Drag Polar Invariance with Flexibility

Hantrais-Gervois, Jean-Luc; Destarac, Daniel

doi:10.2514/1.c033193

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Observing the latter, it can be stated that the wing geometry change in itself does not clearly allow a better agreement between numerical and experimental drag polars. The aero-elastic effects do not seem to have a significant impact here, as shown in [19]. However, the SA-QCR2000 model gives very interesting results which are in better agreement with experiments at high angles of attack.…”

Section: B Angle Of Attack Sweep Studysupporting

confidence: 68%

DPW-6: Drag Analyses and Increments Using Different Geometries of the Common Research Model Airliner

Hue

Chanzy

Landier

2018

Journal of Aircraft

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceThis paper describes the CFD studies carried out at ONERA in the framework of the Sixth AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop. Different configurations of the well-known Common Research Model have been used to perform drag analyses and increment assessments. The structured overset grids provided by The Boeing Company to the DPW community have been preprocessed with the in-house software Cassiopée: CGNS conversion, cell blanking, and overlapping issues have been handled before running these grids with the RANS solver elsA and the far-field code ffd72. Contrary to the original CRM configuration used in DPW-5, the wing shape is now based on wind-tunnel aeroelastic measurements: through a grid convergence process, a four-count drag increment between new and former wing–body geometries has been quantified, which is very consistent with previous ONERA results. Then, a CRM configuration including a throughflow nacelle–pylon installation has been computed: the corresponding drag increment of about 22 counts is in very close agreement with the NASA experimental data. Finally, horizontal and vertical tails have been added to the wing–body–nacelle–pylon geometry so that the aerodynamic performance of such a complete cruise configuration can be assessed. Numerical considerations involving the SA-QCR2000 turbulence model are highlighted

show abstract

Section: B Angle Of Attack Sweep Studysupporting

confidence: 68%

DPW-6: Drag Analyses and Increments Using Different Geometries of the Common Research Model Airliner

Hue

Chanzy

Landier

2018

Journal of Aircraft

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As expected, the drag polar curve shows no significant sensitivity to the flexibility of the airplane structure, according to the observation in Ref. 21, but the induced drag factor calculated for the second structure is smaller compared to the one for the first structural configuration. The resultant maximum lift-drag ratio value of the airplane as a rigid body estimated by Aswing is 12.52.…”

Section: Aswing Aerodynamic Modelsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…The lift and drag slopes obtained for the first structure is 37.2% and 27.3% less than those estimated for the airplane as a rigid body, respectively. Hantrais-Gervois and Destarac 21 describe that CLα rotates around the zero-lift point because of the wing elastic twist distribution and if the wing twist variation is moderate, a drag polar invariance with flexibility is expected at the cruise point for airplanes of moderate aspect ratio (RA≈9). The lift and drag slopes for the second structure show a decrease of 8.51% and 12.63% when compared with the rigid body results, respectively; however, it is noticed that there is no significant rotation of the lift curve for the flexible body, which could be explained by the increase of torsional stiffness in the first section of the wing structure.…”

Section: Aswing Aerodynamic Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Structural, Flight Dynamics and Aeroelastic Analysis of the ANCE X-3d as a Flexible Body

Hernández

Boschetti

Ramirez

2019

AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this paper is to generate simplified structural configurations for the ANCE X-3d by considering the influence of structural flexibility on the flight dynamic characteristics and the aeroelastic phenomena. This aircraft consists of an unswept wing with double tail boom structure and two vertical stabilizers. Two structures were designed by an analytical approach and finite element models to create suitable structural arrangements for the wing, tail booms, and stabilizers, and carbon-fiber composite materials were selected for this purpose. Knowing the stiffness and mass properties of the main structural components, reduced order aero-structural models were developed to quantify the influence of the flexibility on the aircraft aerodynamics and stability characteristics. Flight dynamic evaluation of the airplane considering the flexibility of the structure was performed at different velocities and altitudes. The resultant flutter and divergence velocities fulfill the design criteria. Nomenclature Ak = circulation Fourier mode coefficients CD0 = minimum drag coefficient CL0, CM0 = lift and pitching moment coefficients at zero angle of attack CLq, CDq, CMq = variation of lift, drag, and pitching moment coefficients with pitch rate CLα, CDα, CMα = lift, drag, and pitching moment slopes CYβ, Cℓβ, Cnβ = variation of side force, rolling, yawing coefficients with sideslip angle CYp, Cℓp, Cnp = variation of side force, rolling, yawing coefficients with roll rate CYr, Cℓr, Cnr = variation of side force, rolling, yawing coefficients with yaw rate D = control state vector E = control error-integral vector E = young modulus, Pa EI = bending stiffness, Nm 2

show abstract

“…It is important to isolate this contribution because the mesh is deformed to represent various wing shapes, and thus this contribution evolves from one shape to another. Using this analysis increases the precision of the aeroelastic database; see [30]. The output of the database contains the drag breakdown for each parameter set, as well as the pitching moment coefficient C m .…”

Section: Aerodynamic Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sparse polynomial surrogates for non-intrusive, high-dimensional uncertainty quantification of aeroelastic computations

Savin

Hantrais-Gervois

2020

Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is concerned with aircraft aeroelastic interactions and the propagation of parametric uncertainties in numerical simulations using high-fidelity fluid flow solvers. More specifically, the influence of variable operational and structural parameters (random inputs) on the drag performance and deformation (outputs) of a flexible wing in transonic regime, is assessed. Because of the complexity of fluid flow solvers, non-intrusive uncertainty quantification techniques are favored. Polynomial surrogate models based on homogeneous chaos expansions in the random inputs are commonly considered in this respect. The polynomial expansion coefficients are constructed using either structured sampling sets of the input parameters, as Gauss quadrature nodes, or unstructured sampling sets, as in Monte-Carlo methods. In complex systems such as the advanced aeroelastic test case studied here, the output quantities of interest generally depend only weakly on the multiple

show abstract

Drag Polar Invariance with Flexibility

Cited by 12 publications

References 5 publications

DPW-6: Drag Analyses and Increments Using Different Geometries of the Common Research Model Airliner

DPW-6: Drag Analyses and Increments Using Different Geometries of the Common Research Model Airliner

Integrated Structural, Flight Dynamics and Aeroelastic Analysis of the ANCE X-3d as a Flexible Body

Sparse polynomial surrogates for non-intrusive, high-dimensional uncertainty quantification of aeroelastic computations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About