MECH 6111 Gas Dynamics

Project Report:

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OVER A DELTA WING FOR A

SWEEP ANGLE

Name Student ID Email address

Venkatesh 40015496 Venkateshbs93@gmail.com
Bashamoni
Krishna Teja Lam 40043089 Krishteja237@gmail.com

Submitted to:
Dr. Pierre Q. Gauthier

August 18, 2017

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................3
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................4
INPUT ........................................................................................................................4
DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................5
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................5
1.1 AIRCRAFT WING:.......................................................................................5
1.2 DIFFERENT TYPES OF WING: .................................................................6
1.3TYPES OF DELTA WING: ...........................................................................7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE SURVEY ..............................................................8
CHAPTER 3: COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS .................................14
3.1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................14
3.2. METHODOLOGY: ..................................................................................15
3.3. DISCRETIZATION METHODS: ............................................................15
Finite Volume Method .......................................................................................16
Finite Element Method ......................................................................................16
Spectral Element Method ..................................................................................17
CHAPTER 4: DELTA WING GEOMETRIES....................................................18
4.1. GEOMETRIC CONFIGURATION ...........................................................18
4.2. CATIA MODELLING: ...............................................................................20
4.3. MESHING .....................................................................................................22
WING MODEL .................................................................................................22
CHAPTER 5: FINAL RESULTS ........................................................................24
5.1. RESULTS FOR WING MODEL5.1.1. AOA = 0 ......................................24
CALCULATIONS: ...............................................................................................26
CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................27
ABSTRACT

The project deals with the analysis of a compound and full sweep delta wing. It
includes knowledge and help of various software packages for example CATIA V5,
ANSYS ICEM CFD, CFX-PRE, CFX-SOLVER and CFX-POST.
It starts with the modelling of the wing in the CATIA V5 designing software and
after completion of the geometry its being imported to the ICEM CFD software for
the meshing of the wing and also for preparing the domain and the symmetry plane.
After defining the boundary condition the file is to be run in CFX-SOLVER it will
solve the given boundary condition. At last the file will be opened on the CFX-POST
where all the result parameters can be obtained and finally the comparison of the
parameters is done.
 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

To analyze the Supersonic flow variation over a delta wing with a sweep

angle using Computational Fluid Technique

INPUT

The input i.e. the boundary conditions for all the Angle of attack numbers are as

shown below

Mach number Angle of Attack Stagnation Stagnation Reynolds number,

(deg) temperature, k pressure, kPa m^-1

1.6 -4.3 339 54.6 6.6 * 10^6

1.6 0.0 339 54.6 6.6 * 10^6

1.6 5.3 339 54.6 6.6 * 10^6

1.6 10.2 339 54.6 6.6 * 10^6

1.6 15.3 339 54.6 6.6 * 10^6

With varying angle of attack and constant Mach number, at these boundary conditions

we analyze the flow over the delta wing to get the forces and pressure distribution.
DESCRIPTION

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 AIRCRAFT WING:
Wings develop the major portion of the lift of a heavier-than-air aircraft. Wing

structures carry some of the heavier loads found in the aircraft structure. The

particular design of a wing depends upon many factors, such as size, weight, speed,

rate of climb, and use of the aircraft. The wing must be constructed so that it holds

its aerodynamics shape under extreme stresses of compact maneuvers or wing

loading. Spars are the main structural members of the wing. They extend from the

fuselage to the tip of the wing. The entire load carried by the wing is taken up by the

spars. The spars are designed to have great bending strength. Ribs give the wing

section its shape, and they transmit the air load from the wing covering to the spars.

Ribs extend from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the wing. In addition to the

main spars, some wings have a false spar to support the ailerons and flaps. Most

aircraft wings have a removable tip, which streamlines the outer end of the wing.
1.2 DIFFERENT TYPES OF WING:
STRAIGHT WING
Extends at right angles to the line of flight. The most efficient structurally, and

common for low-speed designs, such as the P-80 Shooting Star.

WING SWEEP
Wings may be swept back, or occasionally forwards, for a variety of reasons. A small

degree of sweep is sometimes used to adjust the center of lift when the wing cannot

be attached in the ideal position for some reason, such as a pilot's visibility from the

cockpit. Other uses are described below.

SWEPT BACK
From the root, the wing angles backwards towards the tip. In early tailless examples,

such as the Dunne aircraft, this allowed the outer wing section to act as a

conventional tail empennage to provide aerodynamic stability. At transonic speeds

swept wings have lower drag, but can handle badly in or near a stall and require high

stiffness to avoid aero elasticity at high speeds. Common on high-subsonic and

supersonic designs e.g. the English Electric Lightning.

FORWARD SWEPT
The wing angles forwards from the root. Benefits are similar to backwards sweep,

also at significant angles of sweep it avoids the stall problems and has reduced tip

losses allowing a smaller wing, but requires even greater stiffness because of much
higher liability to aero elastic flutter and for this reason is not often used. A civil

example is the HFB-320 Hansa Jet and in military Sukhoi Su-47.

1.3TYPES OF DELTA WING:

a. TAILLESS DELTA

b. TAILED DELTA

c. CROPPED DELTA

d. COMPOUND DELTA

e. OGIVAL DELTA.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE SURVEY
This chapter reports a brief review of literature on wing alone characteristics on

delta wing configuration which was submitted by Robert L. Srallings, Jr. and

Milton Lamb in the year 1889 in NASAs Langley research centre.

The type of delta wing selected depends on the speed and sweep angle. This vortex

flow determines to a great extent the aerodynamic characteristics of the delta wing.

A thoroughly knowledge of this flow, its structure and its behavior is necessary to

predict these aerodynamic characteristics. Moreover, this knowledge can be used to

increase the super maneuverability of flight vehicles using a delta wing

configuration. By means of experimental investigations, data of this flow can be

obtained. This data can on its turn be used to develop and evaluate numerical

calculation models of the vortex flow over delta wings.

Coefficient of lift and coefficient of drag, angle of attack are important parameters.

The aerodynamic force of lift on a delta wing results primarily from the generation

of a pressure distribution on the wings body surface. The entire body of the delta

wing may act as an aero foil and supply lift when it is inclined to the airstream.
 FIG 1: FLOW OVER A DELTA WING

Drag is the net aerodynamic force which is parallel to the relative wind and in

same direction. Its sources include the pressure distribution and skin friction on the

surface. In a fashion similar other aerodynamic forces drag forces may be analyzed

using drag coefficient which is independent on dynamic forces and surface area.

At low angle of attack the drag coefficient is low and small changes in angle

of attack create only slight changes in drag coefficient and at high angle of attack

the drag coefficient is much greater and small changes in angle of attack and cause

significant changes in drag. In stall region, is entered a large increase in drag takes

place
 An improved configuration which we term a highly swept-back delta wing is

proposed in the present study to reduce the detrimental effects of high drag caused

by the ow choking within the transonic regime. The CFD simulations were

performed to investigate flows over a delta wing with base line and high swept-back

delta wing under transonic conditions at various angle of attack.

FIG 2: AIRCRAFT WITH COMPOUND DELTA WING

The Numerical results indicate that flow variation and pressure variation over the

highly sweptback grid. To reduce ow choking, an improved design, which is

termed a high swept-back delta wing is proposed, which is believed to leave the

control effectiveness of the delta wing almost unchanged.

 While discussing about shocks, it is one of the disadvantage faced

during studying the characteristics of the delta wing. At Supersonic Mach number,

the flows get disturbed and oblique shock is formed over the delta wing, causing

considerable increase in drag and reduction in delta wing effectiveness. Delta wing

are very effective to improve the stability in transonic speed.

The design of the delta wing allow an effective aerodynamic control device

stowed along with the sustained body with a minimum increase in the overall

dimensions. The drag of the delta wing can be minimized with the proper design of

the swept delta wing. The aerodynamic coefficient and load distribution over a wing

configuration with half and full sweep has been generated.

At Supersonic Mach number, the flow gets disturbed due to oblique shock

formed over the delta wing, causing considerable increase in drag and reduction in

delta wing effectiveness. Delta wings are very effective to improve the stability in

subsonic and supersonic region.

FIG 3: DIFFERENT TYPE OF DELTA WING TO ANALYSE

Delta wing have been and are still the most efficient planform for generating lift they

can efficiently generate the required maneuvering of forces. The aerodynamics of

delta wig is greatly affected by the control surface configuration and its study is highly

significant. Hence in this project we try to study the various forces acting on the delta

wing.

Drag and lift are calculated with respect to velocity vector whereas normal force and

axial force are not measured with respect to the velocity, but with respect to the

geometry of the airfoil itself. Normal forces are forces acting perpendicular to the

chord line and the axial forces are the forces acting along the chord line.

FIG 4: AERODYANAMIC CHARACTERISTIC CALCULATION

Lift and drag are expressed in terms of normal and axial forces using equations

= cos + sin And

= cos sin
The forces are reduced to non- dimensional form to obtain the respective coefficients

by dividing qS

CA= cos sin

CN = CL cos + sin

Where

CD= D/qS

CL=L/qS
CHAPTER 3: COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS
3.1. INTRODUCTION
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is an integral part of the aerodynamic design

process along with wind tunnel testing and engineering methods. But, CFD decrease

the dependence on the expensive, time consuming wind tunnel testing. The use of

CFD methods accelerates the design process, reduce preliminary development testing,

and help create reliable designs of space launch vehicles and their components.

Presently the simulation capability and reliability of CFD simulation increased due to

availability of advanced models and computer hardware.

The fundamental basis of almost all CFD problems are the Naiver-stokes equations,

which define any single-phase (gas or liquid) fluid flow. These equations can be

simplified by removing terms describing viscous actions to yield the Euler equations.

Further simplification, by removing terms describing vorticity yields the full potential

equations. Finally, for small perturbations in subsonic and supersonic flows these

equations can be linearized to yield linearized potential equations.

3.2. METHODOLOGY:
In all these approaches the same basic procedure is followed

1. Initially the geometry of the problem is defined.

2. The volume occupied by the fluid is divided into discrete cells (mesh). The

mesh is uniform or non-uniform.

3. The physical modeling is defined for example, the equation of motion +

enthalpy + radiation + species conservation.

4. Boundary conditions are defined. This involves specifying the fluid and

properties at boundaries of the problem. For transient problems, the initial

conditions are also defined.

5. The simulation is started and the equations are solved iteratively as a steady-

state or transient solution.

Finally a postprocessor is used for the analysis and visualization of the resulting

solution.

3.3. DISCRETIZATION METHODS:

The stability of the selected discretization is generally established numerically rather

than analytically as with simple linear problems. Special care must be taken to ensure

that the discretization handles discontinuous solutions gracefully.

Some of the discretization methods being used are:

Finite Volume Method
The finite volume method(FVM) in a common approach used in CFD codes, as it has

an advantage in memory usage and solution speed, especially for large problems, high

Reynolds number turbulent flows, and source term dominated flows( like

combustion).

In the finite volume method, the governing partial differential equations are recast in

a conservative form, and then solved over discrete control volumes. This

discretization guarantees the conservation of fluxes through a particular control

volume. The finite volume equation yields governing equations in the form

+ = 0

Where Q is the vector of conserved variables, F is the vector of fluxes, V is the volume

of the control volume element and A is the surface area of the control volume element.

Finite Element Method

This is easy and simple to program. It is currently only used in few specialized codes,

which handle complex geometry with high accuracy and efficiency by using

embedded boundaries or overlapping grids (with the solution interpolated across each

grid).

+ + + =0

Where Q is the vector of conserved variables, F, G and H are the fluxes in the x, y and

z directions respectively.

Spectral Element Method

Spectral element method is a finite element type method. It requires the
mathematical problem to be cast in a week formulation. This is typically done by
multiplying the differential equation by an arbitrary test function and integrating
over the whole domain
CHAPTER 4: DELTA WING GEOMETRIES
4.1. GEOMETRIC CONFIGURATION
The following design has been chosen from base technical paper which is further

created using CATIA V5 for the purpose of analysis.

FIG 4: BASELINE GEOMETRY

GEOMETRIC SPECIFICATIONS:
The geometric specification will be similar for all three model but with varying sweep

angles.

S.No Specifications Value(cm)

1 Length of the wing (L) 20.32

2 Span of the wing (b) 15.24
3 Thickness 1.27
4 Angle of champher 75deg
5 Thickness of champher 0.635
6 Sweep angles 45deg
TABLE 1: GEOMETRY SPECIFICATION
4.2. CATIA MODELLING:
The sketches below are modelled using CATIA V5.

WING MODEL (SWEEP ANGLE=45DEG):

FIG 5: TOP VIEW WING MODEL

FIG 6: SIDE VIEW WING MODEL

 FIG 7: ISOMETRIC VIEW

FIG 8: DRAFT SHEET OF WING MODEL

4.3. MESHING
WING MODEL

FIG 9: MESHED WING MODEL

MESHED ELEMENTS OF WING MODEL

Parts Elements

AIR 839941

BOTTOM 5368

FARFIELD 722

LEADING EDGE 3556

SYMMETRIC PLANE 8877

TOP 5508

TRAILING EDGE 2380

TOTAL ELEMENTS 866352

TABLE 3: MESH ELEMENTS FOR MODEL

WING MODEL
As we have already discussed that all the boundary conditions will remain same for

all other models but only velocities will change for various angle of attacks. So

below are the only velocity tables for the current wing model.

VELOCITY TABLES FOR WING MODEL AT DIFFERENT ANGLE OF

ATTACK
AT AOA=0 DEG

U 3.0919e+00 [m s^-1]
V 5.9050e+02 [m s^-1]
W 0.0000e+00 [m s^-1]
TABLE 12: VELOCITIES AT AOA=0
CHAPTER 5: FINAL RESULTS
5.1. RESULTS FOR WING MODEL5.1.1. AOA = 0

FIG: PRESSURE CONTOUR

FIG: MACH NUMBER CONTOUR

FIG: TEMPARATURE CONTOUR
CALCULATIONS: At 0 Angle of attack

At the Oblique Shock occurring location in Fig: Mach Number Contour

M1= 1.6, = 15deg we get = 65deg (From Oblique Shock
Tables)
M1n = M1*Sin= 1.45
M2n= 0.72 (From Normal Shock Tables)
M2= M2n/Sin(-)= 0.72
M2= 1.05

At the Expansion Fan occurring location in Fig: Mach Number Contour

M1= 1.6, We get v=14.86deg (From Prandtl-Meyer tables)
We have = 15deg
V2= V1+ V= 29.86deg
We get M2= 2.12 (From Prandtl-Meyer tables)
CONCLUSION
Computation investigation was made on delta wing model with sweep angle of

45deg. In the experiments, Mach number, pressure, temperature has been carried

out. The entire tests have been carried out at a Reynolds number of 6.6x106. Effect

of angle of attack was obtained on delta wing using experiments and experimental

results are in good agreement with computational results. The investigation was

supported by commercially available software ANSYS.