L

NASA

Contractor

Repo_

_23
7_7 _177

Program
A Computer Nonlinear of Arbitrary

VSAERO_eory
Program Aerodynamic Configurati__ forC_lating Characteristics

Document

Brian

Maskew

.....

CONTRACT SEPTEMBER

NAS2-11945 1987

N/LS/X

_i -_

- Z 2_:-:_

....

-j_

- _L

r- ....

--IZ

__

.Jk

,?_j.. ,/,,_---i-

L. r

Z _ ./___---i..

Z .....

Z -_._ZZ ---

..... ---}

_=---_._..'--_.iii: __.
-zz:-

......

__--Z177

Z---=__

IIZI_ZZZ[

....

- Zi_-Z

----_

NASA

Contractor

Report

4023

Program
A Computer Nonlinear of Arbitrary

VSAERO
Program Aerodynamic Con_gurations for

Theory
Calculating Characteristics

Document

Brian Analytical Redmond,

Maskew Methods, Washington Inc.

Prepared for Ames Research under Contract

Center NAS2-11945

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information Office 1987

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

section

aS_

No.

LIST LIST 1.0

OF OF

FIGURES SYMBOLS

iii vi

INTRODUCTION i.I 1.2 1.3 General Objectives Strategy .................... .................. ................... 1 1 1

2.0

FORMULATION 2.1 2.2 2.3 Flow Equation ................. Boundary Conditions ............. Choice of Singularity Model .......... PROCEDURE ................ Description ........... 3 6 8 16 16 16 21 25 26 ....... Coefficient ..... ..... Coefficients ..... ..... 41 44 46 48 48 57 58 59 59 6O 33 40 31

3.0

NUMERICAL 3.1

Geometrical 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 Patch Panel Panel Wakes of

. _ . . ............. Geometry ............. Neighbors ............ ................. Coefficients Influence Contribution Contribution Influence Contribution Contribution ............

3.2

Matrix 3.2.1

Influence

Velocity 3.2.1.1 3.2.1.2

Potential Doublet Source Vector Doublet Source Assembly

3.2.2

Velocity 3.2.2.1 3.2.2.2

3.2.3 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Matrix

Matrix Solver

.................

On-Body Analysis ............... Wake-Shape Calculation ............ Boundary Layer Analysis ............ Off-Body Analysis ............... 3.7.1 3.7.2 Velocity Off-Body Survey ............ Streamline Procedure

.....

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

(CONCLUDED)

_No.
4.0 DISCUSSION 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 5.0 6.0 OF RESULTS ............... 62 62 62 64 68 74 74 84 85

Swept Wing Wing with Nacelles Wing-Flap Body Alone Wing-Body

.................. Strake ............... ................... Cases ................ .................. Cases ...............

CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

.................... ....................

APPENDICES: A: B: SUBROUTINE BIQUADRATIC FLOW CHART ................ .............. 88 96

INTERPOLATION

ii

LIST

OF

FIGURES

F_No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 Section Three Outline General of through the of

Title
the Idealized Internal in of the the Flow Flows Model .... Program . . . . .

_No.
4 9 17 18 19 20 ...... 22 23 ......... Edges ..... 27 28 29 30 of the Surface 35 for One 36

Possible Steps

the

VSAERO

Arrangement

Configuration

Configuration Patch

Hierarchy

..........

Conventions Defining

............. Patch Surface

Sections Panel Panel Panel

Geometry Neighbor Neighbors

............... Information across Scheme Patch

Wake-Grid-Plane Wake Model Arrangement used in

...........

.............. the Evaluation

Integrals

................. of the Surface Integrals Panel .............. of Symmetry and .................. of the Line Ground-Plane

14

Evaluation Side of a Treatment Problems Evaluation

15

39 ...... Panel Patch 49 on Panel ..... ...... ....... 43

16 17

Integral

Evaluation of Perturbation K (All Neighbors Available as Panel K) ................ Evaluation of Perturbation K when a Neighbor is not Force Global Contribution and Wind Axis from

Velocity on and on Same

18

Velocity Available Panel K

52 53 55 61

19 20 21

Systems

Streamline

Calculation

...........

iii

LIST

OF

FIGURES

(CONTINUED)

F__

No.
22 Comparison Distribution of

Title
Calculated on a Thin Chordwise Swept Wing Pressure ...... of VelocStrake; 65

63

23

Comparison of Calculated y-Component ity at Two Stations on a Wing with NACA 0002 Section .............. Comparison of Internal Pressure using a Range of Methods Showing Low-Order First Generation Model Comparison tions on NACA 0005 Comparison Solution (a) (b) (c) Main

24

Calculated Leakage .......

of

66

25

of Calculated Pressure DistribuNacelle with Exit Diameter/Chord.3; Section .............. Calculation with (26) Two-Element Exact Case

67

26

of VSAERO for Williams

B 69 70 71

Element

.................

Flap ..................... Paneling ................... Comparison of Pressure Distributions Aspect Ratio 6 Wing with Part-Span = 16 on an Fowler Flap

27

(a) (b)

Section Section

at at

_ _ of

= =

.33 .6

............. .............. and Exact Spheroid at on a Wing-Body .6 Pressure _ = 5 Config-

72 73

28

Comparison Distributions Pressure uration (a) (b)

Calculated on a 4:1

75

29

Distributions at _ = 4 ,

M_

Above Wing-Body Junction Pressures ...... Spanwise Cut through Present Calculations Swearingen Comparison sure Wind Metroliner of Calculated Wind and Tunnel Model .

. .

. .

76 77 78

3O 31

Experimental

Pres-

Distributions Tunnel Model Cut, Cut, Y Y = =

on the Swearingen at e = 0.0, M_ = 9.0 18.0 ............ ...........

Metroliner 2.0 79 79

(a) (b)

Buttline Buttline

iv

LIST

OF

FIGURES

(CONCLUDED)

F_No. 32

Title
Comparison of Calculated and Experimental Pressure Distributions on the Swearingen Metroliner Wind Tunnel Model at e = 12 , M = 2.0 (a) (b) Buttline Buttline Cut, Cut, Y Y = = 9.0 18.0 ............ ............

8O 8O

33

Comparison of Calculated and Experimental Pressure Distributions on the Swearingen Metroliner Wind Tunnel Model at e = 16 , M_ = 2.0 (a) (b) Buttline Buttline Cut, Cut, Y Y = = 9.0 18.0 ............ ...........

81 81
Zone Model on at

34

Calculated Streamlines the Swearingen Metroliner = 16 ...................

and

Separation Wind Tunnel

83

APPENDIX A-I

A Flow Chart of Viscous/Potential Flow Flow Flow ary Main Program Iteration (Deck Loop VSAERO MVP); ....... in the

89

A-2

Chart of Subroutine ..................... chart Layer

Potential

9O
in the BLCTRL) Bound....

A-3

for Major Subroutines Analysis (Subroutine

95

APPENDIX

B-I

Biquadratic

Interpolation

i00

LIST OF SYMBOLS AREA B ,C JK JK Panel area velocity potential influence coefficient point of panel J for a uniform distribusource and unit doublet, respectively, on in a panel normal component of point of panel J by a source or doublet, the panel center the x,y,z system (Eq. (13)) panels local axes,

Perturbation at the control tion of unit panel K Diagonal vector

D D ,E JK JK

Influence coefficient for the velocity induced at the control uniform distribution of unit respectively, on panel k

E i,j,k K KWPU,I KWPL

Position vector of a panel corner in coordinate system with origin at panel Orthogonal respectively, Factor Program shedding for unit vector system along of the global coordinate the local contribution to

subscripts of upper and lower a wake column (Figure ii)

surface

Orthogonal unit vector system in a local normal to the surface and , m tangential N NABOR i NABSID i R r r S s SMP,SMQ V Number of panels Program subscript of neighboring panel side of

region;

n is

on side the

Program subscript of adjacent panel in side i (Figure 9) Position vector of a panel of a point

neighboring

corner relative

point

in the G.C.S. ds,

Position vector of the surface Modulus of Surface Distance (solid) along

to an element,

of the the

configuration

surface lengths (Figure 8)

Panel half-median Velocity vector

vi

LIST

OF

SYMBOLS

(CONTINUED)

V
V

Modulus

of

V velocity

Perturbation Wake surface

W x,y,z

Cartesian coordinates (G.C.S.)--body-fixed

in the frame of

Global Coordinate reference

System

Incidence Y Vorticity Boundary Local ively, Doublet Total

of

G.C.S.

x-axis

degrees

vector layer

density displacement in the local density thickness and m directions, coordinate system respect-

coordinates of the panel singularity velocity

potential contribution, or perturbation com-

Velocity ponent Density Source

potential

singularity

density

Laplacian

operator,

. _ I_-_ +

_ j_-_+

k _z

Dot N Cross

product product

of

vectors of vectors

vii

LIST

OF

SYMBOLS

(CONCLUDED)

c e

Center Edge Inner of the boundary layer

i
J,K L N P S U W
OO

region to panel J,K

Pertaining Lower Normal Pertaining Pertaining Upper surface surface

component to to the the point, surface P; also used as a subscript

Pertaining Reference

to onset

the

wake

outer

edge

of

the

boundary

layer

condition

viii

1.0

INTRODUCTION

i.i

General

VSAERO is a computer program for calculating the subsonic AEROdynamic characteristics of arbitrary configurations having Vortex Separation and strong Vortex/Surface interaction. This document describes the theory and numerical procedures used for the method. An earlier report (I) describes the input and use of the computer program.

1.2
The initial objectives of the new program were to analyze general wing configurations with multiple part-span, high-lift devices and to give special attention to edge-vortex separations and to close vortex/surface interactions. Later objectives brought in the modeling of fuselage and canard surfaces leading to the present capability for arbitrary configurations including complete aircraft.

1.3
At the beginning of the program development there was only one clear cut choice for approaching the solution to the above nonlinear problem. This was an iterative viscous/potential flow calculation using a potential flow panel method coupled with integral boundary layer methods, with wake-shape iteration calculations included in the potential flow analysis. No other approach appeared to offer the feasibility of achieving the above objectives. Finite difference field methods, for example, treating more general flow equations, could not be developed within a reasonable time scale for application to the complex geometry of multiple part-span, high-lift devices. In the meantime, the surface integral approach of the panel method offered a powerful and practical engineering tool which had the capability to represent the complex geometries involved in the objectives. Furthermore, the low computing time of the panel method was an attractive feature in view of the complex iterative loops made necessary by the nonlinear effects of viscosity and wake location. In the chosen strategy for the development of the VSAERO program the capabilities of two earlier programs were combined: (i) VIP3D (2) offered a viscous/potential flow iterative method for transport wings with full-span, high-lift devices; and (ii) QVORT, a quadrilateral-vortex panel method (3) and (4), offered an iterative wake relaxation procedure. Neither method had a completely satisfactory singularity model or geometry package for the new objectives. Accordingly, in the development of VSAERO these features were given prime consideration.

Various singularity models were investigated for the new rogram including symmetrical singularities (5), high-order ormulations and numerical integration. Finally, a low-order formulation based on internal Dirichlet boundary conditions was chosen. This formulation is described in Section 2. The numerical procedure for the method, which employs quadrilateral panels of constant doublet and source distributions, is described in Section 3. The description includes details of the extended geometry package for the VSAERO program. Correlation studies are examined in Section 4; these include a number of basic test cases involving exact, nominally exact and also experimental data.

2.0

FORMULATION 2.1
Flow Equation

In order to obtain a solution to the flow problem the surface of the configuration is assumed to be at rest in a moving airstream. Regions of the flow field that are dominated by viscous and rotational effects are assumed to be confined to thin surface boundary layers and wakes. The rest of the flow field is assumed to be inviscid, irrotational and also incompressible. Figure 1 shows a streamwise section taken through a wing and its wake. The section indicates the surface, S, of the wing, the surface (upper and lower) of the wake, W, and an outer surface, S_, which encloses the complete flow problem at infinity. The total surface, S + W, divides space into two regions: the external region which contains the flow field of interest and the inner region which contains a fictitious flow. Velocity potential fields, _ and _i, are assumed to exist satisfying Laplace's equation in the flow field and in the inner region, respectively; i.e., V25 and V2_ i 0 in the inner region. = 0 in the flow field

Next, apply Green's Theorem to the inner and outer regions and combine the resulting expression (see Lamb (6)). This yields the following expression for the velocity potential, Cp, anywhere in the two regions, expressed in terms of surface integrals of the velocity potential and its normal derivative over the boundary surface:

_W_S

n S_W_S where r is the distance from the the surface and n is the unit pointing into the fluid.

(V#

- V#i)dS

(i)

point, normal

P, to the element, vector to the

dS, on surface

The first integral in Eq. (i) represents the disturbance potential from a surface distribution of doublets with density ( - i ) per unit area and the second integral represents the contribution from a surface distribution of sources with density -n.(V - V# i) per unit area. The singularities, therefore, represent the jump in conditions across the boundary; the doublet

Figure

i. Section thrugh the Idealized Flow MOdel.

density density velocity.

represents represents

the the

local local

jump jump

in in

potential the normal

and the source component of

S_,

Examine Eq. (I) separately as indicated in Figure I.

over

the

three

surfaces,

S,

W,

The surface at infinity, S_, can be regarded as a large sphere centered on P. The local conditions at that boundary consist only of the uniform onset velocity, V , the disturbance at that distance due to the configuration having essentially disappeared. The surface integrals in Eq. (i) taken over S_ then reduce to _p; i.e., the velocity potential at point, P, due to the onset flow. The upper and lower wake surfaces, W, are assumed to be

infinitesimally close i.e., thin wakes. (A described in References

to each other for the present problem; simplified thick wake representation is 7 and 8.) In this case the corresponding

upper and lower elements can be combined and the i term for this part of the integral disappears. Furthermore, if we neglect entrainment into the wake surface, then the jump in normal velocity component, n (re U - VCL), is zero and so the source term in Eq. (I) disappears for the wake contribution. (Note that entrainment modeling _Q/_ be included given a distribution of the entrainment normal velocity.) With the above conditions, Eq. (i) becomes:

n (V S

Vi)dS

- _L ) n W The normal, n, on surface, W,

V (1) dW +

_ P (2)

points

upwards

in

this

case.

If the point, P, lies on the surface, S, then the integral becomes singular on S. To evaluate the local contribution the point, P, is excluded from the integral by a local spherical deformation of the surface centered on P. For a smooth surface the local deformation is a hemisphere and the local contribution obtained in the limit as the sphere radius goes to zero is

%(-i)p, surface on the

which is half the at P. Note that the side of the surface the sign example, can if P be is

local first on changed on the

jump in potential which p

potential across in the expression lies, or, more

the is con-

veniently, side. For (2) becomes:

for the point iIiH_ide surface

on the other of S, then Eq.

_P

4_

/f
S-P 4_ S

(_

i )

V(

)dS

%(

i) p

i//
r n w

(re

V i)dS

(3)

2.2

Boundary

Conditions a number of known boundin the case of the wake-S, the external Neumann

A solution to Eq. (3) must satisfy ary conditions which can be imposed--or implied at the outset. On the surface, boundary condition must be satisfied. nwhere V N is the to the surface. no transpiration; layer displacement V ffi-V N n VS

on

(4)

resultant V N is zero non-zero effect,

normal component of velocity relative for the case of a solid boundary with values are used to model boundary entrainment and also inflow/outflow

for engine inlet/exhaust modeling. V s is the local velocity of the surface; this may be composed of several parts due to body rotation (e.g., pitch oscillation (9), or helicopter blade rotation (10)), arbitrary motion (Ii), body growth (12), etc. For the steady present in Hence, n The wake surface, CU W, - eL' V cannot on W = -V on S a load a and so the (5) doubcondia problem body-fixed the surface coordinate of the configuration and so Vs is is zero. assumed system

support must

let distribution, tion.

satisfy

zero-force

Consider an element, dW, of the wake surface normal, n. The local vorticity vector associated let distribution, CU y The presence Joukowski @L' has the density - L ) the V,

with with

local unit the doub-

= -n

x V (u

(6) element, is (from dW, the in the Kutta-

elementary force exerted on of the local mean velocity, Law): 6F = pV x ydW since

where p is the it follows that

local

density.

And

the

force

must

be

zero,

V Substitute for y from V and expand n V V( Cu x {n Eq. x _

x 7=0. (6): (@U@L ) } = 0

@L ) - V

nV(@ U

- @L ) = O.

(7)

Equation (7) is satisfied when V n = 0; i.e., the surface, W, it aligned with the local flow direction, and V V(@ U - @L) = 0. In the latter case, the gradient of the doublet distribution in the direction of the local mean flow is zero; in other words, the wake doublet distribution is constant along mean streamlines in the wake surface. The doublet value on each streamline is, therefore, determined by the condition at the point where the streamline "leaves" the surface, S. Clearly, at the outset of the problem with both the doublet distribution and wake location unknown, an iterative approach is necessary to obtain a solution. When a converged solution is obtained the upstream edge of the wake, W--and hence the trailing edge of the surface, S--carries no load and so the Kutta trailing-edge condition will be satisfied. At the outset, therefore, the Kutta condition is im_ simply by shedding the trailing-edge potential jump (@u - @.) as a constant down each "streamwise" line on an initially _r escribed wake surface. An explicit Kutta condition in which the doublet gradients on the upper and lower surfaces at the trailing edge are equated to cancel has been used on occasion, but in the formulations described below, this does not appear to be necessary.

2.3
In infinite

Choice

of

Singularity

Mode] field can be constructed of doublet and source from an distribu-

principle, a given flow number of combinations

tions on the surface, S, each combination producing a different flow in the inside region. In practice, however, there may be only a small number of singularity combinations which are suitable as a basis for a well behaved numerical model; i.e., one that is accurate, convenient to use and robust (insensitive to user abuse). A unique combination of singularities can be obtained in Eq. (3) in a number of ways. One way is to specify one of the singularity distributions and to solve for the other using boundary conditions only on one side of the boundary. There are several examples of this: in the source-only formulation (13) the doublet distribution is set to zero; in the doublet-only formulation, e.g., (3) and (4), the source distribution is set to zero; in program VIP3D (2), the doublet distribution (or vorticity) is specified and the method solves for the source distribution; the reverse of the latter has also been used, i.e., specifying the source distribution--usually related to the thickness distribution--and solving for the doublet or vorticity distribution. Another way of achieving a unique combination of singularities is to apply certain constraining relationships on the singularity distributions. The "symmetrical singularity method" (5) is one example of this and was examined briefly at the start of the VSAERO program development. One characteristic that separates "good" singularity models from "bad"ones from the numerical point of view is that the flow field generated in the inner region by a "good" model is rather benign and related to the boundary. This is usually not the case for a "bad" model. In other words, when passing through the boundary, S, the jump from the internal flow to the external flow should be small--thus requiring a minimum of perturbation from the singularities (Eq. (3)). "Bad" singularity methods were observed to have very large internal cross flow between the upper and lower surfaces of wings and required high panel densities in order to achieve acceptable accuracy in the flow solutions. This resulted in a push towards high-order formulation which, for subsonic flows at least, proved quite unnecessary. One way of achieving "good" characteristics is to treat the internal flow directly in Eq. (3). This is, in fact, another way of obtaining a unique singularity distribution--in this case by specifying boundary conditions on both sides of the surface, S. Earlier methods (14), (15) specified the _L_ on the inside surface of S. Alternatively, the inner velocity potential, i , can be specified directly in Eq. (3). This is referred to as an internal Dirichlet boundary condition. Three possible internal flows were examined for the VSAERO program, Figure 2 . Two of

@ 8 II II 8 -,.-t I-.-I 0 -,-t ,.q 0 d d 0 u 0 I.-1 X ! II -,-I 0 U O P_ r-t II _/ GJ _J ;..-I ,q -,'-I g 0 -;-I
I'--I

8 /

0 r-I

1-1 I.-I

-;-..t -,-I -;-I

.P O _J B

\
E_ Z B _r_

CXl N

O rD II .,-I

o II rd

-,-I

I-I 0 -;-I

these flow was this

are

described

below,

the

third

one,

in

which i

the

internal

was aligned examined in worked very

with the wing chord line (e.g., a two-dimensional pilot program well, the formulation was not so, it would in which the component in be a user a useful could

= -xV_ cos _ ) only. Although as convenient as a in a possuitable

the other two. sible general internal (i) flow Zero

Even scheme for Flow each

member select

complicated

configuration.

Inside the interior stagnation doublet-only codes (e.g., exterior Neumann boundary formulation, set i = condition References condition, constant = which was 3 and 4) V n = 0, say in

Consider first implied by earlier and which used the 0. Eq. For the present (3), givlng

_p

_ 4z // i
S-P

- V( )ds -

I ll!
4_ JJ S r

n .

V#dS

(8) W

at

The doublet the surface

distribution is and the source

now the total distribution surface, condition

velocity is now S. (Eq.

potential the total This must 5); i.e.,

normal satisfy

velocity of the external

the fluid at the Neumann boundary n V in = -V N

This

term

can

be

used

directly

the

second

integral

of

Eq.

(8).

is

For the solid boundary zero and the source term

problem, disappears

i.e., zero leaving

transpiration,

VN

4---_ S-P

)dS

(U W

eL )

V(1)dW

_op

(9)

I0

This is by far the simplest formulation for the lifting case with no transpiration. It is, in fact, even simpler than the original zero-lift source method based on the external Neumann boundary condition (13). In a low-order formulation (i.e., constant doublets on flat panels) the method has some minor problems associated with numerical differencing for velocities and with the effect of panel arrangement on accuracy (16). These problems can be alleviated by separating into a known part and an unknown part--the latter being as small as possible. The most convenient breakdown is to use the onset flow potential as the known part; i.e., = _ + . The known part, _, and its velocity field, V_, are used directly in the formulation. The solution for and the subsequent numerical differentiation for surface velocity are then less prone to numerical error. For the general case with transpiration, inlet flows, jets and unsteady conditions, the source term must be present and so the advantage of the doublet-only formulation diminishes. In the meantime an alternative "zero internal perturbation" formulation had become popular in other methods and is considered below.

(ii) The earlier

Internal internal by Johnson

Flow

Equal

to

the

Onset

Flow i = _, Bristow _ and %p was used and Grose = _, Eq.

Dirichlet boundary and Rubbert (17) formulations.

condition, and also . = i

(18) in high-order (3) becomes:

With

S-P

//
r S

" " (V#

- V#_)dS

= 0

(I0)

where _, the perturbation now the doublet density;

potential i.e.,

on

the

exterior

surface,

is

(ii) The source distribution 4_ = in n this (V formulation V_oo) is

ii

Expanding external

this Neumann

expression boundary

and substituting condition in Eq.

for (5):

from

the

4zg The source distribution is

VN

o at the outset.

therefore

established

Again, for solid boundary conditions, VN is zero; for the more general case here, VN may have two parts representing (i) boundary layer displacement effect using the transpiration technique (2), and (ii) inflow/outflow for engine inlet/exhaust modeling. Thus, 4_ (12) the first potenit is updated by term has a posi-

=-u as

(V e 6*)

VNORM

V for

tial

The boundary flow solution;

layer on

term is set subsequent calculations. and negative

to zero iterations

coupled boundary tive value for

layer outflow

The . VN__ U for infI_w.

_Vl

Compared with the zero internal flow formulation (Eq. 9), the present formulation (Eq. (i0) is more forgiving for "bad" panel arrangements (e.g., Reference 16) and is the current formulation in the VSAERO program. The reason for its better behavior probably arises from the smaller jump in the flow condition from the inner to the outer flow; i.e., the singularity strengths are smaller. However, there are situations where this is not the case; e.g., a wing at large angle of attack or a powered nacelle in zero onset flow. In other words, it may be desirable to provide a capability that allows the internal flows to be specified independently of the onset flow so that they can comply more closely with the shape of each component. Once the doublet solution velocity field. is known, potential For the then field, present Eq. (3) can be

applied to determine of which gives the Eq. (3) becomes:

the velocity

the gradient formulation,

ff
S

ff
S

V(!)dw
r W

+ _
p

(13)

12

Where

the

doublet,

_,

and

source,

o,

are

taken

from

Eqs.

(ii) and (12), respectively and _w = Cu - eL is the wake doublet distribution. The factor, K, has different values depending on the location of the point, P; if P lies off the surface, then K = 0; if P lies on a smooth part of the surface, then K = 2z if P is on the outside, and K = -2_ if P is on the inside; if P is at a crease in the surface, then K takes the value of the appropriate solid angle contained at the crease. In each case when P is on the surface, then the surface integral terms in Eq. (13) exclude P. If the potential field has then the velocity field can be differentiation; i.e., Vp been computed at a mesh generated using local of points numerical

= - VCp

(14)

Alternatively, the velocity field can be obtained by taking the gradient of Eq. (13) directly with respect to the coordinates of point P, thus forming the source and doublet velocity kernels. (Thls is the present approach in VSAERO.)

ff
S S

1 V (r)dS

f/
W

_w V(n

V(?))dW

+ Voo

(15)

(The kernels will be developed further in Section 3.) The offbody velocity field is used in the wake-relaxation cycle, in offbody streamline calculations and for general flow-field information. The discussion so far has been concerned with thick configurations having a distinct internal volume enclosed by the surface, S. If pars of the configuration are extremely thin (e.g., thickness/chord ratio < 1%, say) or are wing-like and remote from the area of interest, then these parts may be represented by open surfaces. When the upper and lower parts of the su@face are brought together, the corresponding upper and lower elements can be combined and Eq. (2) becomes

13

n .(re U - V#L)dS S S

W If the normal velocity is _ through the sheet then the term n (V_U - V_L) = 0 and the source term disappears. (This is _ot a necessary step; the source term could be left in the equation for simple modeling of thickness effects.) Removing the source term does not preclude the use of non-zero normal
velocity velocity then be at the surface; be 9_II]IQ_ written: the only restriction through the surface. is that the normal Equation (16) can

_p

Y
s (u

_n

V (r)dS

//
+ w jump in

(17) _W n " V (r)dW + _p

where sheet.

1 4_

-eL

) is

the

total

potential

across

the

In order to satisfy the external Neumann boundary condition (Eq. (5)) the velocity expression is required. Hence, taking the gradient of Eq. (17) with respect to the coordinates of P,

//_wV<"" w

V(1))dW

+ v_

(18)

And, then

applying

the

boundary

condition,

n p

Vp

= V N p

from

Eq.

(5),

14

(19) W

This is the basic equation for the unknown doublet tion on thin surfaces (referred to as Neumann surfaces in accordance with their primary boundary condition). velocity kernels will be developed further in Section In the simultaneously VSAERO in program, thin configuration. and thick components

distribuin VSAERO Again, the 3. may exist

15

3.0

NUMERICAL

PROCEDURE of a distinct given flow steps, problem can be each step having broken down a certain

into

The treatment a number of

function. These steps in Figure 3. The first the configuration and influence coefficients

are shown in the VSAERO program outlined step is to define the surface geometry of to form the panel model. A m_i_ix of is then formed; this represents a set of

simultaneous linear algebraic equations resulting from a discretization of the flow equations in Section 2.0. The __Q_ion to these equations provides the surface doublet distribution from which the surface velocities and, hence, surface streamlines, pressures and body forces and moments can be _la/_. With the surface singularity distributions known, the -W_ calculation can proceed, using computed off-body velocities. The new wake shape must then be repanelled and the matrix of influence coefficients iteration The growth modified loop. surface flow The passed solution computed back to can the be passed to the boun_j_y the next 3. for the next pass through the wake-shape

calculation. rate is

boundary matrix

layer procedure

displacement where

right-hand pass in Finally,

side terms of the equation are modified for the the viscous/potential flow iteration loop, Figure when both iteration loops have been completed, 9_ for velocity and streamline paths are processed. flow chart showing steps in the the relationships in Appendix Subsections. of A. subroutines Details

The

which perform the steps are

the above described

is given following

of

3.1

Geometrical

Description

The surface geometry of the configuration to be analyzed is described in a global _oordinate _ystem (G.C.S.) which is a bodyfixed frame of reference, Figure 4. The configuration is divided into a number of parts for convenience, Figure 5. The functions and use of these parts are described in detail in the Program User's Manual (i). Briefly, the two major parts are the (solid) SURFACE and the (flexible) WAKE. On a complicated configuration there wake may are be several surfaces further subdivided as and several described wakes. below. The surface and

3.1.1

Patch

which within

Each surface is represented by a set of quadrilateral PANELS are assembled into a regular array of rows and columns PATCHES, Figure 6. Patches are grouped together under two (Figure (I). 5), COMPONENTS and ASSEMBLIES for user con-

headings venience

16

Z _0

_,rJi Zl _ql _Z 0_I H_

I_I v i

e'J I I-I i

c_ I-4 _q -_1

:>
0 X H E-t

X_-11 _0

_U O_ Zl

8
I

.1-1 0 I o 0 ,--t

Zl

-l---"

d m

-,-I

_H u'l

0 m

17

0 ._.1 I--ILl O0 Z 0 ILl Z

0 0 _..j 0 ....i t..o _-co >-o0 t_ u_ 0 C) 0 -,..t 4J

>.0 4J E t_

,<

z ,--, 0

.._1 L_ Z

0 / / I'-0 "' Z

/ / /

r_

/ / X

18

ICONFIGURATION ]

ISURF-ACEI

I WAKE J

J
|

I b

I I

, SUBPANELS _
L ..... .,

, ' SUBPANELS
I.

_.,

Figure

5.

Configuration

Hierarchy.

19

Z __1 0 U ._J (D > 0 U u #J

O_

r_. _

O_

LI.I Z C_ ILl

L_ Z I_-

LmJ 0 ._J ILl Z r_

0 t-.)

2O

Each patch has a user-supplied IDENT parameter. IDENT=I and 2 identify patches on wings and fuselages, respectively; the main difference at this time is the printout of computed characteristics (see Subsection 3.4). Both of the above IDENT values are associated with thick surfaces and use the internal Dirichlet boundary condition. Patches with IDENT=3 are associated with thin (i.e., open) surfaces on which only the Neumann boundary condition is used. Again, the main difference as far as the user is concerned is a different printout of computed characteristics, in this case, pressure and velocity information is provided on both sides of these surfaces. A patch is basically a four-sided shape when its surface is developed; i.e., "opened out". Because the initial objectives were directed towards wing surfaces, the terms "chordwise" and "spanwise" were adopted to describe the two directions across the patch, Figure 6. These terms are still used within the patch even when the patch has a more arbitrary orientation, e.g., on a fuselage. The order of the sides of a patch must proceed in the anticlockwise direction when viewed from the flow field, Figure 6. This is important as it affects the direction of the computed surface normal vector which must point into the external flow field (Subsection 3.1.2). Patch geometry is defined using a set of "chordwise" lines called SECTIONS. The set of sections distributed in the "spanwise" direction across the patch define its surface, Figure 7. The points that are input to describe a section geometry are referred to as BASIC POINTS and are not necessarily panel corner points. From these points the program generates by interpolations a set of TEMPORARY CHORDWISE POINTS using information provided by the user on NODE CARDS (i). The actual panel corner points are obtained by interpolation along spanwise lines; these lines pass through a corresponding temporary chordwise point on each section. The interpolation scheme used in both directions uses a biquadratic equation and is described in Appendix B. The interpolation scheme is part of an automatic paneling procedure, use of which is optional: the user has the choice to input the actual panel corner points if he wants to. A number of input options are provided in the program to help the user generate the panel model (i).

3.1.2

Panel

Geometry

The four panel are in patch, Figure points:

corner points, R i, i=1,4, defining a quadrilateral the same sequence as the corners of the parent 8. Two diagonal vectors are constructed from these

21

SPANWISE

SEQUENCE OF BASIC POINTS DEFINING-'----.I EACH SECTION 2

3 4

5
r_

0
-r

SIDE 3 SIDE 1
_.-SEQUENCE DEFINING OF SECTIONS SURFACE

PATCH

Figure

7.

Sections

Defining

Patch

Surface.

22

UNIT NORMAL VECTOR TO MEAN PLANE FORMS LOCAL COORDJNATE SYSTEM WITH Jlf,AND _"

R4 SIDE 4

_1

I I I I I I
R

SIDE

I I SMP I I

SIDE MIDPOINTS

I
I

S IDE 3

SIDE 2

Figure

8.

Panel

Geometry.

23

D 1 D2

= =

R3 R4

R1 R 2

normal

The vector product to the mean plane n =

of these diagonals of the quadrilateral; D1 x D2/ID 1 x D2 1

produces i.e.,

vector

that into also mean

The the

order unit

of the sides, normal is always

therefore, directed

is important outwards from

to the

ensure surface

the flow provides plane:

field. The modulus of the the area of the quadrilateral

diagonal vector projected

product onto the

AREA

ID 1

D 2 I/2

The points:

center

point

is

defined

as

the

mean

of

the

four

corner

4 Rc 4 i=1 This the boundary point is also used are as the panel's (see control Subsection point 3.2). where R. a_

conditions

satisfied

Two unit tangent together with n form a for local coordinates, the center point, R c. Tangent 3 of the

vectors, , m, are constructed, which, right-handed orthogonal unit vector system Figure 8. The origin of this system is

side

vector, m, is quadrilateral:

directed

from

Rc

to

the

mid-point

of

{(R 3 +

R4)/2

Rc}/i

(R 3 +

R4)/2

Rcl

the

Thus corner The

lies points

in the mean plane are not co-planar. vector, , is _,

of

the

quadrilateral

even

if

tangent

constructed :i n projected coordinate

orthogonal

to

and

n:

The expressed the first

four

corner

points the

are local

onto

the

mean For

plane

and

in terms of point becomes

system.

example,

E1

R 1

Rc

24

which has respectively,

components, where = E E_ I

E_I,

Enl,

in

the

and

directions,

; i

E _i

= E i

The vertical offset, E 1 n, is the projection distance of the corner points from the mean plane and is a measure of the skew of the quadrilateral. On a skewed quadrilateral the four corner points are equidistant from the mean plane, two being above and two below. The magnitude of this offset should be kept small in relation to the size of the panel to avoid large holes in the singularity panel representation of the surface. The projected (flat) panel is used in the evaluation of influence coefficients (Subsection 3.2). Finally, the half the quadrilateral. SMP median These = I(R2 lengths, SMP, are (Figure 8) + R3)/2 - Rcl SMQ, are evaluated

for

SMQ

I(R 3

+ R4)/2

- Rcl

These are the half-lengths of the diagonals of the parallelogram which is always formed when the mid-points of the adjacent sides of a quadrilateral are joined (even if the latter's corner points are not co-planar); the parallelogram lies in the mean plane of the quadrilateral and its area is half that of the projected quadrilateral. Within each patch, the regular arrangement of panels causes the adjacent side mid-points of neighboring panels to coincide exactly. This allows the SMP and SMQ lengths of panels to be linked, respectively, in the chordwise and spanwise direction over the patch and thereby provides a close approximation to surface distances between panel centers. This feature is useful in the evaluation of the perturbation velocities (i.e., the derivative of _ with respect to surface distance, see Subsection 3.4). Finally, the quantity (SMP "size" of the panel when expressing the panel in terms of panel size. + SMQ) is used the distance as the average of a point from

3.1.3

Panel

Neighbors two-way differentiation of the can be performed (see Subsection quickly for each panel the set of their orientation. Each panel, four neighboring panels, NABORi,

In order that a reasonable surface doublet distribution 3.4), it is important to locate four neighboring panels and therefore, keeps an array of

25

i=1,4 (in the same sequence as its sides), together adjacent side numbers of those panels, NABSIDi, i=i,4,

with the Figure 9.

Clearly, within the regular grid system of a patch, locating neighbors is easy; even so, the neighbor information is still stored to form a consistent system and to avoid repetitive calculations. Also, this allows neighbor relationships to be broken between pairs of panels, when, for example, a wake is shed from their common edge. This prevents a doublet gradient being evaluated across a line where there is an actual jump in potential (see Subsection 3.4). Across the joints between patches panel neighbors are not immediately available; for example, one panel may be neighbor to several smaller panels on an adjoining patch. In order to locate these neighbors an automatic procedure has been installed in the code which scans patch sid_ panels in a search for possible
neighbors. In this search only patches within the same assembly are considered. "Undesirable" neighbors are quickly eliminated on the basis of relative geometry during the assembly of a short list of possible neighbors for each side panel. From this list of candidates one PREFERRED NEIGHBOR is selected. At this time, preference is given to the panel whose control point lies closest to a normal plane constructed on the side panel, Figure i0. This plane contains the side panel's control point, unit normal vector and the side mid-point at the patch edge.

3 .i .4

Wakes

A wake consists of a number of quadrilateral wake panels which are assembled in streamwise columns. Each column is associated with an upper and a lower wake shedding panel with subscripts, KWPU, KWPL, respectively, Figure ii. The common edge of these two panels is the upstream edge of the wake column, the VSAERO program coding allows any panel edge in the configuration to shed a wake (1)--it is up to the user to specify a wake model that is physically realistic. The streamwise edges of each column are identified LINES, Figure 12. These lines are specified by the describe the initial wake; the user may describe the metry in as much detail as he likes (i). The program rogates each line in relation to a system of vertical PLANES, Figure ii. The user specifies the location planes in accordance with the anticipated track of because the wake lines are represented by straight line between the wake-grid planes, regions where the wake highly curved require an increased density of wake-grid as WAKE user to line geointerWAKE-GRID of these the wake; segments lines are planes.

and the the

Wake panels are contained between adjacent wake-grid planes adjacent wake lines. The wake panel geometry is evaluated in same way as the surface panels (Subsection 3.1.2) except that mean plane is constrained to lie in the upstream edge (i.e.,

26

NABOR

(4)

NABOR

( I)

PANEL

SIDE

SEQUENCE

NABOR

(2)

NABOR

(3)

Figure

9.

Panel

Neighbor

Information.

27

PLANE CONTAINING PANIEL NORMAL V1ECTOR, CONTROL POINT AND MIDPOINT OF SIDE AT PATCH EDGE

PANEL WHOSE NEIGHBORS ARE ARE BEING ASSEMgLED

PREFERRED NEIGHBOR ACROSS PATCH EDGE HAS CONTROL POINT MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM PLANE

JOINT

BETWEEN

TWO

PATCHES

Figure

i0.

Panel

Neighbors

Across

Patch

Edges.

28

U ) r_ ,-if I r_ -,-I 0 I

,--I

-,-I

111,1 29

D._

>II

IWPAN FIRST

(NWC) WAKE COLUMN, PANEL NWC IN WAKE

WAKE

GRID

PLANES

WAKE ON

SHEDDING SURFACE

PANELS

_ la

16

iX _
l

_- FIRST

IWGpOLIN1
BY LIN

3
8 13 |Z I 21

WAKk, GRID PL_E

INTERSECT] WAKE LINE

i
y

I
KE COLUMN (NWC) WAKE

LINE

(giN)

WAKE

PANELS

Figure

12.

Wake

Arrangement.

3O

side 4) and to contain the mid-point 2). In that way the projected wake to the surface separation line even

of the downstream edge (side panels are cleanly attached when the panels are skewed.

The wake geometry supplied by the user is used only for the initial solution. The program includes an iteration cycle in which the straight wake-line segments (i.e., panel edges 1 and 3) are aligned with the computed flow direction (see Subsection 3.5).

3.2

Matrix

of

Influence

Coefficients

Equation (i0) in Section 2.0 is a Fredholm integral equation of the second kind for the unknown velocity potential distribution over the body surface. A velocity potential distribution which satisfies Eq.. (i0) at every point of the body surface provides an exact solution for the inviscid, incompressible potential flow about the configuration surface through Eq. (13). In order to obtain a numerical solution the equation is satisfied only at a finite number of points on the surface; i.e., at one point (the control point) on each panel. Also, the doublet and source singularity distributions are assumed to be constant on each panel and the surface integrals in Eq. (i0) are performed in closed form over each panel. These integrals, therefore, provide the influence coefficients per unit singularity strength for each panel. The total surface integrals then become summations over all panels and Eq. (10) is transformed into a set of simultaneous linear algebraic equations for the doublet strength on each panel. Ns Nw NS oK K=I L=I K=I BjK = 0; J=l, NS

(20) where C = JJ _ and -2_. _ are given by Eqs. (ii) and (12), respectively, and

Ns and N w are the number of surface and wake panels, respectively. The quantities, BjK and CjK, are the perturbation velocity potential influence coefficients for the constant source and doublet distributions, respectively, on panel K acting on the control point of panel J; i.e., from Eq. (i0).

31

BjK

= Pane

/ i K

r 1

dS

and

cjK

//
Panel K

dS

c21

where n z nK is a constant length of the vector from the control point of panel to the surface point. Equation (20) "Dirichlet" patches part of a "thick" control point, i.e., part of (19) is used. J, an is

the J.

for a flat panel, surface elements, The gradient is

K, dS, taken

and r is the of panel K to with respect

applied to all (IDENT=I or 2); boundary enclosing on a panel surface, on a then

panels, i.e., on an inner

J, that patches volume.

occur that If

on are the

is open

"Neumann" patch a discretized

(IDENT=3), form of Eq.

N
S

N
W

(_K K=I

EjK)

+ L=I

(PW

EjL)

N
S

= + _ K=I oK DjK + nj V VNj

(22)

where

Dj K

OJK

and

E JK

n J

V _JK

(23)

are, the

respectively, source and

the doublet

normal

velocity

influence on panel

coefficients K acting at

for the

distributions

32

control cients

point of panel J. The velocity for the source and doublet are,

vector influence respectively,

coeffi-

VCjK = -

// Panel K

VJ (!)dSr

and

V_j K

=-

// Panel K

Vj(n

V(_))dS

(24)

with nates

the of

gradients, point J.

Vj,

being

taken

with

respect

to

the

coordi-

Note that in generating Eq. (19) for Neumann patches, the source terms disappeared with the assumption of no jump in normal velocity through the surface. However, for the general problem involving a combination of thin and thick components the source term has been left in Eq. (22) to supply the contribution from source panels on thick boundaries. The velocity ficient panel K influence coefficients are developed separately is and determined completely the coordinates of the for the below. b _ J velocity In each potential case the details and coefof

the geometric control point.

3.2.1 3.2.1.1

Velocity Doublet

Potential Contribution

Influence

Coefficient

cient

Consider from Eq.

the doublet (21). After

velocity evaluating

potential influence the gradient, this

coeffibecomes

CjK

= Panel

.f K

r_ r

dS

(25)

33

The integral is evaluated by considering each side of the (projected) panel in turn, each side having a pair of semiinfinite strips of opposing singularity strength equal to half the panel value, Figure 13. The strips lie in the mean plane of the panel and are aligned with the panel's axis. With the convention adopted for the panel sides (i.e., the side order is anticlockwise when viewed from the flow field) the singularity strength is given a positive sign to the left of the side and a negative sign to the right when looking in the direction of the side, Figure 13. When all four sides of the panel (or for any clof_ polygon, in fact) have been treated in this way then the contributions from all the overlapping strips cancel outside the panel and reinforce for unit singularity value over the panel. Consider the contribution from one side. The kernel can be

simplified by combining corresponding pairs of positive and tive elements, d_, dy, located at equal distance, _, from a (x,y) on the side (Figure 14); i.e.,

negapoint

CjK

= Y=Ya _=0

i I n r 3r 1

n r r 2 3 2

d_

dy

(26)

where r
1

= R(_) = R(n)
2

+ ns

_ _

r R(n)

= an =

(y - ya )/ _Yb

- Ya )

where Ya, Yb side on the control point

are the beginning and m axis and a is the relative to the start

end of the projection position vector of of this side (Figure

of the 14).

the jth

The final expression for the doublet velocity potential contribution from side i of the panel is (using variables which closely follow the computer coding):

-i

CjK"
1

=tan

{RNUM/DNOM}

(27)

34

r_

.p i-t c) nJ q.q

c} ,.c:

0 0 -,-I 4-} r_ r_ I> C) ..I-} -,-I C)

,.-I Q_ ,-_ 0

,.-I Q_

-,-t

35

,-1 G) r_

O _J

@ O O

,-t r_ tl t_

H U

cr_ (_ 4-1 u_ O O -,-I 4-1 r_ ,-t rd :> F_

,-4

t_

/
36

where RNUM DNOM PN PJK A B PA PB SM SL AM BM A1 b = SM * PN * PB " nK - Rc K * (B * PA - A * B * PB) * SM 2

= PA = PJK = Rcj = = = = = lai Ibl

+ PN 2 * A

PN z * SL PN 2 * SL s m - m m * SL the

+ A1 + A1

* AM * BM

(= a = PA

{ - A1

(a

x s)})

* SM

= s = a = b = AM is

- AL

* SM

(= n vector

(s a)) of the side, jth Figure control 14 point (i.e., b =

position to the

relative as)

end

of

this

The subscript, i, has and s are constructed bi_ 1 There is control point

been omitted from the above variables; for each side in turn, noting that

a, a
1

b =

a limiting J from the

condition mean plane

as PN--the projected of panel K--goes to

height zero:

of

Lim

(CjK .) l I

PN+0 +

_ on the edge of the strip = _ within the strip (DNOM<0) 0 outside the strip (DNOM>0) points 0-, to all the the

(DNOM=0)

and are

The positive negative to reversed.

sign occurs for the left. If PN

right above

of the signs

side on

The total unit doublet on (27).

velocity the panel

potential influence is the sum for all

coefficient four sides,

for from

the Eq.

37

CjK

_ i=l

CjK i

(28)

The combined required in the

four arc-tangent functions into a single arc tangent; to ensure the resultant angle range, 2_.

in this summation however, extreme is in the correct

can be care is quadrant

For plane contribution to ty strength as the calculation control tionship cal to

of symmetry and/or ground effect problems the CjK from image panels (having the same singularithe real panel) is evaluated simply by repeating for the _ panel influencing the images of possible of panel panel K because the geometrical K and the point J is and image of point J relaidenti(Figure

point J. This is between the image that of the actual

15). Hence, for a symmetrical would be four contributions treatment is more convenient

problem in ground effect there for each panel, Figure 15. This than considering the image panels is the y z = 0 plane. height and (i). = 0 plane in Thus, for orientation

directly. The vertical plane of symmetry the G.C.S., while the ground plane is the ground effect problems the configuration above the ground require care during is input

The above expression to panel K. When panel J far field, then a far-field n that over the the quantity, panel. Then r

for CjK is remote formula in Eq. and PNjK * PJK

used when panel J is close from panel K, i.e., in the is used under the assumption is essentially constant

r 3 , r = PJK

(25)

AREA

K (29)

CjK

where PN nK unit area is normal of panel to K panel (see K Subsection the 3.1.2) control points, K

JK = = K = =

PJK the the

n K AREA PJK

IPjKI, and J

the

distance

between

Equation

(29)

is

the

contribution

from

point

doublet

at

MQ"-sRc_)K The orientation with quantity, Subsection 3.1.2) and factor which has a

nK and SMQ)K, used is when "size" PJK > RFF (SMP + is the of panel * RFF is the user-defined, far-field value of 5 in the program. This

(SMP(see + K radius value

default

38

r_ o II 0 L9 U .4-I I o II N t/l O o (D

_,-_ c_ -,-I O O c} ,.-I O

u) u_ O (9

\
\
J

_ J

J U X

O fl# ,-t H I ,._ O L_ C;

\
\

_J \

\ \
\ \

\ \

\
ii

Q_

\\
I

\
!
fl# i

\ \
\

\ \ \
,--I G) I

! (M
t
r..)
J

o_ O

\
Ill ,--I

\
\ \

-,-I r0 O_ 4-4,--I O (D -,-I E_(u HI> _o O {.)

-,-4 U

ig r_

\
\ _ _m O

39

was established following initial test cases on a wing wing-body configuration. Use of the expression gives a cant reduction in computing time; however, a user may near-field equation (Eq. (25)) throughout the configuration wishes file simply (i). by giving a very large value for RFF in

and on a signifiuse the if he the input

3.2.1.2 The uniform

Source

Contribution influence the panel, coefficient K, is, from for Eq. a unit (21),

velocity potential source distribution

on

B JK

//i
r dS Pane i K of the panel as in the case

The integral is of the doublet.

treated Thus,

for each side for one side

Yb

BjKi

Y=Ya _ =0

_ rl

r2

where

r I,

r 2,

Ya'

Yb

are

defined

under

Eq.

(26).

This

becomes:

BjK

' =
1

A1

GL

PN

CjK

'
1

(30)

where GL = _
S

LOG

A I_

+ +

B B

+ -

s 1 s

and

Isl

AI, PN, C jK i, second LOG term tribution from

and arises

are defined in the above of a closed

in Eq. integral polygon

(27). but cancels

(Note that a its total conexactly.)

all

sides

4O

Again, the total source velocity potential influence coefficient is obtained by summing the contribution from all four sides of the panel; i.e., 4 BjK = _
i=l BjK i

(31)

Symmetry described for

and/or ground-effect treatment the doublet contribution.

is

the

same

as

that

from (Eq.

The expression for B_K for panel K is, using a slmilar (29)),

points approach

that to

are in the far field that for the doublet

AREA BjK PJK

K (32)

With the (20), the zero that given by to the external

above expressions for CjK, BjK substituted in Eq. internal perturbation formulation is similar to Morino (19), who applied Green's Theorem directly flow.

3.2.2 3.2.2.1 The doublet

Velocity Doublet

Vector

Influence

Coefficients

Contribution induced at control of unit value on point, panel K J, is, by from a constant Eq. (24),

velocity distribution

V]_ JK

=-

//
Pane i K the Hence,

Vj

(n

"

V(r))dS

i
from be the written

(33)

The of a

kernel vector

is

one

of

terms V

resulting can UJK

expansion

triple

product.

{(n Panel But, Vj V(_)_ = 0. K

Vj)

x V(I)

nVj

V(1)} r

dS

41

Hence,

(n

Vj)

V(1)dS

(34)

Pane
or

UjK .Jr

i
by Stokes' Theorem.

Thus,

iV_jK = __ _/ r _3dr r (35)

each side

The integral side of the i is

can panel,

be

performed Figure 16.

along Hence,

the the

straight contribution

line

of from

V I_jK "
1

= a x

a b

b a

* x b

(A

B),

(A

B A

a B

b)

with

This the

expression side (a x

is singular 0). However,

when

the

point,

P,

is

in

line

(A

b)(A

b).

And

so

an

alternative

expression

is

V _JK.
l

= A *

a B

x *

* (A

(A + B) * B + a

(36) b)

This side. on the (i).) The on the

becomes

singular

only

when

the

point, a be

P,

lies the

on

the

The singularity vortex line.

is avoided (The core

by applying radius can

finite-core set by

model user

total is

velocity the sum

coefficient of Eq. (36)

induced over all

by four

the

unit

doublet

panel

sides.

42

GJ H

-,-I

O O 4J ,--I r_

43

(37) V_j K = _ i=l V _JK 1

For treated

points directly

in the far-field, as a point doublet; V _JK = Vj(n K

the

integrand i.e., AREA K

in

Eq.

(33)

is

V(1)) r

or

V _JK

AREA K

Vj

_ {nK

" r_ / r3

Thus,
2 5

lajK

AREA

{3

PNjK

PJK

PJK

nK}/PJK

(38)

The

above

variables

are

defined

in

Eq.

(29). ground effect of the _9__ With this its component

Cases with a vertical plane of symmetry and/or are treated as before by evaluating the influence panel at each im___ point rather than vice versa. approach the velocity vector contribution must have nor_l_l to the symmetry the actual contribution control point. plane from reversed the i_ in sign panel

in order to obtain acting on the real

can

The now

normal velocity influence be evaluated; i.e.,

coefficient,

EjK,

in

Eq.

(23)

EjK

nj

_JK

Where or K. Eq.

the (38)

velocity depending

influence, on the

V_j

K,

is of

taken the

from point,

either J,

Eq. from

(37) panel

distance

3.2.2.2 The source

Source

Contribution induced on panel at K control is, from point, J, Eq. (24), by a constant

velocity distribution

Voj K

// i
Vj (?)dS Pane i K

44

and taking the J, this becomes

gradient

with

respect

to

the

coordinates

of

point

v// rr
Pane i K The integral is case for the velocity contribution is treated for potential each side evaluation. of the panel as From side in i, VOjK ' = 1 GL * (SM * SL * m) + CjK n 1

(39)

the the

(4O)

Where GL is defined under defined under Eq. (27). The all four sides.

Eq. (30), total for

and the

SM, panel

SL and is the

CjK i are sum over

4 VOjK = _ i=l V_jK" 1 (41)

tion this

For points in is concentrated case the source

the far field, the in a single source velocity coefficient

panel's source distribuat the panel center. In becomes (from Eq. (39))

AREAK VjK = 3 PJK The above variables are defined in

PJK (42)

Eq.

(29). ground effect of the eal With this

Cases with are treated as panel at each approach

a vertical before by im_i.q_ point

plane of evaluating rather

symmetry and/or the influence than vice versa.

the velocity to the symmetry the actual contribution control point. Finally, term

vector plane from

contribution must _ in sign the ima_g_ panel

have its component in order to obtain acting on the real

source

in

the normal Eq. (23)

can

velocity influence coefficient be evaluated; i.e.,

for

the

DjK The Eq. (41) panel K. source or Eq. velocity (42),

nj

VajK Vo JK the , is taken of from point J either from

coefficient, on

depending

distance

45

3.2.3

Matrix

Assembly

The matrix equations, Eq. (20) and (22), can now be formed by assembling the singularity influence coefficients for all the surface and wake panels in the configuration acting at the control point of each surface panel in turn. In the VSAERO program the surface and wake contributions are computed separately: the surface matrix of influence coefficients, once computed, remains fixed throughout the treatment of a configuration while the wake contribution varies with each wake-shape iteration. The wake contribution is, in fact, recomputed and combined with the wakeshedding panel influence coefficients after each wake-shape calculation. Consider the wake influence in Eq. (20); i.e.,

NW _W L=I CjL

Now

from

the

boundary

condition

imposed

on

the

wake and of

(Eq. has the

(7)) the value for _W is constant the value of the 3ump in total column (from Eq. (I0)); i.e., for

down each wake column potential at the start the Mth column,

(43) _WM -- CKWPU M CKWPL M

is

constant

down

the

column; shedding

KWPUM, the M th

KWPL M wake

are column

the

upper

and

lower surface 3.1.4). Thus,

panels

(Subsection

_W M

_KWPU M

_KWPL M

KWPU M

KWPL M

46

And

the

wake

influence

contribution

can

be

written

NW

NWCOL

_ L=I

_W

CjL

_ M=I

IPHCjM

(_KWPUM

UKWPL

M)

PHCjM

(_ KWPU M

(44)

where NWP M PHCjM = _ L=I CjL

NWCOL and NWP M The result down a

Total

number

of

wake

columns

Number

of

wake

panels

on

the

M th

column coeffito and shedding

cient

of the column,

summation i.e.,

of PHCjM, ,

the doublet influence is therefore added lower wake

subtracted from panel influences It is quantity and the tempting (_

the associated (KWPUM, KWP[M) to discard - _

upper and respectively. last term vanishes

the )

the upper proach

of Eq. in the

(44) limit

because as the apwith

KWPU M lower control trailing edge

KWPL M points on the in high density

wake-shedding paneling.

panels However,

practical panel densities, this quantity will rarely be zero and, in _act, Youngren et al. (20) noticed that a serious error in circulation results if the term is omitted for thick trailing edges. The term is, in fact, readily evaluated and is combined with the source terms to form the known "right-hand side" of the equations.

47

3.3

Matrix

Solver influence VSAERO coefficients formed, the employs either a direct on the solver number of is Purcell's soluor an

tion

With the routine

matrix of can proceed. solver panels).

iterative matrix (i.e., number of

depending The direct

unknowns vector

method (21) and is used when the number of panels is less than 320. When the number of unknowns is greater than 320, then a "blocked controlled successive underor over-relaxation" (22) technique The smaller plying is used based on the Gauss-Seidel iterative technique.

iterative submatrices the residual

technique proceeds centered around error vector with

the the

by forming inverses of diagonal and by multistored inverse of each automatically of panels. own blocks within An option when the

submatrix. the code on is provided arrangement geometrical in an order lead to poor Gauss-Seidel

The submatrix blocks are formed the basis of complete columns for the user to specify his

of patches and panels becomes difficult in awkward situations. Placing two strongly interacting panels which prevents their inclusion in the same block can convergence and sometimes divergence in the blocked routine.

3.4

On-Body

Analysis

The matrix solver provides the doublet (i.e., the perturbation velocity potential) value for each surface panel in the configuration. These values and the source values are now associated with the panel center points in the evaluation of the velocity on each panel. The local velocity is: V= or V The perturbation coordinate system; velocity, i.e., v The normal Eq. (12); component i.e., = VL is + = V v, + v is evaluated in the (45) panel's V_

local

VMm

VNn directly from the

(46) source

obtained

form,

VN The gradient

4_ VM, are doublet evaluated distribution 17. four from

(47) the over

tangential components, VL, of _, assuming a quadratic in the two directions velocity on, NI, N2, in say, N3, N4,

three panels evaluating neighboring

turn, panel are

Figure K, the assembled

Thus, when immediate with

panels,

together

48

Z Z Z Z

Z Z

Z Z

,-I (D O_ -,-I

49

the neighboring _ides of those panels, NSI, information is obtained directly from stored ((NABOR(I,K), NABSID(I,K), I=1,4), K=I,NS), Surface distances are constructed using the for each panel (Subsection to the the SMPK. 3.1.3), noting the center of panel K is SMQ K and, similarly, side 2 or side 4 is midpoint panel of additional of a side that side distance

NS2, NS3, NS4. This neighbor information see Subsection 3.1.3. SMP, SMQ information the distance 1 from or side 3 of either from the

that

midpoint of either side distance to the midpoint The additional distance of

of panel K to the midpoint depends on the NABSID value. to the neighbor, NI, from

the neighboring For example, the side 1 of panel K

is SMQNI if NABSID(I,K) is 1 or 3 and 2 or 4; the former is always the case same patch as panel K (Figure 17) and the neighbor is on a different patch tion.

is SMPNI if NABSID(I,K) is when the neighbor is in the the latter will occur when with a different orienta-

Consider the regular case where the neighboring available and are on the same patch as panel K. Then tive of the quadratic fit to the doublet distribution direction on panel DELQ where = K can (DA * be SB written DB * SA)/(SB SA)

panels are the derivain the SMQ

(48)

SA SB DA DB

= = = =

(SMQ K + -

SMQNI)

SMQ K (_NI (_N3

SMQN3 _K )/SA _K )/SB

A neighbors, the SMP

similar

expression instead

based of

on NI,

SMP N3,

rather gives

than the

SMQ

and

using in

N4 , N2, direction.

gradient

DELP

DELQ and DELP provide resolving into the and tial velocity components VL and VM The 2 relative of system vector, to panel the K. = TL, -4z TM, * = -4z *

the total gradient of _ and, m directions, the perturbation (Eq. (46)) can be written (SMP * DELP TM * DELQ)/TL

hence, by tangen-

DELQ with center modulus, expressed SMP, in is the the center of

(49) side

panel

local

coordinate

5O

The complete set of panel neighbors is not always available for the above derivative operation. Neighbor relationships are cancelled by the program across each wake shedding line to prevent a gradient being evaluated across a potential jump. The program also terminates neighbor relationships between panels when one has a normal velocity specified and the other has the default zero normal velocity. In addition, the user can prevent neighbor relationships being formed across a patch edge simply by setting different ASSEMBLY numbers for the two patches and, finally, the user can actually terminate neighbor relationships on a panel-by-panel basis in the input. This is applied wherever there is a potential jump (e.g., where a wake surface butts up to the fuselage side) or where there is a shape discontinuity in the flow properties (e.g., a sharp edge) or where there is a large mismatch in panel density from one patch to another. When a panel neighbor is unavailable on one or more sides of a panel, then the doublet gradient routine locates the neighbor of the neighbor on the opposite side to complete a set of three. For example, if neighbor N2 is not available, Figure 18, the neighbor on the opposite side is N4 with adjacent side NS4. Going to the far side of panel N4, i.e., away from panel K, the neighboring panel is NABOR(MS4,N4) with adjacent side NABSID(MS4,N4), where MS4 = NS4 2; i< MS4k< 4

If this panel is available then the set of three is complete, the gradient now being taken at the beginning rather than the middle of the quadratic. If the panel is not available then the program uses simple differencing based on two doublet values. (If no panel neighbors are available, then the program cannot evaluate the tangential perturbation velocity for the panel K.) With evaluated the local velocity on panel K: CpK= known, the pressure coefficient is

1 - V 2 K

(50)

The force coefficient configuration are obtained contribution from panel K AF K

for a configuration by summing panel is (Figure 19)

or for parts contributions.

of a The

(51) q_ where is the reference pressure Eq. (50) dynamic pressure evaluated at the panel CPK * AREAK * BK + CfK * AREAk * tk

qoo

CP K

is the center,

coefficient

51

0 ..Q .a

-IJ -;-I 0

>
Z 0 -,-I r_ ..Q

0,-4 -,-4 0 > -,-I .l-J 0 ,-4 _:

.Q ,-4 .,-I r_

>
_I -,-I 0 rag ,.-i

Z
1.4 0

-,-I

a_
-,..4 Z

52

@ 0_ D_ 0

0 4J -,-I

0 \ \ (D O 0

,--f ID

-,-I

53

AREA K

is the plane is the

panel

area

projected

onto

the

panel's

mean

unit

vector

normal

to

the

panel's

mean

plane

tK

is the unit vector parallel to the panel's and in the direction of the local velocity; i.e., t = V /IV i K K K is the local skin friction coefficient

mean plane (external)

Cf K The force vector for a patch is then

K2 Fp . K=K 1 AF K (52)

where patch.

KI, K_ are the first The force coefficient

and last vector is

panel

subscripts

in

the

K2 CF P = Fp/q_ SRE F = _ K=K 1

AF K _ /SREF (53)

where

REF

is

the

reference of the

area force

specified coefficient

by

the

user. are C x, printed Cy, C z,

The

components

vector

out in both wind (i.e., the global For symmetrical doubled prior to force value, i.e., is actually twice rather than being

axes, C L, coordinate

C D, CS, system),

and body axes, Figure 20.

configurations the total force vector is printout. This means that the printed side the component normal to the plane of symmetry, the side force on one side of the configuration cancelled to zero for the total configuration.

The

skin

friction

coefficient,

CfK,

in

Eq.

(51)

is

zero

for

the first time through the potential flow calculation. During the viscous/potential flow iteration cycle the Cf values are computed along the surface streamlines passing tSrough userspecified points. The program then sets the local Cf value on each panel crossed by a streamline. Panels not crossed by streamlines panels that Patches values have have Cf values been set, set by provided interpolation these are in them it through the same with the local patch. zero user Cf to

having no streamlines crossing on their panels; consequently,

are left is up to

54

CD

Force

Coefficients

CL

--Wind

Axes

Wind Lies

Axes in

Side-Wash Global x,y

Vector Plane

Cs

Y Global System Coordinate (Body Axes)

Figure

20.

Global

and

WAnd

Axis

Systems.

55

adequately cover the regions of interest with streamline requests (i). If a patch is folded (i.e., a wing) and/or there is dividing stream surface approaching the patch, then streamlines should be requested on both sides of the attachment line. The panel contribution is: to the moment coefficient vector from

the

K th

AC MK

q_

SRE F

(54)

where R K panel, K, reference and yawing component specified The ponents acting

is the position vector relative to the moment semispan for the x and moments); and L=CBAR of the moment (pitching by the user (i).

of the control point on the reference point; L=SSPAN, the z components of moment (rolling (the reference chord) for the y moment). CBAR and SSPAN are

summation is and assemblies. on user-specified

carried out on the basis of patches, comSummation of the forces and moments sets of panels can also be obtained. have an additional from the summation patches representing output of down each wing-type local patch. sur-

force This faces.

Patches with IDENT=I and moment contribution is useful for "folded"

Patches with IDENT=3 include both upper and lower surface velocity and pressure output. On these patches the doublet gradient (Eq. (49)) provides the jump in tangential velocity component between the upper and lower surfaces. The program first computes the mg_]/l velocity (i.e., excluding the local panel's contribution) at the panel's center then adds to this one half of the tangential velocity jump for the upper surface and similarly subtracts for the lower surface.

56

3.5
With

Wake-Shape the panel

Calculation singularity values known, the velocity vector

can be computed at any point in the flow field using the panel velocity influence coefficients and summing over all surface and wake panels (Eq. (18)). In the wake-shape calculation procedure the velocity vector is computed at each wake panel corner point and each "streamwise" edge; i.e., sides 1 and 3 of a panel, Figure ii, is aligned with the average of its two end velocities. The wake shape cedure, starting at the set of vertical grid that plane plane the is full first calculation an upstream wake-grid is performed station and planes, Figure wake full left (i); in a marching proprogressing through ii. In each wakelines intersecting set of velocities

set of (streamwise) assembled and the In assembling lines can be by the user rigid, for fuselage that are

computed at that station. for treatment, certain wakes identified as rigid have been identified butts with up other as wing wake coincident

the set of wake lines out, e.g., lines on individual lines that the line where that the are and lines in the set.

example, side; already

to the lines

The step from one wake-grid plane to the next is performed for all lines before another set of velocities is computed. Thus, for a given set of points, RWi,M; i=l, NL M, in the M th wake-grid plane, the set of points in the next wake-grid plane is: j RWi,M+ 1 = J RWi, M +

J
Vi * DX/IVx

J
I;
l

i=l,

NL M

(55)

where NL_ is the _umber of wake lines wake-@_ia plane; V_ is the mean velocity the i line in th_ jL** predictor/corrector
TM

being moved across the cycle.

in the interval

th M for

(v J
i,M

Vi,M+I

Jl 1

/2

(56)

J is fault

the total is 2). o

number

of

predictor/corrector

cycles

in

use

(de-

J is set of Vi,M, and V

j-i is I,M+I computed at the point,

j-I RW

l,m+l

i,M+l In each

in

each predictor/corrector wake-grid plane are

moved j

cycle and

the complete the current j-i

set of movement

points vector

d
1

=RW
I,M

-RW
I,M

57

is applied to all the points downstream on each next set of velocities is computed. A limiting applied as a damper in difficult situations.

line, before the movement can be

When all the wake-grid planes have been processed, the panel parameters are reformed using the new corner points. modified set of influence coefficients can then be computed the next solution.

wake The for

3.6

BQundary

Layer

Analysis

The solution from the on-body analysis (Subsection 3.4) can be transferred to the boundary layer analysis. Two integral boundary layer analyses are provided in the VSAERO program: the first method, which is described in Reference 23, provides the boundary layer characteristics along computed (external) surface streamlines. The location of a point (panel) on each streamline is provided by the user who is, therefore, responsible for ensuring that a family of streamlines adequately covers the regions of interest. The method, which is applicable for wings and bodies, includes the effects of surface curvature and streamline convergence/divergence flow. The surface (8) and (24) and under streamline is based the assumption of local axisymmetric tracking procedure is described in on a second-order surface stream

function formulation. The streamline boundary layer calculation can be expected to break down in regions of large cross flow. However, the procedure has given surprisingly good guidance for the onset of separation for a wide range of practical problems. The second method, which is installed in the and which is described in Reference 2, includes model. This method is an infinite swept wing code in a strip-by-strip basis across wing surfaces, specifying which strips are to be analyzed. VSAERO program a cross-flow and is applied with the user

The boundary layer module is fully coupled with the VSAERO inviscid code in an outer viscous/potential iteration loop, Figure 3. In further iterations, the displacement effect of the boundary layer is modelled in the potential flow calculation using the source transpiration technique; i.e., the boundary layer displacement term appears in the external Neumann boundary condition equation as a local non-zero normal velocity component (Eq. (12)), and is thereby related directly to source singularities in this formulation. The boundary layer calculation also provides a separation point on each streamline, thereby defining a boundary of separation for a family of streamlines. The criterion for separation is currently a vanishingly small skin friction coefficient (in the direction of the external streamline).

58

3.7

Off-BQ_y

Analyses

When the iterative loops for the effects of wake shape and boundary layer are complete, the VSAERO program offers options for field velocity surveys and off-body streamline tracking. These options, which are discussed separately below, both use the off-body velocity calculation, Eq. (18), based on a summation of the contributions from all surface and wake panels added to the onset flow.

3.7.1

Velocity

Survey

Off-body velocity calculations are performed at user selected points. Normally, the points are assembled along straight scan lines. These lines in turn may be assembled in planes and the planes in volumes. The shape of the scan volume is determined by the parameter, MOLD. Two options are currently available (i). MOLD=I Allows line, within a single point, points straight lines within a a parallelepiped. along a straight parallelogram or

MOLD=2

Allows volume.

points

along

radial

lines

in

cylindrical

A other.

number of scan A MOLD=0 value location of

boxes can be terminates the scan lines

specified, one off-body velocity the scan

after scan. can

the

The

within

boxes

be

controlled in the input. The default generated along the sides of the box. along a scan line can be controlled also the default option is equal spacing. If a scan intersection

option is equal spacing The location of points in the input, but again,

an

line intersects the surface of the configuration, routine locates the points of entry and exit

through the surface paneling. The scan line points nearest to each intersection are then moved to coincide with the surface. Points falling within the configuration volume are identified by the routine to avoid unnecessary velocity computations. These points are flagged in the printout. The input parameter, MEET, controls the calls to the intersection routine: MEET=0 (default) makes the routine active, while MEET=I if the selected velocity scan volume configuration volume, then there is compute where the scan lines intersect The velocity routine, point by summing the panels, image panels switches it off; clearly, is known to be outside the no need for the program to the configuration surface. the velocity vector at from all surface panels, onset flow, etc. The

each wake

VEL, computes contributions (if present),

59

routine includes near-field that are close to the surface field routine involves a lot it is known that a scan box surface and wake then it is routine to avoid unnecessary the input parameter, NEAR; routine active while NEAR=I

procedures panels of extra is well

for dealing with points or wake panels. The nearcomputation; if, therefore, clear of the configuration by

worthwhile turning off the near-field computation. This is controlled NEAR=0 (default) keeps the near-field switches it off.

3.7.2

Off-Body

Streamline

Procedure

The numerical procedure for calculating streamline paths is based on finite intervals, with a mean velocity vector being calculated in the middle of each interval, Figure 21. The velocity calculation point, RP, is obtained by extrapolation from the two previous intervals on the basis of constant rate of change in the velocity vector direction; i.e., RP where R n is the is the present vector. previous interval = R + .5 s t on a (57) the streamline, s_ projected tangen_

point length,

calculated and t

is

\{ s

n n-2

+ Sn-I s n-I

)(
is

kn_ 1

t n-2

>

tn-I

(58)

Vnwhere middle RP calculated point on tn_ of 1 the does

1 ' etc. V n-i the velocity calculated in the

]Vn_ll previous not

interval. lie at RP, i.e., on is the used streamline to evaluate path. the The next

necessarily V n,

velocity, the streamline;

sn Rn+ 1 = Rn +

Vn (59)

i Vn}

An

automatic

procedure

is

included

in

the

routine

which

changes the interval length, s n, in accordance with tangent direction. If a large change in direction the value of sn is decreased and the calculation until the change in direction is within a specified the change in direction is smaller than a certain the interval length for the next step is increased.

the change in is calculated, is repeated amount. If amount, then

6O

STREAMLINE

PATH

",,_// InTErVAL LENGTHS

/ /
/

tn - 2 Rn2 .......

_"

%t

t_'_ Vn-

"*'_'_ I

'-n NEXT VELOCITY CALCULATION POINT

Vn.2

n-

\
VELOC ITY CALCULATED IN MIDDLE OF EACH INTERVAL GIVES LOCAL TANGENT VECTOR

Figure

21.

Streamline

Calculation.

61

4.0

DISCUSSION

OF

RESULTS exact and nomicases, some of panel methods. calculated and

Correlation studies discussed below include nally exact solutions of a number of basic test which had proved difficult for earlier low-order In addition, some comparisons are made between experimental data.

4.1

_e_RL_Kia_

Figure 22 shows the chordwise pressure distribution at _ = 0.549 on a thin, swept wing at 5 incidence. The wing has a midchord sweep of 30 , aspect ratio 6, taper ratio 1/3, and a NACA 0002 section. A nominally exact datum solution (25) for the case was computed by Roberts' third-order method using a 39 (chordwise) by 13 (spanwise) set of panels. The present calculations, based on the i = 0 formulation, use i0 spanwise panels with both 80 and 20 chordwise panels on a "cosine" spacing, giving increased panel density towards leading and trailing edges. Roberts' datum paneling is heavily weighted towards the leading edge: he has, in fact, 4 more panels ahead of the most forward panels in the present 80 cosine spacing case. The comparison in Figure 22 indicates that the lowand high-order methods give essentially the same solution where the control point density is the same. The present calculations using 20 panels chordwise deviate from the datum solution near the leading and trailing edges where the control point densities are different. Good agreement is restored in those regions by the 80-panel case which, at the trailing edge at least, has a similar panel density to the datum case. (Note: not all the 80panel pressure values are plotted in the central region of the chord in Figure 22.)

4.2

Wing

with

Strake

The fact that surface velocities are obtained by numerical differentiation in the present method might lead to inaccuracies in awkward situations. So far, no serious trouble has been experienced. Any problem that might arise with the derivative scheme (e.g., in a region of mismatched paneling) can usually be alleviated by cutting panel neighbor relationships at that station , thus forcing a forward or backward differencing (Subsection 3.4). One situation that could be difficult and which has caused a problem for other methods is the evaluation of the spanwise velocity component, Vy, in the neighborhood of the kink on a wing with strake. In the case considered in Reference 25, the leading-edge kink occurs at 25% of the semispan and the leading-edge sweep is 75 inboard and 35 outboard. The trailing-edge sweep is 9 . Again, the wing section is a NACA 0002 and incidence 5 .

62

--1.4Tr _--

---e--

ROBERTS, DATUR ('THIRD-OEDER') (39 X 1:3)_ REFERENCE 25 80 CHORDWISE PANELS PRESENTCALCULATIONS 10 SPANWISECOLUMNS

- I. 2 "11

% 20 cHo 20 CHORDWISE
" I. 0 I'I_ "SINE" PANELS SPACING

Cp

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

X/C

Figure

22.

Comparison butions on = 5 .

of Calculated a Thin Swept

Chordwise Pressure DistriWing. NACA 0002 Section;

63

The stations of the Two Roberts'

chordwise n = kink,

distribution i.e.,

of

Vy just

is

plotted and

in

Figure just

23

at

.219 and .280; respectively. datum method

inboard

outboard

higher-order third-order

solutions and from

are Johnson

plotted (25) and Rubbert's

from (17)

second-order method. These distribution but disagree The disagreement might be polation is set up across The present solutions calculations and favor

datum solutions agree by a small amount on caused by the different the kink. are in close second-order

on the outboard the inboard cut. ways the inter-

datum

the

agreement solution

with near

the the

upstream part of the inboard cut. The case was run as part of a "shakedown" exercise of the code and used 946 panels in a 44 (chordwise) by 20 (spanwise) array with 66 panels on the tip-edge surface. The chordwise paneling was on a "sine" distribution with density increasing towards the leading edge. Such a high number of panels was probably not needed for this case, but the calculation took approximately 2 minutes on a CDC 7600.

4.3
In the past, low-order solutions for internal flows have

suffered badly from "leakage" problems in between control points. The present code was, therefore, applied to two nacelle cases. The first of these is a simple through-flow nacelle formed by rotating a NACA 0010 about the nacelle axis such that the minimum area is example, one fourth of the inlet taken from Reference and 18, exit shows areas, Figure 24. how the earlier, This first

generation, low-order analysis, because of the leakage, cannot match the internal flow calculated by the higher-order methods. However, the low-order, VSAERO solution (with the internal potential set to zero) is in close agreement with the high-order solutions and evidently does not have this leakage problem. The with second an exit nacelle diameter a NACA case considered 0.3 of the 0005 section is chord. also The leading an open nacelle edge nacelle, surface out by 5

but

is generated by from the x-axis. Two 25. Hess

tilted

higher-order

datum pressure

solutions

(25)

are

shown These

in are

Figure due to

for the chordwise and also Roberts. Roberts' compared

distribution.

duct

solution shows a slightly with Hess's solution.

lower pressure inside The present calculations,

the

based on the %i = _ formulation, use I0 panel intervals around half the circumference and with two chordwise distributions, 26 cosine and 48 sine, around the complete section. Both results are in very close agreement with the datum solutions with a tendency for with Hess's slightly solution. lower This pressure could be inside caused the by duct the compared slightly

64

.6

.2 4 .5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1.0

-.6
T = I .219

Vy
o6

-----4k-- ROBERTS ---e---- RUBBERT

HIGHER-ORDER SOLUTIONS

DATUM

_)

PRESENT CALCULATIONS PIECEWISE CONSTANT

SINGULARITY

PANELS

-.6

-._
= .280

Figure

23.

Comparison of Calculated Two Stations on a Wing tion; _ = 5 .

y with

Component Strake.

of Velocity NACA 0002

at Sec-

65

-2
O

--EXACT HESS BRISTOW HESS VSAERO

(HIGH-ORDER SYMME_ (LOW-ORDER

AXI_IC)

\ J

--I

/
II II _ I

B A

SOURCE C )

FROM REF. 18

Cp

/
.

0.2

0.4 X/C

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure

24.

Comparison of Internal Pressure Calculated using a Range of Methods Showing Leakage of Low-Order First Generation Model.

66

25
----HESS _ ROBERTS ) HIGH-ORDER

PRESENT CALCULATIONS: CHORDWISE PANELLING 0 26 COSINE SPACING | 10 PANELS ON 48 SINE SPACING W HALF CIRCUMFERENCE

-I

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

X/L
Figure 25. Comparison a Nacelle Section; of Calculated Pressure with Exit Diameter/Chord _ = 0 . Distributions on .3. NACA 0005

67

smaller duct cross-section area generated by the present i0 flat panel representation. Again, there is no leakage problem with this formulation. 4.4
Wing-Flap Cases

Cases with slotted flaps have proven troublesome for some earlier, low-order panel methods, especially those using a specified doublet or vorticity singularity distribution and employing "Kutta points" where tangential flow is specified just downstream of the trailing edges (e.g., (23)). In closely interacting multi-element configurations the interference of the downstream element acting on the "Kutta point" of the upstream element can result in a circulation error; in addition, the solution can be sensitive to the _ of the prescribed loading distribution on the upstream element--this is quite different from that on the regular single-element wing section. Two wing-flap cases are considered below for the VSAERO program. The first case is one of the exact two-dimensional, two-element cases provided by Williams (26). Figure 26 shows the close agreement between the VSAERO calculations and the exact solution for configuration B on both the main element, Figure 26(a) and the flap, Figure 26(b). Part of the high aspect ratio aneling in the VSAERO calculation is shown in Figure 26(c), and as ii0 panels chordwise on the main and 60 on the flap. The second wing-flap case involves a part-span flap. The inset in Figure 27 shows a general view of a wing-flap configuration at 16 incidence. The wake shape is shown after one iteration cycle. The wing has an aspect ratio of 6 and the basic section is a NACA 0012. The 30% chord Fowler flap is deflected 30 and the flap cutout extends to _ = .59 on the semispan. The surfaces of the wing tip edge, the flap edge and the end of the cove are covered with panels. Vortex separations were prescribed along the wing tip edge and the flap edge. The present calculations of surface pressures are compared with experimental data (27) at two stations in Figure 27. A section through the flap at _ = .33 is shown in Figure 27(a) and one just outboard of the flap edge at n = .6 in Figure 27(b). Boundary layer calculations have not been included in this calculation yet, and so the agreement between the results at this incidence (16 ) is probably too close. The lower peak suction in the flap data, Figure 27(a), may be caused by interference from a nearby flap support wake.

68

L)
t.D

CD

O?

C)
Oh O

-,-I ,--I ,--I -,-I

)
GO O

0 4-_ 0

...I

O6.
$

!
0

C)

U r_

k.O
(D -,-I

u_ o

_ _ -,-I

0 -_ r_ L_

l_,

CO
o

t_l 0 O_ U] (U r_ 4--_.) L 0

! CO F(-_ _: X

! nj 0 c_ b.l <I:

0
-_1

,'--I

_o o3

!
0 0 O

I
O O

!
O

(D

?,j

I ej

69

0 X

0 0

-,-I

I 0 c._ la.,I ILl

t
o 0 I 0

'70

71

-M

0 4J

r_

0 01 II 0 -,-I

_o r0

0 -,-I 0 u_

rO

0 ._1 _0 I

0 rO L3_

0 0 I
(D

72

0
o B

_LI'_

0 II co 0 O ,-_ o

0 -r--t u 0
D

c_

.-Q
m

t_

--0

73

4.5
The case of 4:1 spheroid at 5 angle of attack was run to test the prediction accuracy of body cases. Figure 28 shows the very good agreement between the VSAERO prediction and the exact (non-lifting) solution. The calculation has i0 panels around the half-body and 20 longitudinally, with the case being run with the vertical plane of symmetry. Small discrepancies in the Cp ~ Z plot are probably partly due to the control points being on the inscribed polygon (i.e., a plot of Cp ~ G would look better, but the Cp ~ Z plot is more practical for the general case.

4.6

Wing-Body

Cases

Concave corners have posed a problem to some low-order methods in the past, making it necessary to use high panel densities. Also, such a region might cause a numerical differentiation scheme to misbehave. Two wing-body cases are considered here. Figure 29(a) shows a longitudinal cut through a pressure distribution on a wing-body case from Reference 28 for e = 4 . The cut passes just above the wing-body junction. The present calculations compare well with other solutions and are in good agreement with experimental results. A spanwise cut through the present calculations at X/L = .48 is shown in Figure 29(b) together with the surface geometry shape. The pressure distribution passes smoothly from the body surface onto the wing surface even though relatively large panels are present on the fuselage side (only 6 around the half section). In volume this calculation in which _ = _.
1

the

wing

and

body

form

one

complete

The second wing-body case is the Swearingen Metroliner wind tunnel model. Figure 30 shows the VSAERO paneling and it will be noticed that there has been no treatment of the intersection region; i.e., the wing and fuselage panel models are from _ wing-alone and body-alone runs. This is not a recommended practice; however, it is interesting to observe that--at least in the present configuration--the results are good and compare very well with experimental data right into the junction region. (Note that the doublet gradient procedure has not used panel information that falls inside the fuselage or wing.) Comparisons between experimental (29) and calculated pressure distributions are made in Figure 31, 32 and 33 at two spanwise stations, y = 9.0 (y/b/2 = .22) and y = 18.0 (y/b/2 = .43). The location of the body side is at y = 5.0 (y/b/2 = .12). The calculations include one wake relaxation iteration. Superimposed on each plot is the geometry of the local cross section.

74

-0.20

-0.16 x = 0.07822

-0.12

C P -0.08 Q

EXACT VSAERO

-0.04 x = ! -.3 -.2 I -.i I 0 0.I 0.2 0.4 0.75806

(a)

Cp

_ z.

C P 0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.

-I .0

-0.8

i -0.6

I -0.4 (b)

I -0.2 Cp ~ x.

t 0

Figure

28.

Comparison of Distributions

Calculated on a 4:1

and Exact Spheroid at

Pressure _ = 5

75

II

4J

0 -,-I 4J tO

-,-I u_ 0 01 v) o 0 U

0 I
-,-I

0 -,-I 0 o 0 m 0 .,-I

0 I t_

-,-I
-,-I

o 0

-,-I

_ m ul

II

0 1.4
!

-,-t

(_,

76

CROSS SECTION SHAPE

------

UPPER SURFACE v Cp VALUES I (PRESENT CALCULATIONS) LOWER SURFACE

! .

. _L__.__

-I.5

il

\
m

/
V

dmm

--5
D, m

v
V ^ A
.w & D

0
m m am,

Immmm

A A

.5 0 .25 .5 .75 1.0

1.25

1.5

(b)

Spanwise

Cut

through

Present

Calculations

at

X/L = .48
Figure 29. Concluded.

77

r_
r_ o

E_
O

f_ _J

r_

78

-2.e

-1 .S

(_)

[XPERZMEHT

(2!

---

USAERO

_.

LO_,[eueeL'e suar_csuer_

-1.0--

-4

ii

--

-6

O.S

--

-8

1.0 4_ 44 46 48 58 X .6 X/C .7 .8 ._ 52 $4 $6

I
O

.i .2 .3 .4

'

1.0

(a)

Buttline

Cut

Y =

9.0.

-I.S

--m

a"

! -I.0
-_.. Q-

XPERZMENT --Z C p -e.S -a r_ v r_ VS_ERO

(29)
fA

ueeel su_'A
LOUt[R SU_F_

-4-

.O.S

-6-

1.0
B

42

44

4G

48 X

SO

S8

S4

.I

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9 /C

1.0

(b) Buttline Figure 3 i.

Cut

Y =

18.0. Pressure Wind Tunnel

Comparison of Calculated and Experimental Distributions on the Swearingen Metroliner Model at e = 0.0, M = 2.0.

79

%
___
-3 -- Z

EPE_InE.*i(29___!___ SURFACE --- VS.E_O WUPI

LOWER SURFACE

--rl
-4-

-6-

-8

I I --le 4Q 4_ 44 46 48 Se X 52

i
0 .i .2 .3

I
.4 .5 X/C .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0

(a)

Buttline

Cut,

9.0.

- s- F

, q

EXPERIMEMT --VSAERO

(29) UPPER LOWER SURFACE SURFACE

C p

-4

(b)

Buttline

Cut,

18.0.

Figure

32.

Comparison Distributions Model at e

of

Calculated on the M

and Swearingen = 2.0.

Experimental Metroliner

Pressure Wind Tunnel

12 ,

80

-le

I O

-8

"-" r

EXPERZMENT (29} UPPER VSAERO _ LO_ER

,
.,

I
[

-6

--

PREDICTED -e ii f -

SEPt

ATION

-4

-4

-2

-6

! I A
I

-6

1_"6 _'-Ia _' -

-re 4o 4a 44 46 48 5e 52 54 5F

I
0 .I .'2 ;3 .4 .5 .6

x
.7

I
.8 .9 1.0

(a)

Buttline

Cut,

Y =

9.0.

-8--

I --&

_i i
c p PREDICTED --4 --2 I SEPARATION

-4 I I I
0---

""q '_)..,. _'

-6-

_D - _g_a- - _ -,',- -'-

42

44

46

41 x

50

SZ

54

!
0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .6 .9

I
1.0

(b) Figure 33.

Buttline

Cut,

Y =

18.0. Pressure Wind

Comparison of Calculated and Experimental Distributions on the Swearingen Metroliner Tunnel Model at _ = 16 , M = 2.0.

81

Figure 31 shows the comparisons at _ = 0 . The experimental results at the inboard station indicate a small separation zone near the trailing edge and show slightly lower Cp values near the leading edge compared with the calculated data. The latter does not include a viscous/potential iteration for this case. The outboard station shows a much closer agreement between the results (Figure 31(b)). Figure 32 shows the comparisons in remarkably good agreement except the trailing edge, which has grown chord. at _ = 12 . The results are for the separated zone near to approximately 20% of the

Figure 33 shows the comparison at _ = 16 . The calculations include one viscous potential iteration and the figure indicates the calculated location of separation which is in reasonable agreement with experimental data. Figure 34 shows the calculated surface streamlines and separation zone on the wing for this case.

82

0.)

0 (D 0 t_ -,-t

4_ 0 _J 0

0 -;-4

r_ C_ ,

-_1 r_ ,.--I

0 c/1 'CS rd ,--I

_1 -,-.-I

83

5.0

CONCLUSIONS

The formulation of the VSAERO program is described and a number of basic test cases examined. The panel method module of the program, based on simple quadrilateral panels with constant doublet and source, has produced results of comparable accuracy to those from higher-order methods given the same density of control points. The calculated results compare very well with exact, nominally exact and also experimental data cases. Problems associated with earlier low-order panel methods do not appear with the present formulation based on internal Dirichlet boundary conditions. Moreover, the low computing cost of the simple panel method makes it practical for applications to nonlinear problems requiring iterative solutions, e.g., for wakeshape and surface boundary layer effects.

84

6.0 i.

REFERENCES Maskew, B., "Program VSAERO, A Computer Program ting the Nonlinear Aerodynamic Characteristics Configurations, User,s Manual", NASA CR-__, 1982. Dvorak, F.A., Woodward, sional Viscous/Potential Multi-Element Wings", for Calculaof Arbitrary November

2.

F.A. and Maskew, B., "A Three-DimenFlow Interaction Analysis Method for NASA-_, July 1977.

3.

Maskew, B., "Calculation of the Three-Dimensional Potential Flow around Lifting Non-Planar Wings and Wing Bodies using a Surface Distribution of Quadrilateral Vortex Rings", Loughborough University of Technology, Dept. of Transport Tech. Report TT 7009, September 1970. Maskew, B., "A Quadrilateral Vortex Method Applied to Configurations with High Circulation", Paper No. i0, Presented at the NASA Workshop on Vortex-Lattice Utilization, Langley Research Center, NASA SP-405, May 1976. Maskew, B. and Woodward, Model for Lifting Potential September 1976. Lamb, York, H.Y., _[IL_iL[l_mics, Article No. 58, 1945. F.A., Flow "A Symmetrical Analysis", AIAA Singularity J. _,

4.

5.

6.

6th

Ed.,

Dover

Publications,

New

7.

Maskew, B., Rao, B.M. and Dvorak, F.A., "Prediction of Aerodynamic Characteristics for Wings with Extensive Separations", Paper No. 31 in 'Computation of Viscous-Inviscid Interactions', AGARD CP-291, February 1981. Maskew, B., Vaidyanathan, T.S., Nathman, J.K. and Dvorak, F.A., "Prediction of Aerodynamic Characteristics of Fighter Wings at High Angles of Attack", Analytical Methods Report 8405a, Prepared for Office of Naval Research, Arlington, VA, under Contract N00014-82-C-0354, March 1984. Maskew, B., "Influence of Rotor Blade Tip Shedding--An Unsteady Inviscid Analysis", Forum of the AHS, Paper 80-6, May 1980. Shape on Tip Proc. 36th Vortex Annual

8.

9.

i0.

Summa, J.M., "Advanced Rotor Analysis Methods for the Aerodynamics of Vortex/Blade Interactions in Hover", Paper No. 2.8, Presented at 8th European Rotorcraft and Powered Lift Aircraft Forum, Aix-en-Provence, France, August-September 1982. Maskew, B. and Dvorak, F.A., "Prediction of Dynamic Stall Characteristics using Advanced Nonlinear Panel Methods", Analytical Methods Report 8406, Final Report, Prepared under

ii.

85

Contract F49620-82-C-0019 April 1984. 12. Maskew, B., "Calculation Interference using Panel
1980. 13. Hess, J.L. and Potential Flow Douglas Aircraft

for

AFOSR/NA,

Bolling

AFB, D.C.,

of Two-Dimensional Methods", NASA _,

Vortex/Surface
November

Smith, A.M.O., about Arbitrary Company Report

"Calculation of Non-Lifting Three-Dimensional Bodies", No. ES 40622, March 1962. of the by Means NASA TT Pressure Distribution of Fredholm Integrand F-702, July 1971.

14.

Martinsen, E., "The Calculation on a Cascade of Thick Airfoils Equation of the Second Kind",

15.

Maskew, B., "A Surface Vorticity Method Pressure Distribution over Aerofoils of and Camber in Two-Dimensional Potential University of Technology Report TT 6907,

for Calculating the Arbitrary Thickness Flow", Loughborough 1969. Character_i/_G_K_,

16.

Maskew, istics: Vol. 19,

B., "Prediction of Subsonic Aerodynamic A Case for Low-Order Panel Methods", No. 2, February 1982, pp. 157-163.

J.

17.

Johnson, F.T. and Rubbert, P.E., "A General Panel Method the Analysis and Design of Arbitrary Configurations in sonic Flows", NASA _c_3__, 1980.

for Sub-

18.

Bristow, D.R. and Grose, G.G., "Modification of the DouglasNeumann Program to Improve the Efficiency of Predicting Component Interference and High Lift Characteristics", NASA CR3020, 1978. Morino, L., Chen, L.-T. and Suci, E.O., "Steady and Oscillatory Subsonic Aerodynamics around Complex Configurations", AIAA J., Vol. 13, No. 3, March 1975. Youngren, H.H., Bouchard, E.E., Coopersmith, R.M. and Miranda, L.R., "Comparison of Panel Method Formulations and its Influence on the Development of QUADPAN, an Advanced LowOrder Method", Paper AIAA-83-1827, Presented at the AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Danvers, Mass., July 1983. Purcell, E.W., "The Vector Method Linear Equations", J. M_.]IL_, Bratkovich, A. and Marshall, the Solution of Large Linear dynamics", J. ZLilL_, Vol. of Solving VOI. 23, Simultaneous NO. 180, 1953. for Aero-

19.

20.

21.

22.

F.J., "Iterative Techniques Systems in Computational 12, No. 2, February 1975.

23.

Dvorak, F.A., Maskew, B. and Woodward, F.A., "Investigation of Three-Dimensional Flow Separation on Fuselage Configurations", Analytical Methods, Inc.; USAAMRDL-TR-77-4, Eustis

86

Directorate, Lab., Fort 24.

U.S. Army Air Mobility Eustis, VA, March 1977.

Research

and Development

Vaidyanathan, upon Velocity Aerodynamics

T.S., "A Flow Field Analysis Procedure Based Potentials", Paper Presented at AIAA Applied Conference, Danvers, Mass., July 1983. B.L. and Rubbert, P.E., "A Comparison Subsonic Flow Computation", AGARD A_z
Case for the Aerofoils", Plane R.A.E. Potential Tech. Rep.

25. Sytsma, H.S., Hewitt, of Panel Methods for

241, 26. 1979.

Williams, B.R., "An Exact Test Flow about Two Adjacent Lifting 71197, 1971.

27.

Weston, B., "Refinement of a Method for Determining Induced and Profile Drag of a Finite Wing from Detailed Measurements", Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Florida, 1981. Also, data to be published in a NASA TP. Loving, D.L. and Estabrooks, tion in the Langley 8-Foot, sonic Mach Numbers and at [_]_, September 1951.

the Wake March

28.

B.B., "Transonic Wing InvestigaHigh-Speed Tunnel at High Suba Mach Number of 1.2", NACA _M

29.

Morgan, D.G., Galloway, T.L. and Gambucci, B.J., "Unpowered Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 15% Scale Model of a TwinEngine Commuter Aircraft", NASA TM-__, July 1981.

87

APPENDIX A

SUBROUTINE

FLOW

CHART

88

ITR=0

CALL

VSAERO FLOW POTENTIAL PROGRAM

NO

CALL

BLCTRL LAYER BOUNDARY_ PROGRAMS/

Figure

A-I.

Flow The

Chart of Main Viscous/Potential

Program (Deck Iteration

MVP); Loop.

89

(See p. 48)

TRANSFORMS INPUT PATCH GEOMES GEOMIN INTRP ARRAY 0LATE OF POINTS

INTRP GENERATE PANELS SURPAN ELEM

INTERPOLATE ARRAY OF PANEL PARAMETERS POINTS

NEIGHBORING PANEL _'FORM INFORMATION

CONECT _i

INFLUENCE COEFFICIENTJ M ATRIX [ SURPHI I

Figure

A-2.

Flow

Chart

of

Subroutine

VSAERO

in

Potential

Flow.

9O

WGRID

,
i

_--_ GRID-PLANE ' _STATIONS

WAKGOM GEOMETRY INPUT WAKE_

INTRP

___NTERPOLATE

k_Y

or POINTS/

WLIN

_--_EFINE WAK_ " k. LINES

GENERATE WAKE PANELS WAKPAN I ELEM

FORM

WAKE_ J

PANEL PARAMETERS/

ORM I RHS PHIMAT FORM WAKE INFLUENCE/ _ 1 AND TRIX

RIGHT-_ SIDE OFf

EQN./

, _OLVE MATRI_ / [ DUBSOL

_ORM

INVERSE

I INERT

EQUATION

, \

OF SUB-_TRIX;

BLOCKS /

SETDOUBLETA_ l WAKDUB
ALUES E ON PANELS/

Figure

A-2.

Continued.

91

G
ANALYSE DOUBLET TO FORM PRESSURE, SURFACE VALUES VELOCITY, FORCES _/ j I ANALI Z I D MOMENTS

l
I
WAKREL _

i cMP J \ COR_CTION /

_o_ss_

_A

_ET LOCK

COMMON_ VALUE_

LOCA
..... VEL MERG I I _k, VELOCITIES /_RGE ADJACENT_ .,/

_ELAX

WAKE_

YES

.
_ORNER POINT h /

. _ORFACE INTEI-A

INTPOL J--_POLATION J

ANALYSIS

I
_OMPUTE SURFACE_ / STREAMLINES

\ COR_CTION /

l_i

Figure

A-2.

Continued.

92

G
_BSET LOCK COMMON VALUE_

JI Ico_s_
, /LOCATE PANEL h

,
OFF-BODY VSCAN ELOCITY SCAN

_Y A sc_ *._NE/

INTSCT _--/_NTERSECTED )

W._. _---_0_ W._.OC_/

, _OFF-BODY

r FSLINE VEL CALCULATE ODY OFF-

TREAMLINE_

VELOCITY

Figure

A-2.

Continued.

93

YES

YES =0? _ VNORM I

YES VSET

(See

p. 91)

Figure

A-2.

Concluded.

94

YES

_L_RIPWISE IBL YER

BOUNDARY CALCULATION (2)_

_0

YES _INTGRL

_I_LAYER

_/ST_INE CALCULATION BOUNDARY) (23)

To

Figure

A-3.

Flow

Chart

for Layer

Major Analysis

Subroutines (Subroutine

in

the BLCTRL).

Boundary

95

APPENDIX

BIQUADRATIC

INTERPOLATION

96

The biquadratic interpolation scheme described below is applied in a number of routines in the VSAERO code. Its simple multiplier form is very convenient to use and yet it is a "constrained" cubic; i.e., it cannot oscillate wildly. Experience with the routine over a number of years in the code has shown it to be a reliable method. Given a set of position vectors, smooth space curve, additional values Pn, n=l,2 ..., N, are interpolated defining in, say,

the interval between Pn and Pn+l , Figure B-I. The integrated contour length, sn, to each polnt from the beginning of the curve, i.e., from PI' is generated first. For convenience the straight segment length is used across each interval; i.e., s = fPn+l - Pn [' but arc lengths could easily be substituted, n Next, Pn-Y and Pn' Pn+2' two Pn+l' are quadratic and q2(e,e Figure curves, 2 ql _,e I
n

) passing

through Pn'

points Pn+l'

) passing B-I.

through

points

formed,

in

The the

normalized interpolation parameter, n th interval, and has value

_,

ranges

from

to

1
n

at

Pn.l

and

_2
n

at

Pn+2

'

where Sn)/(Sn+ 1 Sn) ; and

Sin

(Sn-I

_2
n

(Sn+ 2 -

s n)/(sn+

1 -

sn).

In defines

the the

th n interval, a linear biquadratic interpolation

combination curve.

of

q i and

q2

P(e)

= _q2(e,e2
n

) +

(i-

_)ql(a,e

I
n

The biquadratic is, therefore, lie between the two quadratic for a point distance, s, from in the n th interval) is

a cubic, curves. the start

but it is constrained to Clearly, the value of of the curve (but located

a = s/(Sn+

1 -

Sn)

97

terms local

The form of the interpolation of biquadratic multipliers, position vectors:

P(e) = Pn-i Gl(e'el
n

curve can be expressed in GI, G2, applied to the four

) + Pn

G2(e'_l
n

' _2
n

Pn+l

G2(I

- _,

1 - e2n,

1 - el

+ Pn+2

GI(I

- e,

1 -_2
n

)"

The

forms

of

GI,

G2

are:

Gl(a,b) G2(a,b,c)

= a(l = (i

- a)2/{b(l - a){i - a(l

- b)} - a)/b - a2/c}

These multipliers, based on the linear combination of two quadratics, give continuous slope and a piecewise linear--but not necessarily continuous--variation of second derivative across each interval. The vector: G multipliers can be differentiated to give the tangent

t(_)

= Pn-i

HI(_'_I
n

+ Pn

H2(_'_I
n

' _2 n)

- Pn+l

H2(I

e,

1 -

_2

' 1 )

_i

Pn+2

HI(I-

_,

1-

e2n

where

the

tangent Hl(a,b)

multipliers = (I 4a

are: + 3a')/{b(l - b)}

_{2(a,b,c)

(4a

3a 2

l)/b

(3a 2

2a)/c

ds

Note:

this

is

not

unit

vector:

It(_)

I - d_"

98

under

The G multipliers the curve between

can the

also n th

be and

integrated the (n+l) th

to give points:

the

area

A n

Pn-i

Fl(al

n)

Pn

F2(eln'_2n

) ds

, 1 + Pn+l F2(I e2n

- e 2 n

) +

Pn+2

FI(I

_2n)_-_

where

the

integral

multipliers

are:

Fl(b)

I/{12b(l

b)}

F2(b,c)

{1

(i/b

1/c)/6}/2

This In

assumes this case, intervals surface The F of

that

the

value it than

of

ds _-_

is

constant

over

the

interval.

therefore, rather distances.

would

be

an

advantage intervals

to

use when

the

arc

length lating

straight

line

calcu-

multipliers surface

are pressures

for to

possible obtain

future forces and

use

in

the

inte-

gration

moments.

99

>

0 -,-I 4_

_) -,-4

r_

..-I

.,-I

i00

Report
I. Report No.

Documentation
Accession No.

Page
3. Recipient's Catalog No.

2. Government

NASA

CR-4023
5. Report Date

4. Title and Subtitle

PROGRAM

VSAERO

THEORY

DOCUMENT September 1987

Code

A Computer Program for Calculating Nonlinear Aerodynamic Characteristics of Arbitrary Configurations

7. Author(s)

6. Performing

Organization

8. Pedorming

Organization

Report

No.

Brian

Maskew

AMI
10. Work

Report
Unit No.

8416

9. Pedorming

Organization

Name

and Address

ANALYTICAL METHODS, 2133 - 152nd Avenue Redmond,

12. Sponsoring

INC. N.E. 98052

1t.

Contract

or Grant

No.

NAS2- 11945
13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Washington
Agency Name

and Address

Final July 94035

Report 1984Agency

NASA

Ames

Research

Center

May
Code

1987

Moffett

Field,

California

14. Sponsoring

15, Supplementaw

Notes

Point

of

Contact:

Brian Smith M.S. 247-i NASA Ames Research CA Center 94035 Moffett Field,

(415) FTS

694-5039 464-5039

16. Abstract

The

VSAERO

low-order

panel

method

formulation

is

described

for

the

calculation

of

subsonic aerodynamic characteristics of general configurations. The method is based on piecewise constant doublet and source singularities. Two forms of the internal Dirichlet boundary condition are discussed and the source distribution is determined by the external Neumann boundary condition. A number of basic test cases are examined. cases. It Calculations are is demonstrated compared that for with higher-order comparable density the low-order is also shown solutions for a number of of control points where the comparable associated accuracy with some

boundary conditions to the higher-order

are satisfied, solutions. It

method gives that problems

earlier low-order panel methods, e.g., leakage in internal flows and junctions and also poor trailing-edge solutions, do not appear for the present method. Further, the application of the K.tta conditions is extremely simple; no extra equation or traillng-edge velocity point is required. The method has very low computing costs and this has made it practical for application to nonlinear problems requiring iterative solutions for wake shape and surface boundary layer effects.
17. Key Words(SuggestedbyAuthor(s)) 18. Distribution Statement

Subsonic Panel Configuration; Flow Coupling;

Method; Viscous Relaxed

Arbitrary Flow/Potential Wake Iteration

Subject

Category

02

19. Security

Classif.

(of this report)

20. Security

Classif.

(of this page)

21.

No.

of pages

22. Price

Unclassified

Unclassified

100

NASA

FORM

1626 OCT 86

NASA-Langley, 1987