail added (NACA 0012, AR = 5) at the trimaran design WIG. Figure
6.50 show stability condition wing with endplate in variation ground clearance after
added tail. SSM become stable in all ground clearance (h/c). The results are
summarized in Table 6.43.
Table 6.41: SSM on rectangular-dihedral reverse wing NACA 6409 A/R = 1.25
trimaran WIG model without endplate
WITHOUT ENDPLATE
ANALYSIS STATIC STABILITY MARGIN
(assume cog=0.3 c)
h/c h/c h/c
0.06 0.1 0.3
Cma -0.012 -0.0103 -0.0082
Cla 0.0399 0.0344 0.0273
Cmz 1.3412 0.8437 0.2409
Clz -4.4708 -2.8125 -0.803
CmH 0.0000001 0 0
ClH -0.001 0 0
Xa 0.60075188 0.5994186 0.6003663
Xz 0.59999105 0.59998222 0.6
XH -0.0001 0 0
SSM 0.00066083 -0.0005636 0.0003663
stable not stable stable
Table 6.42: SSM on rectangular-dihedral reverse wing NACA 6409 A/R = 1.25
trimaran WIG model with endplate (0.06c)
WITH ENDPLATE(0.06c)
ANALYSIS STATIC STABILITY MARGIN
(assume cog=0.3 c)
Figure 6.49: SSM wing with endplate, h/c= 0.06 - 0.3, he/c = 0.06c
136
Table 6.43: SSM on rectangular-dihedral reverse wing NACA 6409 A/R = 1.25
Trimaran WIG model with endplate (0.06c) and NACA = 0012 Tail A/R = 5.
WITH ENDPLATE(0.06c)
ANALYSIS STATIC STABILITY MARGIN
(assume cog=0.3 c)
Figure 6.50: SSM wing with endplate and tail, h/c= 0.06 - 0.3 he/c = 0.06c
137
Figure 6.51: Short Period Pitch Oscillation (SPPO) Trimaran WIG every ground
clearance (h/c) during take-off
138
Figure 6.52: Short Period Pitch Oscillation (SPPO) Trimaran WIG every angle of
attack (AOA) during take-off
Figure 6.53 show Long Period Pitch Oscillation (Phugoid) perturbation every
ground clearance (h/c) with constant angle of attack (2 deg). Figure 6.54 show Long
Period Pitch Oscillation (Phugoid) perturbation every angle of attack (AOA) with
constant ground clearance (h/c=0.2). The magnitude of Phugoid perturbation
decreases with increment of ground clearance (h/c), otherwise Phugoid perturbation
increases with increment of angle of attack (AOA). From both figure we can see all
perturbation back into the equilibrium, regarding Tulapukara statement [0], an object
system is said to be dynamically stable if it eventually returns to the original
equilibrium position after being disturbed by a small disturbance. Also in these cases
the system while returning to the equilibrium position goes beyond the undisturbed
state towards the negative side and smaller than the original disturbance and it
(amplitude) decreases continually with every oscillation. And finally, the system
returns to the equilibrium position. So, dynamic stability Trimaran WIG in stable
condition and in damping oscillation. However we must check its dynamic quality to
be accepted for public transportation.
139
Figure 6.53: Long Period Pitch Oscillation (Phugoid) Trimaran WIG every ground
clearance (h/c) during take-off.
Figure 6.54: Long Period Pitch Oscillation (Phugoid) Trimaran WIG every angle
of attack (AOA) during take-off
140
Table 6.44 shows Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion for SPPO every ground
clearance (h/c), where all SPPO in stable condition. The magnitude of Eigen value
increases with increment of ground clearance (h/c).
141
Table 6.44: Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion for SPPO every ground clearance
(h/c)
Routh Hurwitz
h/c Equilibrium Eigen Value
criterion
-0.2989 s - 11.03
0.06 --------------------------------- -8.68e-002 +- 9.20e-001i accepted
s^3 + 9.063 s^2 + 2.399 s + 7.599
-0.2989 s - 11.03
0.1 --------------------------------- -7.50e-002 +- 9.22e-001i accepted
s^3 + 9.039 s^2 + 2.188 s + 7.599
-0.2989 s - 11.03
0.2 ------------------------------- -1.55e-001 +- 9.12e-001i accepted
s^3 + 9.198 s^2 + 3.606 s + 7.6
-0.2989 s - 11.03
0.3 --------------------------------- -1.21e-001 +- 9.17e-001i accepted
s^3 + 9.131 s^2 + 3.003 s + 7.599
Table 6.45 shows Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for SPPO every
ground clearance (h/c), where at h/c: 0.06-0.1 SPPO in not stable condition,
otherwise at h/c: 0.2-0.3 SPPO in stable condition. The magnitude of damping ratio
SPPO increases with increment of ground clearance (h/c), otherwise the magnitude
of natural frequency SPPO decreases with increment of ground clearance (h/c).
Table 6.45: Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for SPPO every ground
clearance (h/c).
Table 6.46: Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion for Phugoid every ground clearance
(h/c).
Table 6.47 shows Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for Phugoid every
ground clearance (h/c), where all Phugoid in stable condition. The magnitude of
damping ratio Phugoid increases with increment of ground clearance (h/c), otherwise
the magnitude of natural frequency Phugoid decreases with increment of ground
clearance (h/c).
143
Table 6.47: Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for Phugoid every ground
clearance (h/c).
CPT
damping CPT (natural
h/c Equilibrium natural freq (damping
ratio freq check)
check)
11.03 s^2 + 3.207 s + 0.02067
------------------------------------------
0.06 1.09E-01 1.35E-01 accepted accepted
0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2402 s +
0.1387
11.03 s^2 + 2.458 s + 0.017
------------------------------------------
0.1 1.17E-01 1.26E-01 accepted accepted
0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2381 s +
0.1207
11.03 s^2 + 1.709 s + 0.01334
---------------------------------------
0.2 1.29E-01 1.15E-01 accepted accepted
0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2358 s +
0.1
11.03 s^2 + 1.447 s + 0.01206
------------------------------------------
0.3 1.41E-01 1.05E-01 accepted accepted
0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.234 s +
0.08391
Table 6.48 shows Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion for SPPO every angle of
attack (AOA), where all SPPO in stable condition. The magnitude of Eigen value
increases with increment of every angle of attack (AOA).
Table 6.48: Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion for SPPO every angle of attack
(AOA)
-0.2989 s - 11.03
2 --------------------------------- -3.92e-001 +- 8.37e-001i accepted
s^3 + 9.674 s^2 + 7.833 s + 7.604
-0.2989 s - 11.03
4 --------------------------------- -3.59e-001 +- 8.53e-001i accepted
s^3 + 9.606 s^2 + 7.229 s + 7.603
-0.2989 s - 11.03
6 --------------------------------- -3.25e-001 +- 8.66e-001i accepted
s^3 + 9.538 s^2 + 6.625 s + 7.603
-0.2989 s - 11.03
8 -------------------------------- -2.91e-001 +- 8.78e-001i accepted
s^3 + 9.47 s^2 + 6.022 s + 7.602
144
Table 6.49 shows Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for SPPO every
angle of attack (AOA), where at AOA: 2o - 6o SPPO in stable condition, otherwise at
AOA: 8o, SPPO in not stable condition. The magnitude of damping ratio SPPO
decreases with increment of every angle of attack (AOA), otherwise the magnitude
of natural frequency SPPO increases with increment of every angle of attack (AOA).
Table 6.49: Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for SPPO every angle of attack
(AOA)
Table 6.50 shows Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion for Phugoid every angle
of attack (AOA), where all Phugoid in stable condition. The magnitude of Eigen
value decreases with increment of every angle of attack (AOA).
145
Table 6.50: Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion for Phugoid every angle of attack
(AOA)
Table 6.51 shows Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for Phugoid every
angle of attack (AOA), where all Phugoid in stable condition. The magnitude of
damping ratio Phugoid increases with increment of ground clearance (h/c), otherwise
the magnitude of natural frequency Phugoid decreases with increment of ground
clearance (h/c).
Table 6.51: Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) for Phugoid every angle of
attack (AOA)
damping CPT (damping CPT (natural
AOA Equilibrium natural freq
ratio check) freq check)
11.03 s^2 + 8.451 s + 0.04632
-----------------------------------------
2 7.41E-02 1.99E-01 accepted accepted
0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2585 s +
0.302
11.03 s^2 + 7.702 s + 0.04265
------------------------------------------
4 7.72E-02 1.92E-01 accepted accepted
0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2559 s +
0.2787
11.03 s^2 + 6.953 s + 0.03899
------------------------------------------
6 7.98E-02 1.85E-01 accepted accepted
0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2539 s +
0.2607
11.03 s^2 + 6.204 s + 0.03532
------------------------------------------
8 8.27E-02 1.79E-01 accepted accepted
0.8547 s^3 + 7.623 s^2 + 0.2518 s +
0.2427
146
Figure 6.56 shows comparison pitch amplitude between simulations and free
running test (see appendix G for detail experiments), where speed increase with
increment throttle, where from that images trend line simulation look similar with
experiment, but have difference outcome (-2.2% - 9.7%). Regarding that picture
pitch amplitude decrease with increment time, pitch angle looks larger at the
beginning of simulation, with a difference of about 0.5 deg from last simulation.
Very clear, the changing of phase during take-off really gives an effect in the pitch
motion Trimaran WIG model.
Figure 6.57 shows comparison heave amplitude between simulations and free
running test (see appendix G for detail experiment) where speed increase with
increment throttle, where from that images trend line simulation look similar with
experiment, but have very significant difference outcome (-7.2% - 98.7%).
Regarding that picture heave amplitude increase with increment time, heave
amplitude looks lesser at the beginning of simulation, with a difference of about 1.5
cm. Very clear, the changing of phase during take-off really gives a effect in the
heave motion Trimaran WIG model.
147
7.1 Conclusion
Finally, the longitudinal stability and dynamic motion Trimaran WIG during
take-off was investigated. Regarding scope of work and methodology this research,
initial design trimaran WIG was made. A computational aerodynamic characteristic
of wing with endplate or without endplate was studied by VLM simulation.
Hydrodynamic WIG was investigated and was compared with commercial software.
Numerical was compared with experimental and commercial software. New
configuration Static Stability Margin (SSM) WIG trimaran model during take-off has
been created and validated. New configuration dynamic motion and longitudinal
dynamic stability Trimaran WIG during take-off was derived and solved. Detailed
conclusions from this research can be viewed as follows:
i. The traditional Vortex Lattice Method (VLM) has been modified by using
much complex Flat Wing Theory and then Wieselsberger Ground Effect
Theory has been used to calculate lift coefficient In Ground Effect (IGE).
VLM results were validated with the CFD calculation and experimental
data other researchers, where VLM results near experimental result. The
149
ii. The problem of drag faced by WIG during take-off has been tried to be
solved by adopting sweep back step planing hull. Savitsky method has
been used to calculate planing hull and was enhanced with Hadler, Fox &
Blond, and clement formula. The calculation was validated using
commercial software .Results show difference about 8 7%.
iii. Trimaran WIG design has been made with new concept wing
Rectangular-Dihedral (ratio 50-50) Wing with aspect ratio (AR) 1.25 with
endplate (he/c) 0.06c, taper 0.8 with dihedral angle 13o at dihedral
reverse wing.
iv. The numerical aerodynamic Trimaran WIG model with and without
endplate has been calculated using modify VLM. The lift coefficient and
drag coefficient varied with angle of attack (0o, 2o, 4o, 6o, 8o, 10o), and
varied with ground clearances (from h/c = 0 until h/c = 0.15). The
magnitude of lift coefficient decreases with increment of ground
clearance, otherwise lift coefficient increase with increment angle of
attack. Lift coefficients wing with endplate increase around 14.5%. The
magnitude of drag coefficient increases with increment of ground
clearance, and drag coefficient increase with increment angle of attack.
Drag coefficients wing with endplate decrease around 25.17%.
150
vi. Hydrodynamic Trimaran WIG with step and without step has been
calculate and was validated with free running test. Trend line from free
running test really different with trend line from SM with step, but looks
similar with without step. Its mean no more effect stepped hull in this
model, because step in this model very small. So in this moment we
assume Trimaran WIG model without stepped hull. At 0 5 knot
numerical result (SM without step) near with experimental (free running
test) result (not planing hull phase), but from 6-24 knot experimental
result bigger than numerical result (SM without step). This phenomena
was happens because of aerodynamic drag (air drag wing and fuselage)
began to affect of experiment results, because numerical result (SM
without step) only for the hydrodynamic drag, and therefore need to be
added aerodynamic drag on the numerical results. From 24 28 knot
numerical results (SM without step) bigger than experimental results (free
running test). This moment was occurred because draft fuselage Trimaran
WIG was changed or all body Trimaran WIG was began fly (take off
condition).
151
vii. New configuration Static Stability Margin (SSM) WIG during take-off
has been created and validated with three criteria, first, the position
Aerodynamic centre in Pitch (ACP) should be located downstream of the
position Aerodynamic Centre in Height (ACH) , second, the position of
center of gravity (COG) of the craft should be located upstream of the
aerodynamic center of pitch (ACP) and third, the position Aerodynamic
Centre in Height (ACH) should be located upstream of Hydrodynamic
center in Pitch (HCP).
ix. New configuration dynamic motion WIG during take-off has been created
and solved. The classical aircraft motion has been modified by calculating
the aerodynamic force, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces, using a
small perturbation assumption the full equations of motion WIG during
takeoff are derived and solved.
xii. The changing of phase during take-off really gives very significant effect
in pitch and heaves amplitude.
7.2 Recommendation
In this thesis, there are still many shortcomings due to the limited time and
knowledge. In the future are expected to conduct research as follows:
Eugene P.Clement and James D.Rope (1961). Stepless and Stepped Planing
Hull Graph for Performance Prediction and Design. DTMB,
Report-1490.
Eugene P.Clement (2006). A Configuration for a Stepped Planing Boat
Having Minimum Drag (Dynaplane Boat). This publication is available
on the web site of the International Hydrofoil Society:
http://www.foils.org.
Halloran M, O'Meara S (1999). Wing in Ground Effect Craft Review. DSTO
Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, Australia.
H. Ghassemi, M. Ghiasi (2007). A Combined Method for the Hydrodynamic
Characteristics of Planing Crafts. Ocean engineering Journal,
2007,doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.
H.H. Chun and C.H. Chang (2002). Longitudinal Stability and Dynamic
Motions of a Small Passenger WIG Craft. Elsevier journal of ocean
engineering, vol. 29, p. 1145-1162.
H.H Chun and C.H. Chang (2003). Turbulence flow simulation for wings in
ground effect with two ground conditions: fixed and moving ground.
International Journal of maritime engineering, p.211-227.
Hiromichi Akimoto, Syozo Kubo and Motoki Tanaka (2004). Investigation
of the Canard Type Wing In Surface Effect Ship. The 2nd Asia Pacific
Workshop on Hydrodynamics, Bussan, Korea.
http://www.se-technology.com/ (1996). Wing in Ground Effect
Aerodynamics.
Irodov R.D (1970). Criteria of Longitudinal Stability of Ekranoplan.
Ucheniye Zapiski TSAGI, 1 (4), 63-74.
I. S. Ishak, S.Mat, T.M.Lazim, M.K.Muhammad, S.Mansor, M.Z.Awang
(2006). Estimation of Aerodynamic Characteristic of A Light
Aircraft. Jurnal Mekanikal No. 22, 64-74.
J.B.Hadler (1966). The Prediction of Power Performance of Planing Craft.
SNAME.
Kumar P.E (1968). An Experimental Investigation into the Aerodynamic
Characteristics of a Wing with and without Endplates in
Ground Effect. College of Aerodynamics, Cranfield, England, Rept.
Aero 201, 1968.
156
Paul E. Hemke (1927). Drag Of Wing With End Plates. NACA, Rep 267.
Prandtl, Ludwig (1920). Theory of Lifting Surface. NACA, TN 09.
Rae, William H. Jr., Pope, Alan (1984). Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing. John
Wiley & Sons.
Richard J. Margason and John E. Lamar (1971). Vortex Lattice Fotran
Program for Estimating Subsonic Aerodynamic Characteristic of
Complex Planforms. NASA TN D-6142.
R. Savander Brant & Hyung Rhee Shin (2003). Steady Planing
Hydrodynamics: Comparison of Numerical and Experimental
Results. Presentation outline Fluent Users Group Manchester, NH.
Rozhdestvensky K.V (1996). Ekranoplans The GEMs of Fast Water
Transport. Trans ImarE, Vol 109, Part 1, pp 47-74.
Saaed J., S. Noverdo (2010). Effect Ground Effect for Environmental. 3rd
International Graduate Conference on Engineering, Science and
Humanities (IGCESH 2010) UTM, Malaysia, November 2 4.
Saunders H.E (1957). Hydrodynamics in Ship Design. Vol. 1. The Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New York.
S.C Rhodes and A.T Sayers (2009). Experimental Investigation: Stability
criteria of an Uncambered Airfoil in Ground Effect. R & D Journal
of the South African Institution of Mechanical Engineering 2009, 25.
S. Noverdo, Mobasser (2010). Effect of Stepped Hull on Wing in Ground
Effect (WIG) Craft during Takeoff. 3rd International Graduate
Conference on Engineering, Science, and Humanities (IGCESH
2010) UTM, Malaysia, November 2 4.
Staufenbiel RW and Schlichting UJ (1988). Stability of Airplanes in Ground
Effect. Journal of Aircraft, 25, (4), 289-294.
Staufenbiel R and Kleineidam G (1980). Longitudinal Motion of Low-
Flying Vehicles in Nonlinear Flowfields. Proceedings of the
Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences,
Munich, 293308.
Suhaimi (2008). Low Speed Wind Tunnel. Specification LST UTM Facility.
Takinaci A.C, Atlar M, Korkut E (2002). A Practical Surface Panel Method
to Predict Velocity Distribution around a Three-Dimensional
158
APPENDIX A
A. 1 Preliminary Design
HYDROSTATICS
Draft Amidsh. cm 6.508
Displacement kg 5.4
Heel to Starboard degrees 0
Draft at FP cm 6.141
Draft at AP cm 6.875
Draft at LCF cm 6.522
Trim (+ve by stern) cm 0.735
Trim (+ve by stern) deg 2.776
WL Length cm 112.5
WL Beam cm 85.69
Wetted Area cm^2 3637
Waterpl. Area cm^2 1423
Prismatic Coeff. 0.445
Block Coeff. 0.391
Midship Area Coeff. 0.879
Waterpl. Area Coeff. 0.679
LCB from Amidsh. (+ve fwd) cm 0
LCF from Amidsh. (+ve fwd) cm -1.81
KB cm 4.332
KG cm 6.031
BMt cm 77.68
BML cm 200.5
GMt cm 75.98
GML cm 198.8
KMt cm 82.01
KML cm 204.9
Immersion (TPc) tonne/cm 0.001
MTc tonne.m 0
RM at 1deg = GMt.Disp.sin(1)
kg.cm 7.16
Max deck inclination deg 0.5
Trim angle (+ve by stern) deg 0.5
163
APPENDIX B
AIRFOIL ANALYSIS
B.1 Introduction
These analyses have been done for choosing suitable foil for TRIMARAN
WIG using 2D potential flow. These analyses divided into two conditions, out
ground condition and in ground condition
In this simulation using NACA 6409 with angle of attack (AOA) 0o-6o out
ground condition.
164
Figure B.3 Pressure Coefficient distribution out ground condition NACA 6409
Figure B.5 Initial Lift Coefficient out ground condition NACA 6409
167
In this simulation using NACA 6409 with angle of attack (AOA) 0o-6o in
ground condition h/c= 0.1c.
APPENDIX C
AERO-HYDRO DERIVATIVES
The force equation at equilibrium state for surge and heave can write as:
Where FLW and FSW represent the hydrodynamic force and static buoyancy
force respectively which both perpendicular to the V direction, DW represent the
drag force due to resistance force parallel to the V direction.
The terms of force in equation (C.1) and (C.2) usually represent by
coefficient as the expression below:
CLW = FLW/(1/2wV2Sah)
CSW = FSW/(1/2wV2Sah)
CDW= DW/ (1/2wV2Sah)
From the literature study by apply small perturbation theory; the following
approximation can be made:
sin (C.5)
cos 1 (C.6)
X uh = = = (C.14)
By standard approximation
X uh = = -wVSahCDw (C.16)
X uh = h g ( B h ) 2 (C.17)
Z wh = = (C.18)
Z wh = wVSah ( + + CDW) (C.19)
X wh =
(C.21)
174
X wh = wSah (CLw + CSw -
) (C.22)
X uh = h g ( B h ) 2 Z uh = h g ( B h ) 2 M uh = h g ( B h )3
X qh = h g ( B h )3 Z qh = h g ( B h )3 M qh = h g ( B h ) 4
X h. = h g ( B h )3 g / B h Z .h = h g ( B h )3 g / B h M h. = h g ( B h ) 4 g / B h
u u u
h 3 h 3
h h
X . = g(B ) g/B h h h
Z . = g(B ) g/B h
M h. = h g ( B h ) 4 g / B h
w w w
X h. = h g ( B h ) 4 g / B h Z h. = h g ( B h ) 4 g / B h M h. = h g ( B h ) 5 g / B h
q q q
h 3 h 3
h h
X .. = g ( B ) h h
Z .. = g ( B ) X .. = h g ( B h ) 4
h
u u u
The force equation at equilibrium state for surge and heave can write as:
Where CLA, CDA are coefficient of aerodynamic lift force and drag force
respectively. While A is air density, Saw is wig crafts main wing reference area, V
is the magnitude of flow velocity similar with the V in hydrodynamic derivative.
Although the concept of derivative are similar for both characteristic but the
Zq derivative is not exist in hydrodynamic. In order to Zq, the wig craft pitching
rate,q impart a downward velocity to the horizontal tail of magnitude WT, express as
WT = qlT, where lT is the tail arm. The downward velocity at the tail is assuming lead
to an additional force in Z-axis. This force, ZT express as below:
ZT = WT
= -1/2ASaw ( + ! ) qlT (C.27)
Z T C T
Z qa = T
= A S w ( LA + C DA )lT (C.29)
q
All derivative of aerodynamic can be found with previous method, and and
the results can be viewed as follows:
CD CL CM
X ha = Z ha = CL M ha =
(h / c) (h / c) (h / c)
CD C M ua = neglegible (0)
X ua = 2CD V Zua = 2CL + V L
V V
CD C CM
X wa = CL Z wa = CD L M wa =
a
C S L 2
X q = neglegible(0) C S L
Z ..a = LT T T M ..a = LT T T
w S c q Sc 2
2
X a. = neglegible(0) CLT ST LT
w M ..a =
w Sc 2
177
APPENDIX D
% Modified for
% DEVELOPMENT WING IN GROUND EFFECT TWO SETTER
% UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY MALAYSIA
% MODIFIED BY N.S
clc
fprintf('WIG 2 SETTER UTM\n')
clear all
close all
%Initialize GUI
InitializeGUI(airfoildata)
fid = fopen('NACAdata.txt','r');
fclose(fid);
%Initialize finaldata
finaldata(1).airfoil = data{1}{1};
178
finaldata(1).Re = data{2}(1);
finaldata(1).a0 = data{3}(1);
finaldata(1).a1 = data{4}(1);
finaldata(1).a2 = data{5}(1);
finaldata(1).alphastall = data{6}(1);
for i = 2:length(data{1})
updated = 0;
for j = 1:length(finaldata)
%if we have already read in data about a certain airfoil,
append
%new data
if strcmp(finaldata(j).airfoil,data{1}{i})
finaldata(j).Re = [finaldata(j).Re; data{2}(i)];
finaldata(j).a0 = [finaldata(j).a0; data{3}(i)];
finaldata(j).a1 = [finaldata(j).a1; data{4}(i)];
finaldata(j).a2 = [finaldata(j).a2; data{5}(i)];
finaldata(j).alphastall = [finaldata(j).alphastall;
data{6}(i)];
updated = 1;
break
end
end
%if we have not already read in data about a certain airfoil,
create
%new entry
if updated == 0
finaldata(end+1).airfoil = data{1}{i};
finaldata(end).Re = data{2}(i);
finaldata(end).a0 = data{3}(i);
finaldata(end).a1 = data{4}(i);
finaldata(end).a2 = data{5}(i);
finaldata(end).alphastall = data{6}(i);
end
end
u_U.alpha = 1/(4*pi)*Fu_bar*[gamma.alpha]';
v_U.alpha = 1/(4*pi)*Fv_bar*[gamma.alpha]';
w_U.alpha = 1/(4*pi)*Fw_bar*[gamma.alpha]';
179
for i = 1:geo.ns
for j = 1:geo.nc
if i == geo.ns %wingtip
DeltaGamma(i,j).c = gamma(i,j).c;
DeltaGamma(i,j).alpha = gamma(i,j).alpha;
elseif j == 1 %Leading edge
DeltaGamma(i,j).c = gamma(i,j).c-gamma(i+1,j).c;
DeltaGamma(i,j).alpha = gamma(i,j).alpha-
gamma(i+1,j).alpha;
else
DeltaGamma(i,j).c = DeltaGamma(i,j-1).c + gamma(i,j).c -
gamma(i+1,j).c;
DeltaGamma(i,j).alpha = DeltaGamma(i,j-1).alpha +
gamma(i,j).alpha - gamma(i+1,j).alpha;
end
end
end
l_t.alpha = 2/geo.S*[DeltaGamma.alpha]'.*[panel.cc]'.*[v_U.alpha];
%Eqn 24 in NASA paper (NASA TN D6142)
l_s.c = 2/geo.S*[gamma.c]'*2.*[panel.s]'.*((ones(size(u_U))-
[u_U.c])+[v_U.c].*tan([panel.sweep]'))*cos(geo.dih); %Eqn 28 in
NASA paper
l_s.alpha = 2/geo.S*[gamma.alpha]'*2.*[panel.s]'.*((ones(size(u_U))-
[u_U.alpha])+[v_U.alpha].*tan([panel.sweep]'))*cos(geo.dih); %Eqn
28 in -NASA paper
% reshape([l_t.c],geo.ns,geo.nc)
% reshape([l_t.alpha],geo.ns,geo.nc)
% reshape([l_s.c],geo.ns,geo.nc)
% reshape(((ones(size(u_U))-
[u_U.alpha])+[v_U.alpha].*tan([panel.sweep]')),geo.ns,geo.nc)
% reshape([panel.s],geo.ns,geo.nc)
% reshape([l_s.alpha],geo.ns,geo.nc)
% reshape([u_U.alpha],geo.ns,geo.nc)
% reshape([v_U.alpha],geo.ns,geo.nc)
% reshape([gamma.alpha],geo.ns,geo.nc)
% sum([gamma.c])
% geo.S
CL.c = 2*(sum([l_t.c])+sum([l_s.c]));
CL.alpha = 2*(sum([l_t.alpha])+sum([l_s.alpha]));
%asummsi CM 0.25c
CM.c = 2*((sum([l_t.c])*0.25)+(sum([l_s.c])*0.25)); %equation 29
nasa TN D6142
CM.alpha = 2*((sum([l_t.alpha])*0.25)+(sum([l_s.alpha])*0.25));
function [C,T,A]=naca4_3d(airfoil,y,nc)
180
if length(airfoil) == 4
m = str2num(airfoil(1))/100;
p = str2num(airfoil(2))/10;
t = str2num(airfoil(3:4))/100;
elseif length(airfoil) == 5
switch airfoil(1:3)
case '210'
m = 0.0580;
k1 = 361.4;
case '220'
m = 0.1260;
k1 = 51.64;
case '230'
m = 0.2025;
k1 = 15.957;
case '240'
m = 0.2900;
k1 = 6.643;
case '250'
m = 0.3910;
k1 = 3.230;
otherwise
end
t = str2num(airfoil(4:5))/100;
end
%% Constants
% nc % number of line segments describing top surface
% (= number of line segments describing bottom surface)
npc = nc+1; % number of points along mean camber line
nps = 2*nc+1; % number of points along surface
dx=1/nc; % x-direction increment (along chord)
for i=1:nc+1
zt(i) = t/0.2*[0.2969*x(i)^0.5-0.1260*x(i)-
0.3516*x(i)^2+0.2843*x(i)^3-0.1015*x(i)^4]; %Eqn 6.2 Abbott
end
%% Area
A=0;
for i=1:nc
da=dx*(zt(i)+zt(i+1)); %Take the average of zt(i) and zt(i+1)
and double it
A=A+da;
end
A;
%% Upper skin
for i=1:nc+1
xu(i) = x(i)-zt(i)*sin(theta(i)); %Eqn 6.1 Abbott
zu(i) = zc(i)+zt(i)*cos(theta(i)); %Eqn 6.1 Abbott
T(i,1) = -xu(i); %negative x due to sign convention
T(i,3) = -zu(i); %negative z due to sign convention
end
%% lower skin
% exclude point nc+1 at leading edge
% because it is included as the last point of the upper surface
182
for i=1:nc
xl(i) = x(i)+zt(i)*sin(theta(i)); %Eqn 6.1 Abbott
zl(i) = zc(i)-zt(i)*cos(theta(i)); %Eqn 6.1 Abbott
end
% reverse order so LE to TE
for i=nc+2:nps
T(i,1) = -xl(2*(nc+1)-i);%negative x due to sign convention
T(i,3) = -zl(2*(nc+1)-i);%negative z due to sign convention
end
%figure
%plot(xu,zu,'o')
%hold on
%plot(xl,zl,'or')
%axis equal
function PARAM(H0,SIG,B)
global A0 A1 A3
E=(H0-1.0)/(H0+1.0);
if(abs(SIG-pi/4.0)<=0.0001)
AL3=0.0;
else
E2=E*E;
C=4.0*SIG*(1.0-E2)/pi+E2;
D=-C/(C+3.0);
D2=sqrt(D*D-(C-1.0)/(C+3.0));
AL3=D+D2;
end
AL1=E*(AL3+1.0);
A0=B/(1.0+AL1+AL3);
A1=A0*AL1;
A3=A0*AL3;
BV = [panel.BV];
BV1 = [panel.BV1];
s = [panel.s]';
y_cp.alpha = sum([l_s.alpha].*BV(2,:)' +
[l_t.alpha].*BV1(2,:)')/(0.5*CL.alpha*0.5*geo.b); %Eqn 35 in NASA
paper
cl.alpha = ([l_s.alpha] +
[l_t.alpha])*geo.S./(CL.alpha*2*s*cos(geo.dih)*geo.c_av); %Eqn 37
in NASA paper
cl.c = zeros(size(cl.alpha));
end
g = 9.80665;
R = 287.1;
gamma = 1.4;
if alt < 11000
T1 = 288.16; %From Anderson, Introduction to Flight, 5 ed, pg
109
laps = -6.5e-3;
T = T1 + laps*(alt);
dens1 = 1.2250;
dens = (T/T1)^-(g/(laps*R)+1)*dens1;
elseif alt >= 11000 & alt < 25000
T1 = 216.66;
T = T1;
dens1 = 0.3640;
dens = exp(-g/(R*T)*(alt-11000))*dens1;
else
T1 = 216.66;
laps = 3e-3;
T = T1 + laps*(alt);
dens1 = 0.11;
dens = (T/T1)^-(g/(laps*R)+1)*dens1;
end
a = sqrt(gamma*R*T);
visc = 1.458e-6*T^1.5/(T+110.1); %Bertin, Aerodynamics for
Engineers, 4 ed, pg 5
function [gamma, Fu_bar, Fv_bar, Fw_bar]=VortexStrength(panel,phi)
ns = size(panel,1);
nc = size(panel,2);
r0 = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc,3);
r1 = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc,3);
184
r2 = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc,3);
omega_bound = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc,3);
omega_a_inf = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc,3);
omega_b_inf = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc,3);
Fu = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc);
Fv = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc);
Fw = zeros(ns*nc,2*ns*nc);
Fac1=shiftdim(cross(r1(n,m,:),r2(n,m,:)))/(norm(shiftdim(cross(r1(n,
m,:),r2(n,m,:)))))^2;
Fac2=dot(r0(n,m,:),(r1(n,m,:)/norm(shiftdim(r1(n,m,:)))))-
dot(r0(n,m,:),(r2(n,m,:)/norm(shiftdim(r2(n,m,:)))));
Fac1a(1,1)=0;
Fac1a(1,2)=(panel(i,j).CP(3)-
panel(k,p).BV1(3))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-
panel(k,p).BV1(3))^2+(panel(k,p).BV1(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);
Fac1a(1,3)=(panel(k,p).BV1(2)-
panel(i,j).CP(2))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-
panel(k,p).BV1(3))^2+(panel(k,p).BV1(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);
Fac2a=-1+((panel(i,j).CP(1)-
panel(k,p).BV1(1))/norm(shiftdim(r1(n,m,:)))); %'-1' due to change
in axes
Fac1b(1,1)=0;
Fac1b(1,2)=-(panel(i,j).CP(3)-
panel(k,p).BV2(3))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-
panel(k,p).BV2(3))^2+(panel(k,p).BV2(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);
Fac1b(1,3)=-(panel(k,p).BV2(2)-
panel(i,j).CP(2))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-
panel(k,p).BV2(3))^2+(panel(k,p).BV2(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);
Fac2b=(-1+((panel(i,j).CP(1)-
panel(k,p).BV2(1))/norm(shiftdim(r2(n,m,:)))));
omega_bound(n,m,:)=Fac1*Fac2;
omega_a_inf(n,m,:)=Fac1a*Fac2a;
omega_b_inf(n,m,:)=Fac1b*Fac2b;
185
Fu(n,m)=omega_bound(n,m,1)+omega_a_inf(n,m,1)+omega_b_inf(n,m,1);
Fv(n,m)=omega_bound(n,m,2)+omega_a_inf(n,m,2)+omega_b_inf(n,m,2);
Fw(n,m)=omega_bound(n,m,3)+omega_a_inf(n,m,3)+omega_b_inf(n,m,3);
%Performing identical operations on opposite wing
r0(n,m+ns*nc,:)=[panel(k,p).BV1(1) -
panel(k,p).BV1(2) panel(k,p).BV1(3)]'-[panel(k,p).BV2(1) -
panel(k,p).BV2(2) panel(k,p).BV2(3)]';
r1(n,m+ns*nc,:)=panel(i,j).CP-[panel(k,p).BV2(1) -
panel(k,p).BV2(2) panel(k,p).BV2(3)]';
r2(n,m+ns*nc,:)=panel(i,j).CP-[panel(k,p).BV1(1) -
panel(k,p).BV1(2) panel(k,p).BV1(3)]';
Fac1=shiftdim(cross(r1(n,m+ns*nc,:),r2(n,m+ns*nc,:)))/(norm(shiftdim
(cross(r1(n,m+ns*nc,:),r2(n,m+ns*nc,:)))))^2;
Fac2=dot(r0(n,m+ns*nc,:),(r1(n,m+ns*nc,:)/norm(shiftdim(r1(n,m+ns*nc
,:)))))-
dot(r0(n,m+ns*nc,:),(r2(n,m+ns*nc,:)/norm(shiftdim(r2(n,m+ns*nc,:)))
));
Fac1a(1,1)=0;
Fac1a(1,2)=(panel(i,j).CP(3)-
panel(k,p).BV2(3))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-panel(k,p).BV2(3))^2+(-
panel(k,p).BV(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);
Fac1a(1,3)=(-panel(k,p).BV2(2)-
panel(i,j).CP(2))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-panel(k,p).BV2(3))^2+(-
panel(k,p).BV2(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);
Fac2a=-1+((panel(i,j).CP(1)-
panel(k,p).BV2(1))/norm(shiftdim(r1(n,m+ns*nc,:))));
Fac1b(1,1)=0;
Fac1b(1,2)=-(panel(i,j).CP(3)-
panel(k,p).BV1(3))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-panel(k,p).BV1(3))^2+(-
panel(k,p).BV1(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);
Fac1b(1,3)=-(-panel(k,p).BV1(2)-
panel(i,j).CP(2))/((panel(i,j).CP(3)-panel(k,p).BV1(3))^2+(-
panel(k,p).BV1(2)-panel(i,j).CP(2))^2);
Fac2b=(-1+((panel(i,j).CP(1)-
panel(k,p).BV1(1))/norm(shiftdim(r2(n,m+ns*nc,:)))));
omega_bound(n,m+ns*nc,:)=Fac1*Fac2;
omega_a_inf(n,m+ns*nc,:)=Fac1a*Fac2a;
omega_b_inf(n,m+ns*nc,:)=Fac1b*Fac2b;
Fu(n,m+ns*nc)=omega_bound(n,m+ns*nc,1)+omega_a_inf(n,m+ns*nc,1)+omeg
a_b_inf(n,m+ns*nc,1);
Fv(n,m+ns*nc)=omega_bound(n,m+ns*nc,2)+omega_a_inf(n,m+ns*nc,2)+omeg
a_b_inf(n,m+ns*nc,2);
Fw(n,m+ns*nc)=omega_bound(n,m+ns*nc,3)+omega_a_inf(n,m+ns*nc,3)+omeg
a_b_inf(n,m+ns*nc,3);
q = 1/2*geo.density*geo.V^2;
%Determine the stall angles of attack for root and tip airfoils
alpha_r = (geo.i_r + geo.alpha)*180/pi;
chord_r = geo.c_r;
thick_r = str2num(geo.root(end-1:end)); %Determine thickness of root
airfoil
Re_r = geo.V*geo.density*chord_r/geo.visc;
k = cell2mat(airfoildata{5}(geo.rootindex));
alpha_stall_r = k(1) + k(2)*log10(Re_r) + k(3)*log10(Re_r)^2;
eta = (2*(1:geo.ns)-1)/(2*geo.ns);
chord = chord_r + eta*(chord_t-chord_r);
alpha = alpha_r + eta*(alpha_t-alpha_r);
alpha_stall = alpha_stall_r + eta*(alpha_stall_t-alpha_stall_r);
thick = thick_r + eta*(thick_t-thick_r);
d = 100*c; %Determined by trial and error to closely model the shape and
behavior of the lift curve
k = 400*c;
CL_stall = sum(CL.c+CL.alpha*averagestallalpha*pi/180); %Average max lift
coefficient
%The following equation is the result of modeling the lift
%coefficient of the airfoil after the stall angle of attack as a
%2nd order ODE with initial position of CL_stall and initial
%velocity of CL_alpha. See Stall Model.nb for Mathematica
%derivation
if percentstalled == 0
stallcorrection = 1;
else
stallcorrection = exp(0.5*(-d-sqrt(d^2-
4*k))*(averagealphapaststall))*(-2*CL.alpha-CL_stall*d+CL_stall*sqrt(d^2-
4*k))/(2*sqrt(d^2-4*k))...
+exp(0.5*(-d+sqrt(d^2-
4*k))*(averagealphapaststall))*(2*CL.alpha+CL_stall*d+CL_stall*sqrt(d^2-
4*k))/(2*sqrt(d^2-4*k));
end
% Effect Ground
h_c = geo.alti/geo.c_av;
omega =(1-(1.32*h_c))/(1.05+(7.4*h_c)); %equation NASA TN D970 page 7 &
NASA TM 77
e_g =1/(sqrt(1-omega));
% EFFECT ENDPLATE
h_b = geo.endplate;
o_e =(1.66*2*h_b)/(1+(1.66*2*h_b)); %equation from Paul E.Hemke Drag of
Wing with Endplate equation 20
e_p = 1/(sqrt(1-o_e));
CL = ((1-
percentstalled)*(CL.c+CL.alpha*geo.alpha)+percentstalled*stallcorrection);
L = CL*q*geo.S;
CLind = CL*e_g*e_p;
Lind = CLind*q*geo.S;
%The sum of these two terms represents the total skin friction drag on the
%wing body or the zero-lift drag
cdaind = cda*d_g*d_p;
Dindind = Dind*d_g*d_p;
Dprofileind = Dprofile*d_g*d_p;
%Set output
set(output.totaldrag,'String',num2str(round(Dtotal)));
set(output.inddrag,'String',num2str(round(Dind)));
set(output.profdrag,'String',num2str(round(Dprofile)));
set(output.lift,'String',num2str(L)); %Convert to lbf
set(output.CLaverage,'String',num2str(CL));
set(output.CDaverage,'String',num2str(cda));
set(output.Moment,'String',num2str(M));
set(output.CM,'String',num2str(-CM));
set(output.totaldrag2,'String',num2str(round(Dtotalind)));
set(output.inddrag2,'String',num2str(round(Dindind)));
set(output.profdrag2,'String',num2str(round(Dprofileind)));
set(output.lift2,'String',num2str(round(Lind))); %Convert to lbf
set(output.CLaverage2,'String',num2str(CLind));
set(output.CDaverage2,'String',num2str(cdaind));
set(output.Moment2,'String',num2str(Mind));
set(output.CM2,'String',num2str(-CMind));
189
APPENDIX E
%===================================================================
% Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion
%===================================================================
clc;
disp(' ')
D=input('Input coefficients of characteristic equation,i.e:[an an-1
an-2 ... a0]= ');
l=length (D);
disp(' ')
disp('----------------------------------------')
disp('Roots of characteristic equation is:')
roots(D)
%%=======================Program Begin==========================
end
for j=3:cols
if m(j-1,1)==0
m(j-1,1)=0.001;
end
for i=1:rows-1
m(j,i)=(-1/m(j-1,1))*det([m(j-2,1) m(j-2,i+1);m(j-1,1) m(j-
1,i+1)]);
end
end
%=======================Program Ends==========================
191
APPENDIX F
INPUT
Propulsion System
j = -1
For i = 0 To 14 Step 1
Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = 0.0001
If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value > 0 Then j = i
Next i
For i = (j + 1) To 14 Step 1
For trim = 0.1 To 15.1 Step 1
Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = trim
If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value < 0 Then tijdelijk(i) =
Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value
If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value >= 0 Then Exit For
Next trim
Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = tijdelijk(i)
A(i) = tijdelijk(i)
Next i
For i = (j + 1) To 14 Step 1
For trim = A(i) To 15.1 Step 0.1
Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = trim
If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value < 0 Then tijdelijk(i) =
Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value
If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value >= 0 Then Exit For
Next trim
Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = tijdelijk(i)
A(i) = tijdelijk(i)
Next i
194
For i = (j + 1) To 14 Step 1
For trim = A(i) To 15.01 Step 0.01
Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = trim
If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value < 0 Then tijdelijk(i) =
Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value
If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value >= 0 Then Exit For
Next trim
Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = tijdelijk(i)
A(i) = tijdelijk(i)
Next i
For i = (j + 1) To 14 Step 1
For trim = A(i) To 15.001 Step 0.001
Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = trim
If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value < 0 Then tijdelijk(i) =
Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value
If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value >= 0 Then Exit For
Next trim
If Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = " > 13 " Then Exit For
Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = tijdelijk(i)
A(i) = tijdelijk(i)
Next i
For i = (j + 1) To 14 Step 1
For trim = A(i) To 15.0001 Step 0.0001
Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = trim
If Worksheets("Berekenings").Cells(13, 3 + i).Value >= 0 Then Exit For
Next trim
If Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = " > 13 " Then Exit For
Next i
If j <> -1 Then
For i = 0 To j Step 1
195
For i = (j + 1) To 14 Step 1
If Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value > 15 Then Cells(rij + i, kolom).Value = " > 15 "
Next i
End Sub
OUTPUT
V LCG D T
[kn] [ft] [metres] [] [lbf] [kN] [lbf] [kN]
3 1.500 0.457 - - - - -
4 1.500 0.457 3.38 2 0.0 2 0.0
5 1.500 0.457 3.59 2 0.0 2 0.0
6 1.500 0.457 3.87 2 0.0 2 0.0
8 1.500 0.457 4.48 2 0.0 2 0.0
10 1.500 0.457 4.65 3 0.0 3 0.0
12 1.500 0.457 4.29 3 0.0 3 0.0
14 1.500 0.457 3.76 3 0.0 3 0.0
16 1.500 0.457 3.24 4 0.0 4 0.0
18 1.500 0.457 2.79 4 0.0 4 0.0
20 1.500 0.457 2.41 5 0.0 5 0.0
22 1.500 0.457 2.10 6 0.0 6 0.0
25 1.500 0.457 1.73 7 0.0 7 0.0
26 1.500 0.457 1.63 8 0.0 8 0.0
28 1.500 0.457 1.45 9 0.0 9 0.0
196
APPENDIX G
recorder so that it more easily to transfer to the laptop screen (PC). Telemetry
software should be installed first to the laptop before all the data can be read.
The selection of the instrument tools are due to what the expectation during
the flight test. For detail selection can be seen at Table G.1
Electronic Speed ESC is a device that controls the ESCs are sized by
Control (ESC) motor RPM. Begin with throttle the amperage and
inputs are received by the radio voltage needed by
receiver and then sent to the your motor and
ESC to increase or decrease the propeller/rotor/fan
motor RPM. combination.
Micro planes the
ESCs are rated very
small at around 3.7
volts, 5 amps or
less whereas giant
scale ESCs go all
the way up to 50
volts and over 140
amps.
The calibration RIG has been done for measure the amount of thrust produced
by each DC motor. From this experiment will get data thrust for each RPM.
Calibration RIG is started by select base foundation, where in this experiment using
wood. This wood is used as a base to mount the motor and thrust meter. Thrust
meter and motor is also bound to the zinc before it is mounted on the surface of the
wood. The distance and radius of each hole was calculated in advance to ensure a
strong structure in addition to obtain the expected results of the experiment. The
distance between the holes in the wood represent the actual distance between the
thrust meter and the motor. The distance between the thrust meter and the motor in
this experiment is 10cm. This distance is suitable for wind power generated by the
motor will not be refracted too much. This can improve the accuracy of the thrust
meter readings. To ensure that the thrust meter can read the thrust force generated by
the motor as a whole, a zinc plate 1 along the 30cm and 21.5cm width has been
screwed in the pre-drilled holes thrust meter. The tahmazo thrust meter was mounted
on the zinc plate 1 with a size of 4mm diameter screw. The tahmazo thrust meter is
used because it is easy to mount and portable device that can measure the motor
thrust without installing the motor onto model.
ESC Pheonix ICE 75SB has been used to control some other component parts
according to specifications set. It has 6 series of wire that has different functions.
There are two wire + ve and -ve is connected to the pole + ve and -ve battery. This
process is actually done at the end after all the other devices already finished setup.
State of the battery must always be ON when you want to connect both the wire.
Meanwhile, a wire in the middle connected to a remote control (receiver). This wire
is plugged in the slot 3 from the upper. It also shows that ESC is able to receive
signals (data) from the remote control (transmitter) to increase the current flow rate
and the motor can rotate at higher speeds. Three wires (red, white, black) are
connected to the motor. The black wire on the ESC is connected to the red wire on
the motor. With this, the direction of motor rotation is clockwise, and this means that
the motor was like being in a state of breathing air from the forward direction and
remove them to back as the thrust. The thrust meter readings will show improvement
204
if the ESC is receiving signals from remote control (transmitter) to increase the
speed of motor rotation.
The Brushless Motor Sensor works with the Data Recorder/eLogger to
measure RPM via pulses from any two of the wires leading from Electronic Speed
Controller (ESC) to the motor. The sensor works with all known brushless motors.
There are two unconnected wires extending from the Sensor, labeled Wire 1 and
Wire 2. These wires need to be electrically connected to any 2 of the 3 wires
leading from ESC to the motor. The end of these wires can be soldered, clipped or
otherwise electrically connected to one of the motor wires. With most ESC/motor
combinations, the sensor should work correctly if only the Wire 1 wire is
connected, and the Wire 2 wire is left disconnected. To calibrate the RPM sensor,
its need to know the number of poles brushless motor has. The term poles refers
to the number of magnets in the motor (NOT the number of stator teeth, legs, or
hammerheads.) Brushless RPM sensor is connected to the connection between
ESC and motor.
First of all, before the ESC is connected to the motor, the RPM sensor wire is
inserted in the centre of the connection between ESC and motor. Wire 1 in the RPM
sensor wire is connected to the wire lead to motor (red) and ESC (black). Then it
was wrapped with plastic wrap to prevent current leakage while ensuring that the
RPM sensor can give the accurately reading with a maximum value of motor
rotation. For more detail Calibration RIG set up can be seen in Figure G.1- figure G
3.
205
Calibration servo is done to measure the angle of rudder and the output of
servo. It is done when the entire devices are installing to WIG model. It involved
three main components (battery, servo, multi meter) to check the performance of
servo and rudder. The servo is move smoothly left and right and the multi meter will
show up the transfer function (output) value for corresponding angle of rudder. The
multi meter is stopped when the rudder is in maximum deflection. The protector is
placed in between the space of rudder to measure the maximum angle of deflection.
The servo output is recorded at this state. The rudder then to be set for 0, 10,
20, 30, 40 and maximum is 50. For each angle, it will give the different for
value of servo output. The angle of rudder will affect the radial turning for WIG
model when the WIG model moves at the certain speed. During the flight test, the
performance of servo and rudder is recorded. Detail configuration can be seen at
Figure G.4
207
Telemetry data record system is a unit that sends the data from the Recorder to
the Dashboard. The Data Recorder is not powered when connecting the transmitter,
and the red wire of the transmitter cable is corresponds with the red dot on the port
label (to the right of the connector). The Seagull Transmitter cable is plugged into
the Expansion port on the transmitter is installed in the upper row of pins, as
shown in the figure. With the Telemetry Transmitter, the data obtained in this
experiment can be collected and sent online to the Dashboard. A transmitter antenna
position is determined in the vertical so that data can be transmitted easily without
any barriers and avoids errors.
208
APPENDIX H
SIMULATION PROGRAM