International Conference on Science, Technology Engineering and Management

NUMERICAL STUDY ON
AERODYNAMICS OF TANDEM WING IN
GROUND EFFECT
Hari Seshan.B.L1, Aravindraj.E1, Jerin Rakhul.R1, Usha Bharathi.A2
U.G student, Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Jeppiaar Engineering College, Chennai, India 1
Assistant Professor, Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Jeppiaar Engineering College, Chennai, India 2

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this paper is to numerically investigate the aerodynamic characteristics of a tandem wing
configuration in ground effect at a Reynolds number 2.87×10 5. The NACA 4415 aerofoil was employed as a section of
wings. The simulation of tandem wing in ground effect was performed by Three Dimensional Computational Fluid
Dynamic. The analysis of tandem wing has been done for spacing ratio 2.5 i.e. the distance between trailing edge of front
wing section and leading edge of rear wing section to the chord length and varying angle of attack 00, 20, 40 in ground
effect. The lift coefficient, drag coefficient and, Lift to drag ratio of wing in ground effect is calculated with k-ɛ turbulent
model. It is found that the ground effect has strong influence on aerodynamic performance of tandem wing at various
angle of attack. The rear wing has low lift coefficient when compared to front wing due to interference effect of wake
between two wings.

Keywords: Numerical Investigation; Ground effect; Tandem wing; Ange of attack; Lift; Drag.

I.INTRODUCTION
A wing-in-ground effect can be defined as when an aircraft fly’s close to ground the formation of trailing edge
vortex is reduced because the ground partially bocks trailing edge vortex and decrease the amount of downwash generated
by wings. This reduction in downwash increases lift of an aircraft and reduces induced drag generated. The German
designer Günther W. Jörg developed the Tandem-Airfoil-Flairboat (TAF). Tandem-Airfoil-Flairboat design is built by
assembling of two wings with shorter span in tandem configuration. Two wings having same dimensions with small
space in between them and doesn’t have horizontal tail. This tandem wing arrangement presents good static stability and
controllability in ground effect [1]. Timothy and Yongsheng [2] described that the tandem configuration was tested with
four different wing spacing ratios 1.0, 0.5, 0.25 and 0.1 to the chord length. They showed when the spacing ratio is
decreased, vortex structures around the rear wing became elongated and spread out due to interactions with the front
wing. Total lift of tandem wing was maximum at a wing spacing ratio of 1.0 while thrust was maximum at a spacing ratio
of 0.5. Power consumption was minimum at a wing spacing ratio of 0.1. Rafiuddin Ahmed [3] studied experimentally the
flow characteristics over a NACA 4415 airfoil at Reynolds number of 2.4×105 by varying the angle of attack from 00 to
100 and ground clearance from five percentage of chord length to eighty percentage of chord length. Separation bubble
formed on the lower surface of airfoil for the angle of attack of 00 the laminar separation occurred well ahead of the
trailing edge for the angle of attack of 2.50. The flow on the upper surface separated from the wing surface due to adverse
pressure gradient for the angle of attack of 100 at small ground clearances and resulting in increased in drag. Pankaj Garg
and Neelesh Soni [4] visualized the flow field over NACA 4415 airfoil by varying angle of attack 12 0 to 180 at Reynolds
numbers 1×106 and 1.5×106. Coefficient of lift was increased up to 160 at Reynolds number 1.5×106 and after 160 the lift
coefficient starts to decrease due to adverse pressure gradient at the trailing edge. Kamma Pradeep [5] described the flow
over NACA 4415 airfoil at various Reynolds number. As the Reynolds number increases coefficient of drag also increases
and maximum coefficient of lift at Reynolds number 6000. Arthar [6] described pressure distributions on a wing having
NACA 4415 airfoi sections with trailing edge flap set at 0 0 and 400. The experimental investigation has been done in the
Langley 300-MPN 7- by 10-foot tunnel through different free-stream dynamic pressures and angles of attack to determine
the chord wise pressure distributions on NACA 4415 airfoil sections with basic wing and flaps deflected down 40 0 .
Saeed-Jame and Adi-Maimun [7] studied the compound wing with one rectangular wing in middle and two taper reverse
wings with negative dihedral angle in sides. The negative dihedral angle for taper reverse wing in the sides of compound
wing decreases down-wash velocity due to the ground effect this leads to increase in lift coefficient and decrease in drag
coefficient of compound wing. The aerodynamic characteristic of tandem wing at high angle of attack depends on position
of canard wing because of aerodynamic interference between two wings. The canard in upper position has good
coefficient of lift than in middle or lower position [8].The tandem wing is experimentally investigated for close ground
proximity. When the tandem wing spacing is low a larger interference effect between two wings and angle of attack 2 0
for both wing lift to drag ratio is maximum[9].

ICONSTEM- RAMPDISC-17 1
 International Conference on Science, Technology Engineering and Management

In current research, a numerical study was carried out to investigate the aerodynamic characteristic of tandem
wing in ground effect by fixing front wing angle of attack and varying rear wing angle of attack for spacing ratio 2.5 and
ground clearance 0.247. The effect of wake interference between two wings were discussed too.

II.NUMERICAL METHOD
Present numerical study was carried out for rectangular wing with tandem configuration having NACA 4415
airfoil as section of wing. The wing specification are shown in Table 1. In this study, the spacing ratio (L/C) is defined
as distance between trailing edge of front wing and leading edge of rear wing to the chord length (C), and the ground
clearance (G/C) is defined as distance between ground and trailing edge of wing to the chord length C. The rear wing
chord (C) was extended to prevent the flow hitting the ground at high angle of attack.

Parameter Units

Front chord (Cf) 0.130 m

Rear chord (C) 0.150 m

Span (b) 0.400 m

Spacing ratio (L/C) 2.5

Ground clearance (G/C) 0.247

Angle of attack (α) 00, 20, 40

Figure 1. Tandem wing. Table 1. Wing specification.

The boundary condition at the ground has been set as moving wall with no-slip wall moving at free stream
velocity. The upstream boundary condition is velocity inlet and set the velocity as 15 m/s and downstream boundary
condition is pressure outlet. The two wings are set to be wall with no-slip boundary condition. The number of nodes for
each mesh is about 200000 to 500000 and for refinement the element size over surface of the wing is 4e-03m, the inflation
of first layer height 2.4e-03m and maximum layers 3 along the wing surface.

Pressure
Outlet
Inlet 10C
Velocity
V = 15 m/s

10C 20 C

Moving
wall
V = 15 m/s

Figure 2. Sketch of computational domain.

ICONSTEM- RAMPDISC-17 2
 International Conference on Science, Technology Engineering and Management

Figure 3. Meshing of tandem wing Figure 4. Inflation on wing surface

The numerical simulation are carried out with a FLUENT solver by solving incompressible Navier-Stokes
equations with k-ɛ turbulent model at the Reynolds number of 2.87×10 5. The transport equation of k and ɛ are written as,

𝜕(𝜌𝑘) 𝜇𝑡
+ 𝑑𝑖𝑣(𝜌𝑘𝑈) = 𝑑𝑖𝑣 [ 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑 𝑘] + 2𝜇𝑡 𝑆𝑖𝑗 ∙ 𝑆𝑖𝑗 − 𝜌𝜀
𝜕𝑡 𝜎𝑘

𝜕(𝜌𝜀) 𝜇𝑡 𝜀 𝜀2
+ 𝑑𝑖𝑣(𝜌𝜀𝑈) = 𝑑𝑖𝑣 [ 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑 𝜀] + 𝐶1𝜀 2𝜇𝑡 𝑆𝑖𝑗 ∙ 𝑆𝑖𝑗 − 𝐶2𝜀 𝜌
𝜕𝑡 𝜎𝜀 𝑘 𝑘

𝑘2
𝜇𝑡 = 𝐶𝜌𝜗𝑙 = 𝜌𝐶𝜇
𝜀

The equations contain five constants 𝐶𝜇 , 𝜎𝑘 , 𝜎𝜀 , 𝐶1𝜀 , 𝐶2𝜀 . The standard k-ɛ model have the following values:

𝐶𝜇 = 0.09, 𝜎𝑘 = 1.00, 𝜎𝜀 = 1.30, 𝐶1𝜀 = 1.44, 𝐶2𝜀 = 1.92

III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

VALIDATION
For validation of the data, the pressure coefficient vs position curve is studied. The result obtained from
FLUENT for NACA 4415 on front wing section is compared with the experimental data of Carter Laagley [6] for zero
angle of attack.
In the case of tandem wing in ground effect, the exact experimental data is not available. So the FLUENT data
is compared with the coarse mesh to a more refined mesh. The pressure distribution on tandem wing is compared with
the coarse mesh to a more refined mesh is shown in Fig. 6.

LIFT COEFFICIENT (CL)

The lift coefficient has been obtained for different angle of attack by fixing the front wing and adjusting the rear
wing angle of attack. Due to interference effect a great reduction in lift coefficient on rear wing when both the wings are
fixed at same angle of attack. When the angle of attack is high on the rear wing the interference effect is reduced
considerably. The maximum lift coefficient for rear wing obtained when front wing is placed at zero angle and rear wing
is at 40 angle. The combined lift coefficient for tandem wing is high when both wings is at 40 angle. The variation of lift
coefficient vs angle of attack is shown in Figs. 7 (a), (b), (c).

DRAG COEFFICIENT (CD)

The drag coefficient has been obtained for different angle of attack by fixing the front wing and adjusting the
rear wing angle of attack. For spacing ratio 2.5 when the rear wing angle of attack is smaller than the front wing the drag
coefficient is reduced on rear wing, when both wings are fixed at same angle of attack the rear wing drag coefficient is
reduced when compared to front wing drag coefficient except for angle of attack 40, where the drag coefficient starts to
increase. The variation of drag coefficient vs angle of attack is shown in Fig. 7 (d), (e), (f).

ICONSTEM- RAMPDISC-17 3
 International Conference on Science, Technology Engineering and Management

Figure 5. Data validation for angle of attack 00 of NACA 4415 airfoil.

FLUENT (512971 cells)

FLUENT (888648 cells)

Figure 6. Mesh comparison for pressure distribution over the tandem wing.

ICONSTEM- RAMPDISC-17 4
 International Conference on Science, Technology Engineering and Management

CL VS AOA αrear= 00 CL VS AOA αrear= 20

front wing" rear wing" Front wing Rear wing
0.6 0.6
0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3
CL

CL
0.2 0.2
0.1
0 0
-1 1 3 5 -1 1 3 5
ANGLE OF ATTACK OF FRONT WING ANGLE OF ATTACK OF FRONT WING
(a) (b)

CL VS AOA αrear= 40 CD VS AOA αrear= 00

Front wing Rear wing Front wing Rear wing
0.06
0.6
0.05
0.4
0.04
CD
CL

0.2
0.03

0 0.02
-1 1 3 5 -1 1 3 5
ANGLE OF ATTACK OF FRONT WING AOA OF FRONT WING
(c) (d)

CD VS AOA CD VS AOA αrear= 40

αrear= 20
Front wing Rear wing Front wing Rear wing
0.06 0.06
0.05 0.05
CD

0.04 0.04
CD

0.03 0.03
0.02 0.02
-1 1 3 5 -1 1 3 5
AOA OF FRONT WING AOA OF FRONT WING
(e) (f)
Figure 7. Variation of CL, CD of front and rear wing with angle of attack.

L/D VS AOA
AOA 0 deg at rear AOA 2deg at rear
AOA 4deg at rear
10
9
8
7
L/D

6
5
4
3
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
AOA
Figure 8. Lift to drag ratio vs angle of attack.

ICONSTEM- RAMPDISC-17 5
 International Conference on Science, Technology Engineering and Management

LIFT TO DRAG RATIO (L/D)

The lift to drag ratio increases as the angle of attack increased on both wings, for rear wing the lift to drag ratio
is reduced when compared to that of front wing due to interference effect between two wigs. The maximum lift to drag
ratio is obtained when angle of attack of rear wing is set as 4 0. The variation of lift to drag ratio vs angle of attack is
shown in Fig.8.

FLOW FIELD ANALYSIS

Figs. 9, 10, 11 shows static pressure contours around tandem wing for various angle of attack, it is observed that
when the angle of attack increased the static pressure on leading edge and bottom of the wing increases and static pressure
on top of the wing decreases. Figs. 12, 13, 14 shows dynamic pressure contours around tandem wing for various angle
of attack, it is observed that when the angle of attack increased the dynamic pressure on leading edge and trailing edge
of the wing decreases and dynamic pressure on top of the wing increases.

(a) (a)

(b) (b)

(c) (c)
Figure 9. Static pressure contour on tandem wing 00 AOA at front wing Figure 10. Static pressure contour on tandem wing 20 AOA at front wing
and varying AOA at rear wing. and varying AOA at rear wing.

(a) (a)

(b) (b)

(c) (c)

Figure 11. Static pressure contour on tandem wing 40 AOA at front Figure 12. Dynamic pressure contour on tandem wing 00 AOA at front
wing and varying AOA at rear wing. wing and varying AOA at rear wing.

ICONSTEM- RAMPDISC-17 6
 International Conference on Science, Technology Engineering and Management

(a) (a)

(b) (b)

(c) (c)
Figure 13. Dynamic pressure contour on tandem wing 20 AOA at front Figure 14. Dynamic pressure contour on tandem wing 40 AOA at front
wing and varying AOA at rear wing. wing and varying AOA at rear wing.

Fig. 15 shows the trailing edge vortices or lift induced vortices on rear wing. These vortices are formed because
of finite length of wing. The high pressure region at bottom of the wing interact with low pressure region at top of the
wing at wing tip, this interaction create vortices trailing downstream of wing.

Figure 15. Trailing edge vortices.

VI.CONCLUSION
In the present work, CFD simulation is carried out to study the flow field and aerodynamic characteristics of
tandem wing in ground effect by considering NACA 4415 as section of wings. It is found that the increment of 68.75%
of lift coefficient on rear wing when the front wing is fixed at 0 0 angle of attack and rear wing is fixed at 40 angle of
attack. The reduction of coefficient of lift is high at rear wing when front wing is fixed at 4 0 angle of attack. The rear
wing aerodynamic characteristics is mainly depend on angle of attack at which the front wing is fixed because of
interference of wake between two wings. The angle of attack of the rear wing should be higher than angle of attack of
front wing to have less interference effect and to achieve maximum coefficient of lift at rear wing when the two wings
located in same axis for spacing ratio 2.5.

REFERENCES

[1] Rozhdestvensky, K.V., “Wing-in-ground effect vehicles,” Elsevier Journal of aerospace science, Vol. 42, pp. 211-283 (2006).
[2] “The Effect of Wing Spacing on Tandem Wing Aerodynamics,” Timothy M Broering and Yongsheng Lian, 28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics
Conference 28 June - 1 July 2010, Chicago, Illinois.
[3] “Aerodynamics of a Cambered Airfoil in Ground Effect”, M. Rafiuddin Ahmed, International Journal of Fluid Mechanics Research, Vol. 32,
No. 2, 2005.
[4] “Aerodynamic Investigation of Flow Field Over NACA 4415 Airfoil,” Pankaj Garg, Neelesh Soni, International Journal of Advanced Research
in Scientific, Vol.3, Issue 2, February 2016.
[5] “Flow over NACA-4415 aerofoil at Extreme Reynolds number,” Kamma Pradeep, Enugurthi Manasa, Adimulam Neha, International Journal
of Advanced Technology in Engineering and Science, Volume No 03, Special Issue No. 01, May 2015.

ICONSTEM- RAMPDISC-17 7
 International Conference on Science, Technology Engineering and Management

[6] “Pressure distributions on a wing having NACA 4415 airfoil sections with trailing-edge flaps set at 00 and 400 ”, by Arthar W, Carter Laagley
Research Center Humpton, Va. 23365, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C.
[7] “Aerodynamic characteristics of a compound wing during ground effect” by Saeed-Jame, Adi-Maimun, Agoes-Priyanto, Nor-Azwadi, The
International Conference on Marine Technology.
[8] “Experimental investigation of the aerodynamic characteristics of tandem‐airfoil based on low Reynolds number”, by ZHANG Guo‐qing &
YANG Shu‐xing.
[9] “Experimental investigation on the aerodynamic charecteristic of a tandem wing configuration in close ground proximity” by Mohammed
Rafiuddin Ahmed and Yasuaki Kohama.

ICONSTEM- RAMPDISC-17 8