粘性流作用下三维平台提升线及提升公式的验证与验证

J. R. Chreim, J. Dantas, K. Burr, G. Assi, M. Pimenta
{"title":"粘性流作用下三维平台提升线及提升公式的验证与验证","authors":"J. R. Chreim, J. Dantas, K. Burr, G. Assi, M. Pimenta","doi":"10.1017/aer.2023.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Many adaptations of the lifting-line theory have been developed since its conception to aid in preliminary aerodynamic wing design, but they typically fall into two main formulations, named \n \n \n \n$\\alpha $\n\n \n - and \n \n \n \n$\\Gamma $\n\n \n -formulation, which differ in terms of the control points chordwise location and the variable updated during the iterative scheme. This paper assess the advantages and drawbacks of both formulations through the implementation of the respective methods and application of standard verification and validation procedures. Verification showed that the \n \n \n \n$\\Gamma $\n\n \n -method poorly converges for wings with nonstraight quarter-chord lines, while the \n \n \n \n$\\alpha $\n\n \n -method presents adequate convergence rates and uncertainties for all geometries; it also showed that the \n \n \n \n$\\Gamma $\n\n \n -method agrees best with analytic results from the cassic lifting-line theory, indicating that it tends to overpredict wing lift. Validation and comparison to other modern lifting-line methods was done for similar geometries, and not only corroborated the poor converge and lift overprediction of the \n \n \n \n$\\Gamma $\n\n \n -method, but also showed that the \n \n \n \n$\\alpha $\n\n \n -method presented the closest results to experimental data for almost all cases tested, concluding that this formulation is typically superior regardless of the wing geometry. These results indicate that the implemented \n \n \n \n$\\alpha $\n\n \n -method has a greater potential for the extension of the lifting-line theory to more geometrically complex lifting surfaces other than fixed wings with straight quarter-chord lines and wakes constrained to the planform plane.","PeriodicalId":22567,"journal":{"name":"The Aeronautical Journal (1968)","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Verification & validation of lifting line - and -formulations for 3-D planforms under viscous flows\",\"authors\":\"J. R. Chreim, J. Dantas, K. Burr, G. Assi, M. Pimenta\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/aer.2023.9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Many adaptations of the lifting-line theory have been developed since its conception to aid in preliminary aerodynamic wing design, but they typically fall into two main formulations, named \\n \\n \\n \\n$\\\\alpha $\\n\\n \\n - and \\n \\n \\n \\n$\\\\Gamma $\\n\\n \\n -formulation, which differ in terms of the control points chordwise location and the variable updated during the iterative scheme. This paper assess the advantages and drawbacks of both formulations through the implementation of the respective methods and application of standard verification and validation procedures. Verification showed that the \\n \\n \\n \\n$\\\\Gamma $\\n\\n \\n -method poorly converges for wings with nonstraight quarter-chord lines, while the \\n \\n \\n \\n$\\\\alpha $\\n\\n \\n -method presents adequate convergence rates and uncertainties for all geometries; it also showed that the \\n \\n \\n \\n$\\\\Gamma $\\n\\n \\n -method agrees best with analytic results from the cassic lifting-line theory, indicating that it tends to overpredict wing lift. Validation and comparison to other modern lifting-line methods was done for similar geometries, and not only corroborated the poor converge and lift overprediction of the \\n \\n \\n \\n$\\\\Gamma $\\n\\n \\n -method, but also showed that the \\n \\n \\n \\n$\\\\alpha $\\n\\n \\n -method presented the closest results to experimental data for almost all cases tested, concluding that this formulation is typically superior regardless of the wing geometry. These results indicate that the implemented \\n \\n \\n \\n$\\\\alpha $\\n\\n \\n -method has a greater potential for the extension of the lifting-line theory to more geometrically complex lifting surfaces other than fixed wings with straight quarter-chord lines and wakes constrained to the planform plane.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22567,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Aeronautical Journal (1968)\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Aeronautical Journal (1968)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/aer.2023.9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Aeronautical Journal (1968)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aer.2023.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自升力线理论的概念提出以来,已经发展了许多对升力线理论的适应,以帮助初步的气动机翼设计,但它们通常分为两种主要的公式,称为$\alpha $ -和$\Gamma $ -公式,它们在控制点的弦向位置和迭代方案期间更新的变量方面有所不同。本文通过实施各自的方法和应用标准验证和验证程序来评估两种配方的优点和缺点。验证表明,$\Gamma $ -方法对非直的四分之一弦线机翼收敛性差,而$\alpha $ -方法对所有几何形状都有足够的收敛率和不确定性;结果表明,$\Gamma $ -方法与经典升力线理论的解析结果吻合较好,表明该方法对机翼升力有高估的倾向。对类似几何形状的其他现代升力线方法进行了验证和比较,不仅证实了$\Gamma $ -方法的收敛性差和升力超预测,而且还表明$\alpha $ -方法在几乎所有测试情况下都提供了与实验数据最接近的结果,得出结论,无论机翼几何形状如何,该公式通常都是优越的。这些结果表明,所实现的$\alpha $ -方法具有更大的潜力,可以将升力线理论扩展到几何更复杂的升力表面,而不是具有直四分之一弦线和尾迹约束于平面的固定翼。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Verification & validation of lifting line - and -formulations for 3-D planforms under viscous flows
Many adaptations of the lifting-line theory have been developed since its conception to aid in preliminary aerodynamic wing design, but they typically fall into two main formulations, named $\alpha $ - and $\Gamma $ -formulation, which differ in terms of the control points chordwise location and the variable updated during the iterative scheme. This paper assess the advantages and drawbacks of both formulations through the implementation of the respective methods and application of standard verification and validation procedures. Verification showed that the $\Gamma $ -method poorly converges for wings with nonstraight quarter-chord lines, while the $\alpha $ -method presents adequate convergence rates and uncertainties for all geometries; it also showed that the $\Gamma $ -method agrees best with analytic results from the cassic lifting-line theory, indicating that it tends to overpredict wing lift. Validation and comparison to other modern lifting-line methods was done for similar geometries, and not only corroborated the poor converge and lift overprediction of the $\Gamma $ -method, but also showed that the $\alpha $ -method presented the closest results to experimental data for almost all cases tested, concluding that this formulation is typically superior regardless of the wing geometry. These results indicate that the implemented $\alpha $ -method has a greater potential for the extension of the lifting-line theory to more geometrically complex lifting surfaces other than fixed wings with straight quarter-chord lines and wakes constrained to the planform plane.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信