Panel Methods

5.
ClassicalLinearTheory
ComputationalAerodynamics
5.1AnIntroduction
ComputationalmethodsbasedonthelinearpotentialflowtheorydescribedinChapter4have
beenusedtoperformagreatdealofgoodaerodynamicdesign.Whilesomepeoplebelievethat
these methods are outdated, we believe they still have a valuable place in computational
aerodynamics.Thischapterdescribestworelatedlineartheoryapproachespanelmethodsand
vortexlatticemethodsthatplayimportantrolesinaerodynamics;bothapproachesrelyonthe
linearversionsofthepotentialflowequation.Forthepotentialflowassumptiontobeusefulfor
aerodynamicscalculationstheprimaryrequirementisthatviscouseffectsaresmall,meaningthat
the flow is attached. Also, the flow must be either completely subsonic, or completely
supersonic.Iftheflowcontainsregionsofbothsubsonicandsupersonicflow.thenitistermed
transonic, andrequires ahigher fidelity (nonlinear) flowfield model fora physically correct
theoretical simulation. Note that supersonic velocities can occur locally at surprisingly low
freestreamMachnumbers,sogreatcaremustbetakentoensurethattheflowisnotlocally
supersonic.Forairfoilsatveryhighliftcoefficientsthepeakvelocitiesaroundtheleadingedge
canbecomesupersonicatfreestreamMachnumbersaslowas0.20~0.25.However,ifthelocal
flow is at a low speed everywhere it can be assumed incompressible (M 0.4, say), and
Laplace'sEquationisessentiallyanexactrepresentationoftheinviscidflow.Forhighersubsonic
Machnumberswithsmalldisturbancestothefreestreamflow,thePrandtlGlauertEquationcan
beused.ThePrandtlGlauertEquationcanbeconvertedintotoLaplace'sEquationbyasimple
transformation, which means that incompressible results can be transformed into subsonic
compressibleresultsquiteeasily.i Thisprovidesthebasisforestimatingtheinitialeffectsof
compressibilityontheflowfield,i.e.,linearizedsubsonicflow,andtheflowfieldcanbefound
by the solution of asingle linear partial differential equation. Not only is the mathematical
2/14/2015
51
52AppliedComputationalAerodynamics
problemmuchsimplerthananyoftheotherequationsthatcanbeusedtomodeltheflowfield,
butsincetheproblemislinear,alargebodyofmathematicaltheoryisavailable.
ThePrandtlGlauertEquationcanalsobeusedtodescribesupersonicflows.Inthatcasethe
mathematicaltypeoftheequationishyperbolic,asdescribedinChapter3.Recalltheimportant
distinctionbetweenthetwocases:
subsonicflow:
ellipticPDE,eachpointintheflowfieldinfluenceseveryother
point,
supersonicflow: hyperbolicPDE,discontinuitiescanexist,zoneofinfluence
solutiondependency.
Althoughtherearesupersonicaswellassubsonicpanelmethods,vortexlatticemethodsareonly
subsonic.Wewilldiscussthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthesemethodsinthischapter.
SeeEricksoniiforagooddiscussionoflinearsupersonicaerodynamicmethods.
5.2PanelMethods
Although we saw in the last chapter how simple shapes like circular cylinders can be
modeledwithcombinationsofsingularitiesthataresolutionsofLaplacesEquation,completely
arbitrary shapes cannot be modeled exactly with singularities placed on the axis, and the
streamline of an arbitrary body determined by specifying the strengths of the singularities.
Instead,weneedtouseanotherapproachtodistributingsingularitiestomodeltheflowfield.
Inthischapterweconsiderincompressibleflowonly.OneofthekeyfeaturesofLaplaces
Equationisthepropertythatallowstheequationgoverningtheflowfieldtobeconvertedfroma
threedimensional problem throughout the field (a PDE) to a twodimensional problem for
findingthepotentialvariationonthesurface(anintegralequation).Theflowfieldsolutionisthen
foundusingthispropertybydistributingsingularitiesofunknownstrengthoverdiscretized
portionsofthesurface:panels.Hencetheflowfieldsolutionisfoundbyrepresentingthesurface
byanumberofpanels,andsolvingalinearsetofalgebraicequationstodeterminetheunknown
strengthsofthesingularities;*Fig.1illustratestheidea.Figure1ashowsapanelrepresentation
ofanairplane,andFigure1bshowshowsingularitiesmaybedistributedoverthepanels.The
flexibilityandrelativeeconomyofthepanelmethodsissoimportantinpracticethatthemethods
*
Thesingularitiesaredistributedacrossthepanel.Theyarenotspecifiedatapoint.However,theboundary
conditionsareusuallysatisfiedataspecificlocation.
2/14/2015
ClassicalLinearTheoryComputationalAerodynamics53
continuetobewidelyuseddespitetheavailabilityofmoreexactmethods.Anentryintothe
panel method literature is available through two reviews by Hess, iii,iv the survey by
Erickson,Error:ReferencesourcenotfoundandthebookbyKatzandPlotkin.v
a)a7000panelrepresentationofatransportaircraftwithflapsdeflected.Error:Reference
sourcenotfound
arrows indicate constant distribution of the singularity across the panel
control point on each panel,

satisfying the no-flow-through condition
smooth surface represented by straight line panels
b)localsurfacecutshowingdistributionofsingularitiesonapanel.
Figure5.1.Representationofanairplanebyapanelmodel.
ThederivationoftheintegralequationforthepotentialsolutionofLaplacesequationis
giveninSection5.2.1.Detailsareoutlinedforonespecificapproachtosolvingtheintegral
2/14/2015
equationinSection5.2.2.Forclarityandsimplicityofthealgebra,theanalysiswillusethetwo
dimensionalcasetoillustratethemethods.DetailsareavailableinMoran vi andCebeci.vii Both
bookscontainFORTRANprogramsthatcanberunonmanycomputersystems.Thisresultsin
twoironicaspectsofthepresentation:
Thealgebraicformsofthesingularitiesaredifferentbetween2Dand3D,dueto3Drelief.
Thepowerofpanelmethodsarisesinthreedimensionalapplications.
Finally,examplesofapplicationstoaerodynamicanalysisarepresented.
5.2.1TheIntegralEquationforthePotential
Potential theory is a well developed (old) and elegant mathematical theory, devoted to the
solutionofLaplacesEquation(asdiscussedinChap.4):
2 0 .
(5.1)
There are several ways to view the solution of this equation. The one most familiar to
aerodynamicists is the notion of singularities. These are algebraic functions that satisfy
Laplaces equation,andcanbecombinedtoconstructflowfields,aspresentedinChapter4.
Since the equation is linear, superposition of solutions can be used. The most familiar
singularitiesarethepointsource(sink),doubletandvortex.Inclassicalexamplesthesingularities
arelocatedinsidethebody.Unfortunately,asnotedabove,anarbitrarybodyshapecannotbe
createdusingsingularitiesplacedinsidethebody.Amoresophisticatedapproachhastobeused
todeterminethepotentialflowoverarbitraryshapes,andmathematicianshavespentagreatdeal
oftimedevelopingthistheory.Wewilldrawonafewselectedresultstohelpunderstandthe
developmentofpanelmethods.Initially,weareinterestedinthespecificationoftheboundary
conditions.ConsiderthesituationillustratedinFig.5.2.
Theflowpatternisuniquelydeterminedbygivingeither:
or
on+ {DirichletProblem:Design}
(5.2)
/ n on+ {NeumanProblem:Analysis} .
(5.3)
Potentialflowtheorystatesthatyoucannotspecifybotharbitrarily,butcanhaveamixed
boundarycondition, a b / n on+ .TheNeumannProblemisidentifiedasanalysis
abovebecauseitnaturallycorrespondstotheproblemwheretheflowthroughthesurfaceis
2/14/2015
specified (usually zero). The Dirichlet Problem is identified as design because it tends to
correspondtotheaerodynamiccasewhereasurfacepressuredistributionisspecifiedandthe
bodyshapecorrespondingtothepressuredistributionissought.Becauseofthewiderangeof
problemformulationsavailableinlineartheory,someanalysisproceduresappeartobeDirichlet
problems,butEq.(53)muststillbeused.
Figure5.2alsoshowsawakebehindthebody,wherethevalueofthepotentialcanjump.
Thisisrequiredtoallowtheflowfieldtoproduceavaluefortheliftonthebody,andwillbe
discussedfurtherbelow.
Solid Body
Wake
Figure5.2.Boundariesforflowfieldanalysis.
Someotherkeypropertiesofpotentialflowtheory:
Ifeitheror / n iszeroeverywhereonthen=0atallinteriorpoints.
cannothaveamaximumorminimumatanyinteriorpoint.Itsmaximumvaluecan
only occur on the surface boundary, and therefore the minimum pressure (and
maximumvelocity)occursonthesurface.
Weneedtoobtaintheequationforthepotentialinaformsuitableforuseinpanelmethod
calculations.ThissectionfollowsthepresentationgivenbyKaramcheti viiionpages344348and
KatzandPlotkinError:Referencesourcenotfound onpages4448.Anequivalentanalysisis
givenbyMoranError:ReferencesourcenotfoundinhisSection8.1.Theobjectiveistoobtain
an expression forthe potential anywhere inthe flowfield in terms ofvalues on the surface
2/14/2015
boundingtheflowfield.StartingwiththeGaussDivergenceTheorem,whichrelatesavolume
integralandasurfaceintegral,(givenpreviouslyinChap.3asEqn.3.8)
A ndS A dV
(5.4)
wefollowtheclassicalderivationandconsidertheinteriorproblemasshowninFig.5.3.
S0
n
z
R0
x
Figure5.3.Nomenclatureforintegralequationderivation.
Tostartthederivationintroducethevectorfunctionoftwoscalars:
A grad grad .
(5.5)
SubstitutethisfunctionintotheGaussDivergenceTheorem,Eq.(5.4),toobtain:
div grad grad dV grad grad n dS. .

R
(5.6)
Nowusethevectoridentity: F F F tosimplifythelefthandsideofEq.(5.6).
Recallingthat A divA ,writetheintegrandofthelefthandsideofEq.(5.6)as:
div grad grad

(5.7)
SubstitutingtheresultofEq.(5.7)fortheintegrandinthelefthandsideofEq.(5.6),weobtain:
dV grad grad n dS ,
2
orequivalently(recallingthat grad n / n ),
2/14/2015
(5.8)
dV
2
dS .
n
n
(5.9)
EitherstatementisknownasGreenstheoremofthesecondform.
Nowdefine=1/rand=,whereisaharmonicfunction(afunctionthatsatisfies
Laplacesequation).The1/r termisasourcesingularityinthreedimensions.Thismakesour
analysisthreedimensional.Intwodimensionstheformofthesourcesingularityisln r,anda
twodimensionalanalysisstartsbydefining=lnr.NowrewriteEq.(5.8)usingthedefinitions
ofandgivenatthefirstofthisparagraphandswitchingsides,
1
1
1
1
ndS 2 2 dV .
r
r
r
r
R0

S0
(5.10)
R0istheregionenclosedbythesurfaceS0.Recognizethatontherighthandsidethefirstterm,
2 ,isequaltozerofromEq,(5.1)sothatEq.(5.10)becomes
1
1
1
ndS 2 dV .
r
r
r
R0

S0
(5.11)
2 1
IfapointPisexternaltoS0,then r 0 everywheresince1/risasource,andthussatisfies
Laplaces Equation. This leaves the right hand side of Eq. (5.11) equal to zero, with the
followingresult:
1
1
n dS 0 .
r
r

S0
(5.12)
However,wehaveincludedtheorigininourregionS0asdefinedabove.IfPisinsideS0,then
1
2 atr=0.Therefore,weexcludethispointbydefininganewregionwhichexcludes
r
theoriginbydrawingasphereofradius around r =0,andapplying(5.12)totheregion
betweenandS0:
1
1

r
r
1S0 4 4 4 4 2 4 4
arbitraryregion
2/14/2015
1
dS 0
n dS
r r r2
4 43 1 4 44 2 4 4 43
sphere
(5.13)
or:
1
1
1
2 dS
n dS .
r
r r r
r
S0
(5.14)
ConsiderthefirstintegralonthelefthandsideofEq.(5.14).Let0,where(as0)
wetakeconstant( / r 0 ),assumingthatiswellbehavedandusingthemeanvalue
theorem.Thenweneedtoevaluate
dS
overthesurfaceofthespherewhere = r.Recallthatforaspheretheelementalareais(see
Hildebrand,ixforanexcellentreviewofsphericalcoordinatesandvectoranalysis):
dS r 2 sin d d
(5.15)
wherewedefinetheanglesinFig.5.4.Donotconfusetheclassicalnotationforthespherical
coordinateangleswiththepotentialfunction.Thesphericalcoordinatewilldisappearassoon
asweevaluatetheintegral.
z
y
x
Figure5.4.Sphericalcoordinatesystemnomenclature.
SubstitutingfordSintheintegralabove,weget:
sin d d .
Integratingfrom=0to,andfrom0to2,weget:
sin d d 4 .
ThefinalresultforthefirstintegralinEq.(5.14)is:
2/14/2015
(5.16)
1
dS 4 .
r r r2
(5.17)
ReplacingthisintegralbyitsvaluefromEq.(5.17)inEq.(5.14),wecanwritetheexpression
forthepotentialatanypointPas(wheretheorigincanbeplacedanywhereinsideS0):
1
4
1
1
n dS
r
r

s0
(5.18)
andthevalueofatanypointpisnowknownasafunctionofand / n ontheboundary.
Weusedtheinteriorregiontoallowtheorigintobewrittenatpointp.Thisequationcanbe
extended tothesolution for fortheregionexterior to R0.Applytheresults totheregion
betweenthesurfaceSBofthebodyandanarbitrarysurfaceenclosingSBandthenletgoto
infinity.Theintegralsovergoto?asgoestoinfinity.Thuspotentialflowtheoryisusedto
obtaintheimportantresultthatthepotentialatanypointp'intheflowfieldoutsidethebodycan
beexpressedas:
1
4
1
1
n dS .
r
r

SB
(5.19)
Heretheunitnormal nisnowconsideredtobepointingoutwardandtheareacanincludenot
onlysolidsurfacesbutalsowakes.Equation5.19canalsobewrittenusingthedotproductofthe
normalandthegradientas:
1
4
1
1
dS .
r n
n r

SB
(5.20)
The1/rinEq.(5.19)canbeinterpretedasasourceofstrength / n ,andthe (1/r)term

inEq.(5.19)asadoubletofstrength.BothofthesefunctionsplaytheroleofGreensfunctions
inthemathematicaltheory.Therefore,wecanfindthepotentialasafunctionofadistributionof
sourcesanddoubletsoverthesurface.TheintegralinEq.(5.20)isnormallybrokenupintobody
andwakepieces.Thewakeisgenerallyconsideredtobeinfinitelythin.Therefore,onlydoublets
areusedtorepresentthewakes.
Now consider the potential to be given by the superposition of two different known
functions,thefirstandsecondtermsintheintegral,Eq.(520).Thesecanbetakentobethe
2/14/2015
distributionofthesourceanddoubletstrengths, and ,respectively.ThusEq(5.20)canbe
writtenintheformusuallyseenintheliterature,
1
4
1
dS .
r
r n
SB
(5.21)
Theproblemistofindthevaluesoftheunknownsourceanddoubletstrengths and fora

specificgeometryandgivenfreestream,.
What just happened? We replaced the requirement to find the solution over the entire
flowfield (a threedimensional problem) with the problem of finding the solution for the
singularitydistributionoverasurface(atwodimensionalproblem).Inaddition,wenowhavean
integralequationtosolvefortheunknownsurfacesingularitydistributionsinsteadofapartial
differential equation. The problem is linear, allowing us to use superposition to construct
solutions.Wealsohavethefreedomtopickwhethertorepresentthesolutionasadistributionof
sources or doublets distributed over the surface. In practice its been found best to use a
combination of sources and doublets. The theory can also be extended to include other
singularities.
At one time the change from a threedimensional to a twodimensional problem was
consideredsignificant.However,thetotalinformationcontentisthesamecomputationally.This
showsupasadense2Dmatrixcomparedtoalarge,butsparse3Dmatrix.Ascomputational
methods for sparse matrix solutions evolved, the problems became nearly equivalent. The
advantageinusingthepanelmethodsarisesbecausethereisnoneedtodefineagridthroughout
theflowfield.
Thisisthetheorythatjustifiespanelmethods,i.e.thatwecanrepresentthesurfacebypanels
with distributions of singularities placed on them. Special precautions must be taken when
applyingthetheorydescribedhere.Careshouldbeusedtoensurethattheregion SB isinfact
completelyclosed.Inaddition,caremustbetakentoensurethattheoutwardnormalisproperly
defined.
Furthermore, in general, theinterior problem cannot beignored. Surface distributions of
sources anddoublets affect theinteriorregionas wellastheexterior. Insomemethods the
interiorproblemisimplicitlysatisfied.Inothermethodstheinteriorproblemrequiresexplicit
2/14/2015
attention. The need to consider this subtlety arose when advanced panel methods were
developed. The problem is not well posed unless the interior problem is considered, and
numericalsolutionsfailedwhenthisaspectoftheproblemwasnotaddressed.ReferencesError:
ReferencesourcenotfoundandError:Referencesourcenotfoundprovidefurtherdiscussion.
Whentheexteriorandinteriorproblemsareformulatedproperlytheboundaryvalueproblem
isproperlyposed.AdditionaldiscussionsareavailableinthebooksbyAshleyandLandahl xand
CurleandDavis.xi
Weimplementtheideasgiveaboveby:
a)approximatingthesurfacebyaseriesoflinesegments
b)placingdistributionsofsourcesandvorticesordoubletsoneachpanel.
There are many ways to tackle the problem (and many codes). Possible differences in
approachestotheimplementationincludetheuseof:
varioussingularities
variousdistributionsofthesingularitystrengthovereachpanel
panelgeometry(panelsdonthavetobeflat).
Recallthatsuperpositionallowsustoconstructthesolutionbyaddingseparatecontributions
[Watchout!Youhavetogetallofthem.Sometimesthiscanbeaproblem].Thuswewritethe
potential as the sum of several contributions. Figure 5.5 provides an example of a panel
representation of an airplane being used to develop the aerodynamic characteristics of a
morphing airplane for a flight simulation. The surface is colored to represent the pressure
distributionontheplanepredictedbythepanelmodel.Thewakesareshown,andamoreprecise
illustrationofapanelmethodrepresentationisgiveninSection5.2.4.
2/14/2015
Figure5.5.Panelmodelrepresentationofanairplane.xiiWakesnotshown.
AnexampleoftheimplementationofapanelmethodiscarriedoutinSection5.2.2intwo
dimensions.Todothis,wewritedownthetwodimensionalversionofEq.5.21.Inaddition,we
useavortexsingularityinplaceofthedoubletsingularity(Ref. Error:Referencesourcenot
found and Error: Reference source not found provide details on this change). The resulting
expressionforthepotentialis:
uniformonsetflow
V x cos V y sin
q(s)
(s)
ds
ln r
242 43
2
1
123

q isthe2D
thisisavortexsingularity
ofstrength (s)
sourcestrength
(5.22)
and = tan1(y/x). Equation (5.22) shows contributions from various components of the
flowfield,buttherelationisstillexact.Nosmalldisturbanceassumptionhasbeenmade.
5.2.2AnExample:TheClassicHessandSmithMethod
A.M.O.SmithatDouglasAircraftdirectedanincrediblyproductiveaerodynamicsdevelopment
groupinthelate50sthroughtheearly70s.Inthissectionwedescribetheimplementationof
the theory given above that originated in his group. * Our derivation follows Morans
descriptionError:Referencesourcenotfound oftheHessandSmithmethodquiteclosely.The
approachistoi)breakupthesurfaceintostraightlinesegments,ii)assumethesourcestrength
distributionisconstantovereachlinesegment(panel)buthasadifferentvalueforeachpanel,
andiii)distributeavortexsingularitydistributionovereachpanel,butwiththevortexstrength
constantandequalovereachpanel.
ThinkoftheconstantvorticesasaddinguptothecirculationtosatisfytheKuttacondition.
Thesourcesarerequiredtosatisfyflowtangencyonthesurface(thickness).
Figure5.6illustratestherepresentationofasmoothsurfacebyaseriesoflinesegments.The
numberingsystemstartsatthelowersurfacetrailingedgeandproceedsforward,aroundthe
leadingsurfaceandafttotheuppersurfacetrailingedge.N+1pointsdefineNpanels.Notethat
otherimplementationsmayuseothernumberingschemes.
IntheAIAAbook,AppliedComputationalAerodynamics,A.M.O.Smithcontributedthefirstchapter,anaccount
oftheinitialdevelopmentofpanelmethods.
2/14/2015
Figure5.6.Representationofasmoothairfoilwithstraightlinesegments.
Thepotential relation givenaboveinEq.(5.22)canthenbeevaluated bybreaking the
integralupintosegmentsalongeachpanel:

q(s)
2 ln r 2 dS
j 1 panelj
N
V x cos ysin
(5.23)
withq(s)takentobeconstantoneachpanel,allowingustowriteq(s)=qi,i=1,...N.Herewe
needtofindNvaluesofqiandonevalueof.
Use Figure 5.7 to define the nomenclature on each panel. Let the ith panel be the one
betweentheithandi+1thnodes,andlettheithpanelsinclinationtothexaxisbe.Underthese
assumptionsthesinandcosofaregivenby:
sin i
yi1 yi
,
li
cos i
xi1 xi
li
(5.24)
andthenormalandtangentialunitvectorsare:
ni sin i i cos i j
.
t i cos i i sin i j
j
i
i +1
i
i
x
a) basic nomenclature
ti
ni
i +1
li
(5.25)
b) unit vector orientation
Figure5.7.Nomenclatureforlocalcoordinatesystems.
2/14/2015
Wewillfindtheunknownsbysatisfyingtheflowtangencyconditiononeachpanelatone
specificcontrolpoint(alsoknownasacollocationpoint)andrequiringthesolutiontosatisfya
Kuttacondition.Thecontrolpointwillbepickedtobeatthemidpointofeachpanel,asshown
inFig.5.8.
y
smooth shape
control point
panel
x
Figure5.8.Localpanelnomenclature.
Thusthecoordinatesofthemidpointofthecontrolpointaregivenby:
xi
xi xi1
,
2
yi
yi yi1
2
(5.26)
andthevelocitycomponentsatthecontrolpoint xi , yi are ui u(xi , yi ), vi v(xi , yi ).

The flow tangency boundary condition is given by V n 0 , and is written using the
relationsgivenhereas(intheoriginalcoordinatesystem):
ui i vi j sini i cosi j 0
or
ui sin i vi cos i 0, foreachi,i=1,...,N .
(5.27)
TheremainingrelationisfoundfromtheKuttacondition.Thisconditionstatesthattheflow
mustleavethetrailingedgesmoothly.Manydifferentnumericalapproacheshavebeenadopted
tosatisfythiscondition.Inpracticethisimpliesthatatthetrailingedgethepressuresonthe
upper and lower surface are equal. Here the Kutta condition is satisfied approximately by
equatingvelocitycomponentstangentialtothepanelsadjacenttothetrailingedgeontheupper
andlowersurface.BecauseoftheimportanceoftheKuttaconditionindeterminingtheflow,the
solutionisextremelysensitivetotheflowdetailsatthetrailingedge.Sincetheassumptionis
madethatthevelocitiesareequalonthetopandbottompanelsatthetrailingedgeweneedto
understandthatwemustmakesurethatthelastpanelsonthetopandbottomaresmallandof
2/14/2015
equallength,otherwisewehaveaninconsistentapproximation.Accuracywilldeterioraterapidly
ifthetrailingedgepanelsarenotthesamelength.Thespecificnumericalformulaisdeveloped
usingthenomenclatureforthetrailingedgeshowninFig.5.9.Intwodimensions,andespecially
forasingleairfoil,theKuttaconditionissufficienttohandlethewake,andwedonthaveto
addressthewakeexplicitlyintheformulation.Thisisnotthecaseinthreedimensions.
tN
N+1
t1
Figure5.9.Trailingedgepanelnomenclature.
Equatingthemagnitudeofthetangentialvelocitiesontheupperandlowersurface:
ut1 ut N .
(5.28)
andtakingthedifferenceindirectionofthetangentialunitvectorsintoaccountthisiswrittenas
Vt 1 Vt N .
(5.29)
Carryingouttheoperationintheoriginalcoordinatesystemwegettherelation:
u1i v1 j cos1i sin1 j uN i vN j cos N i sin N j

whichisexpandedtoobtainthefinalrelation:
u1 cos1 v1 sin 1 u N cos N vN sin N
(5.30)
Theexpressionforthepotentialintermsofthesingularitiesoneachpanelandtheboundary
conditions derived abovefortheflow tangency andKutta condition areusedtoconstructa
systemoflinearalgebraicequationsforthestrengthsofthesourcesandthevortex.Thesteps
requiredaresummarizedbelow.
Stepstodeterminethesolution:
1. Find the algebraic equations defining the influence coefficients. These are the
relations connecting the velocities induced by the singularity distribution of unit
strengthoverapanelatacontrolpoint.Eachcontrolpointwillhaveaninfluence
coefficientforeachofthepanelsonthesurface,andareafunctionofthegeometry.
2/14/2015
2. Writedownthevelocities, ui, vi,intermsofcontributionsfromallthesingularities.
Thisincludesqi,fromeachpanelandtheinfluencecoefficients.
Togeneratethesystemofalgebraicequations:
3. Write down flow tangency conditions in terms of the velocities (N eqns., N+1
unknowns).
4. WritedowntheKuttaconditionequationtogettheN+1equation.
5. Solvetheresultinglinearalgebraicsystemofequationsfortheunknownqiand.
6. Givenqiand,writedowntheequationsforuti,thetangentialvelocityateachpanel
controlpoint.
7. Determine the pressure distribution from Bernoullis equation using the tangential
velocityoneachpanel.
Thedetailsareeasilycarriedout,butthealgebragetstedious.
ProgramPANEL
Inthissectionweillustratetheresultsoftheprocedureoutlinedabove.ProgramPANELisan
exactimplementationoftheanalysisdescribedabove,andisessentiallytheprogramgivenby
Moran.Error:Reference sourcenotfound Otherpanelmethod programs areavailable inthe
textbooksbyCebeci,Error:ReferencesourcenotfoundHoughtonandCarpenter,xiiiandKuethe
andChow.xivTwoothersimilarprogramsareavailable.AMATLABprogram,Pablo,writtenat
KTHinSwedenisavailableontheweb, xv aswellastheprogrambyProfessorDrelaatMIT,
XFOIL.xvi MoransprogramincludesasubroutinetogeneratetheordinatesfortheNACA4
digitand5digitairfoils(seeAppendixAforadescriptionoftheseairfoilsections).Themain
drawbackistherequirementforatrailingedgethicknessthatisexactlyzero.Toaccommodate
thisrestriction,theordinatesgeneratedinternallyhavebeenalteredslightlyfromtheofficial
ordinates.Theextensionoftheprogramtohandlearbitraryairfoilsisanexercise.Thefreestream
velocityin PANEL isassumedtobeunity,sincetheinviscidsolutionincoefficientformis
independentofscale.
PANELsnodepointsaredistributedemployingthewidelyusedcosinespacingfunction.
Theequationforthisspacingisgivenbydefiningthepointsonthethicknessdistributiontobe
placedat:
2/14/2015
i 1
xi 1
1 cos
i 1,..., N .
c 2
N 1
(531)
Theselocationsarethenalteredwhencamberisadded(seeEqns.A1andA2inApp.A).
This approach is used to provide a smoothly varying distribution of panel node points that
concentratepointsaroundtheleadingandtrailingedges.
AnexampleoftheaccuracyofprogramPANELisillustratedinFig.5.10,wheretheresults
from PANEL fortheNACA4412airfoilarecomparedwithresultsobtainedfromanexact
conformalmappingoftheairfoil(ConformalmappingmethodsweredescribedinChapter4.
Conformal transformations can also be used to generate meshes of points for use in CFD
methods).Theagreementisnearlyperfect.
Numericalstudiesneedtobeconductedtodeterminehowmanypanelsarerequiredtoobtain
accurateresults.Bothforcesandmomentsandpressuredistributionsshouldbeexamined.You
canselectthenumberofpanelsusedtorepresentthesurface.Howmanyshouldyouuse?Most
computationalprogramsprovidetheuserwithfreedomtodecidehowdetailed(expensivein
dollarsortime)thecalculationsshouldbe.Oneofthefirstthingstheusershoulddoisevaluate
howdetailedthecalculationshouldbetoobtainthelevelofaccuracydesired.Inthe PANEL
codeyourcontrolisthroughthenumberofpanelsused.
2/14/2015
-2.50
PANEL
Exact Conformal Mapping
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
Cp
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
x/c
Figure5.10.ComparisonofresultsfromprogramPANELwithanessentiallyexact
mappingsolutionfortheNACA4412airfoilat6angleofattack.
Wecheckthesensitivityofthesolutiontothenumberofpanelsbycomparingforceand
momentresultsandpressuredistributionswithincreasingnumbersofpanels.Thisisdoneusing
twodifferentmethods.Figures5.11and5.12presentthechangeofdragandlift,respectively,by
varyingthenumberofpanels.For PANEL,whichusesaninviscidincompressibleflowfield
model,thedragshouldbeexactlyzero.Thedragcoefficientfoundbyintegratingthepressures
overtheairfoilisanindicationoftheerrorinthenumericalscheme.Thedragobtainedusinga
surface(ornearfield)pressureintegrationisanumericallysensitivecalculation,andisastrict
testofthemethod.Thefiguresshowthedraggoingtozero,andtheliftbecomingconstantasthe
numberofpanelsincrease.Inthisstyleofpresentationitishardtoseeexactlyhowquicklythe
solutionisconvergingtoafixedvalue.
TheresultsgiveninFigs.5.11and5.12indicatethat6080panels(30upper,30lowerfor
example)shouldbeenoughpanels.Notethattheliftcoefficientispresentedinanextremely
2/14/2015
expandedscale,andthedragcoefficientpresentedinFig.5.13alsousesanexpandedscale.
Becausedragistypicallyasmallnumber,itisfrequentlydescribedindragcounts,where1drag
countisaCDof0.0001.
Toestimatethelimitforaninfinitelylargenumberofpanelstheresultscanbeplottedasa
functionofthereciprocalofthenumberofpanels.Thusthelimitresultoccursas1/n goesto
zero.Figures5.13,5.14,and5.15presenttheresultsinthismannerforthecasegivenabove,and
withthepitchingmomentincludedforexaminationintheanalysis.
0.012
NACA0012Airfoil,=8
0.010
C
0.008
D
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
20
40
60
No.ofPanels
80
100
120
Figure5.11.Changeofdragwithnumberofpanels.
0.980
NACA0012Airfoil,=8
0.975
C
0.970
L
0.965
0.960
0.955
0.950
20
40
60
80
No.ofPanels
100
Figure5.12.Changeofliftwithnumberofpanels.
2/14/2015
120
0.012
NACA0012Airfoil,=8
0.010
0.008
C
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
1/n
0.04
0.05
0.06
Figure5.13.Changeofdragwiththeinverseofthenumberofpanels.
TheresultsgiveninFigures5.13through5.15showthattheprogram PANEL produces
resultsthatarerelativelyinsensitivetothenumberofpanelsoncefiftyorsixtypanelsareused,
andbyextrapolatingto1/n=0anestimateofthelimitingvaluecanbeobtained.
0.980
NACA0012Airfoil,=8
0.975
C
0.970
L
0.965
0.960
0.955
0.950
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
1/n
Figure5.14.Changeofliftwiththeinverseofthenumberofpanels.
2/14/2015
0.240
NACA0012Airfoil,=8
0.242
C
0.244
m
0.246
0.248
0.250
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
1/n
Figure5.15.Changeofpitchingmomentwiththeinverseofthenumberofpanels.
Inadditiontoforcesandmoments,thesensitivityofthepressuredistributionstochangesin
paneldensitymustalsobeinvestigated:pressuredistributionsareshowninFigs.5.16and5.17.
The20and60panelresultsaregiveninFig.5.16.Inthiscaseitappearsthatthepressure
distributioniswelldefinedwith60panels.ThisisconfirmedinFigure517,whichdemonstrates
thatitisalmostimpossibletoidentifythedifferencesbetweenthe60and100panelcases.This
type of study should (in fact must) be conducted when using computational aerodynamics
methods.
2/14/2015
5.00
NACA0012airfoil,=8
4.00
20panels
60panels
3.00
2.00
C
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.0
0.2
0.4
x/c
0.6
0.8
1.0
Figure5.16.PressuredistributionfromprogrmPANEL,
comparingresultsusing20and60panels.
5.00
NACA0012airfoil,=8
4.00
60panels
100panels
3.00
2.00
C
P
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.0
0.2
0.4
x/c
0.6
0.8
Figure5.17.PressuredistributionfromprogramPANEL,
comparingresultsusing60and100panels.
2/14/2015
1.0
Having examined the convergence of the mathematical solution, we investigate the
agreementwithexperimentaldata.Figure5.18comparestheliftcoefficientsfromtheinviscid
solutions obtained from PANEL with experimental data from Abbott and von Doenhof.xvii
Agreementisgoodatlowanglesofattack,wheretheflowisfullyattached.Theagreement
deterioratesastheangleofattackincreases,andviscouseffectsstarttoshowupasareductionin
liftwithincreasingangleofattack,until,finally,theairfoilstalls.Theinviscidsolutionsfrom
PANELcannotcapturethispartoftheflowphysics.Thedifferentstallcharacterbetweenthe
two airfoils arises due to different flow separation locations on the different airfoils. The
camberedairfoilseparatesatthetrailingedgefirst.Stalloccursgraduallyastheseparationpoint
movesforwardontheairfoilwithincreasingincidence.Theuncamberedairfoilstallsduetoa
suddenseparationattheleadingedge.Anexaminationofthedifferenceinpressuredistributions
canbemadetoseewhythismightbethecase.
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
CL,NACA0012PANEL
CL,NACA0012exp.data
0.00
CL,NACA4412PANEL
CL,NACA4412exp.data
0.50
5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
2/14/2015
15.0
20.0
25.0
Figure5.18.ComparisonofPANELliftpredictionswithexperimentaldata(Ref.
Error:Referencesourcenotfound).
Thepitchingmomentcharacteristicsarealsoimportant.Figure5.19providesacomparison
of the PANEL pitching moment predictions (taken about the quarter chord point) with
experimental data. In this case the calculations indicate that the computed location of the
aerodynamic center, dCm / dC L 0 , is not exactly at the quarter chord, although the
experimentaldataisveryclosetothisvalue.TheuncamberedNACA0012datashowsnearly
zero pitching moment until flow separation starts to occur. The cambered airfoil shows a
significantnosedownpitchingmoment, Cm0,andatrendwithangleofattackduetoviscous
effects thatisexactlyoppositetheinviscidprediction. Thisoccursbecausetheseparationis
movingforwardfromthetrailingedgeoftheairfoilandtheloadovertheaftportionoftheairfoil
doesnotincreaseasfastastheforwardloading.Thisleadstoanoseuppitchingmomentuntil
eventuallytheseparationcausestheairfoiltostall,resultinginanosedownpitchingmoment.
0.10
0.05
0.00
Cm
0.05
c/4
0.10
0.15
Cm,NACA0012PANEL
Cm,NACA4412PANEL
Cm,NACA0012exp.data
Cm,NACA4412exp.data
0.20
0.25
0.30
5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Figure5.19ComparisonofPANELmomentpredictionswithexperimentaldata,(Ref.
2/14/2015
Wedonotcomparethedragprediction fromPANELwithexperimentaldata.Fortwo
dimensionalincompressibleinviscidflowthedragistheoreticallyzero.Intheactualcase,drag
arisesfromskinfrictioneffects,furtheradditionalformdragduetothesmallchangeofpressure
onthebodyduetotheboundarylayer(whichprimarilypreventsfullpressurerecoveryatthe
trailingedge),anddragduetoincreasingviscouseffectswithincreasingangleofattack.Awell
designedairfoilwillhaveadragvalueverynearlyequaltotheskinfrictionandnearlyinvariant
withincidenceuntilthemaximumliftcoefficientisapproached.
In addition to the force and moment comparisons, we need to compare the pressure
distributionspredictedwith PANEL toexperimentaldata.Figure5.20providesoneexample.
TheNACA4412experimentalpressuredistributioniscomparedwith PANEL predictions.In
generaltheagreementisverygood.Theprimaryareaofdisagreementisatthetrailingedge.
Here viscous effects act to prevent the recovery of the experimental pressure to the levels
predictedbytheinviscidsolution.Thedisagreementonthelowersurfaceisalittlesurprising,
andsuggeststhattheangleofattackfromtheexperimentmaynotbeprecise.
1.2
datafromNACAR646
0.8
0.4
Cp
0.0
PredictionsfromPANEL
0.4
=1.875
M=0.191
Re=720,000
transitionfree
0.8
1.2
2/14/2015
0.0
0.2
NACA4412airfoil
0.4
x/c
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Figure5.20.ComparisonofpressuredistributionfromPANELwithdata,xviii
Panelmethodsoftenhavetroublewithaccuracyatthetrailingedgeofairfoilswithcusped
trailing edges, when the included angle at the trailing edge is zero. Figure 5.21 shows the
predictionsofprogram PANEL comparedwithanexactmappingsolution(aFLO36xix runat
lowMachnumber)fortwocases.Figure5.21aisforacasewithasmalltrailingedgeangle:the
NACA 651012, while Fig. 5.21b is for the more standard 6A version of the airfoil. The
correspondingairfoilshapesareshownFig.5.22.TheloopinthepressuredistributioninFig.
5.21aisanindicationofaproblemwiththemethod.
0.60
0.60
PANEL
0.40
FLO36
0.20
Cp
0.00
FLO36
0.40
PANEL
0.20
Cp
0.00
0.20
0.20
NACA651012
=8.8
0.40
0.60
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
X/C
a.6series,cuspedTE
0.40
1.1
0.60
0.6
NACA651A012
=8.8
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
X/C
b.6Aseries,finiteTEangle
Figure5.21.PANELPerformanceneartheairfoiltrailingedge
0.05
y/c
0.00
NACA65(1)012
NACA65A012
0.05
0.70
0.80
x/c
0.90
1.00
Figure5.22.Comparisonatthetrailingedgeof6and6Aseriesairfoilgeometries.
Thiscasedemonstratesasituationwherethisparticularpanelmethodisnotaccurate.Isthis
a practical consideration? Yes and no. The 6series airfoils were theoretically derived by
specifyingapressuredistributionanddeterminingtherequiredshape.Thesmalltrailingedge
2/14/2015
angles (less than half those of the 4digit series), cusped shape, and the unobtainable zero
thicknessspecifiedatthetrailingedgeresultedinobjectionsfromtheaircraftindustry.These
airfoilswereverydifficulttomanufactureanduseonoperationalaircraft.Subsequently,the6A
seriesairfoilswereintroducedtoremedytheproblem.Theseairfoilshadlargertrailingedge
angles(approximatelythesameasthe4digitseries),andweremadeupofnearlystraight(or
flat)surfacesoverthelast20%oftheairfoil.Mostapplicationsof6seriesairfoilstodayactually
usethemodified6Aseriesthicknessdistribution.Thisisanareawheretheusershouldcheckthe
performanceofaparticularpanelmethod.
5.2.3GeometryandDesign
Effects of Shape Changes on Pressure Distributions: So far we have been discussing
aerodynamicsfromananalysispointofview.Todevelopanunderstandingofthetypicaleffects
ofaddinglocalmodificationstotheairfoilsurface,Exercise5providesaframeworkforthe
readertocarryoutaninvestigationtohelpunderstandwhathappenswhenchangesaremadeto
the airfoil shape. It is also worthwhile to investigate the very powerful effects that small
deflectionsofthetrailingedgecanproduce.ThisrevealsthepoweroftheKuttacondition,and
alertstheaerodynamicisttothebasisfortheimportanceofviscouseffectsatthetrailingedge.
Makingadhocchangestoanairfoilshapeisextremelyeducationalwhenimplementedinan
interactivecomputerprogram,wheretheaerodynamicistcaneasilymakeshapechangesandsee
theeffectonthepressuredistributionimmediately.Anoutstandingcodethatdoesthishasbeen
createdbyIlanKrooandisknownas PANDA. xx Strictlyspeaking, PANDA isnotapanel
method,butitisanaccuratesubsonicairfoilpredictionmethod.
Shape for a specified pressure distribution:Thereisanotherwaythataerodynamicistsview
thedesignproblem.Althoughthelocalmodificationapproachdescribedaboveisusefultomake
minorchangesinairfoilpressuredistributions,oftentheaerodynamicdesignerwantstofindthe
geometricshapecorrespondingtoaprescribedpressuredistributionfromscratch.Thisproblem
isknownastheinverseproblem.Thisproblemismoredifficultthantheanalysisproblem.Itis
possibletoprescribeapressuredistributionforwhichnogeometryexists.Evenifthegeometry
exists,itmaynotbeacceptablefromastructuralstandpoint.Fortwodimensionalincompressible
flowitispossibletoobtainconditionsonthesurfacevelocitydistributionthatensurethata
2/14/2015
closedairfoilshapeexists.ExcellentdiscussionsofthisproblemhavebeengivenbyVolpe xxiand
Sloof.xxii AtwodimensionalinversepanelmethodhasbeendevelopedbyBristow.xxiii XFOIL
alsohasaninversedesignoption.Error:ReferencesourcenotfoundNumericaloptimizationcan
alsobeusedtofindtheshapecorrespondingtoaprescribedpressuredistribution.xxiv
2/14/2015
5.2.4IssuesintheProblemformulationfor3Dpotentialflowoveraircraft
The extension of panel methods to three dimensions leads to fundamental questions
regardingtheproperspecificationofthepotentialflowproblemforflowoveranaircraft.The
mainproblemishowtomodelthewakecomingfromthefuselageaftofthewingandwingtips.
Theissueishowtospecifythewakebehindsurfaceswithoutsharpedges.TheKuttacondition
appliestodistinctedges,andisnotavailableiftherearenotwelldefinedtrailingedges.
Insomemethodswakesarehandledautomatically.Inothermethods thewakesmustbe
specifiedbytheuser.Thisprovidescompletecontroloverthesimulation,butmeansthattheuser
must understand precisely what the problem statement should be. The details of the wake
specification often cause users difficulties in making panel models. Figure 5.23, from
Erickson,Error:Referencesourcenotfound showsanexampleofapanelmodelincludingthe
detailsofthewakes.Forhighliftcasesandforcaseswherewakesfromonesurfacepassnear
another,wakedeflectionmustbecomputedaspartofthesolution.Figure5.24comesfromaone
weekshortcoursethatwasgiventoprospectiveusersofanadvancedpanelmethod, PAN
AIR.xxvEachsurfacehastohaveawake,andthewakesneedtobeconnected,asillustratedin
Fig.5.24.Themodelingcanbecomplicated.Specialattentiontowakelayoutmustbemadeby
theuser.Toensurethattheproblemisproperlyspecifiedandtoexaminetheentireflowfieldin
detailacompletegraphicscapabilityisrequired.
Hessxxviprovidesanexcellentdiscussionoftheseproblems.Manydifferentapproacheshave
beenused.CarmichaelandEricksonxxvii alsoprovidegoodinsightintotherequirementsfora
properpanelmethodformulation.Similarly,references Error:Referencesourcenotfound and
Error:Referencesourcenotfoundprovidegoodoverviews.
Asillustratedabove,apracticalaspectofusingpanelmethodsistheneedtopayattentionto
details (actually true for all engineering work). This includes making sure that the outward
surfacenormalisorientedintheproperdirectionandthatallsurfacesareproperlyenclosed.
Aerodynamicspanelmethodsgenerallyusequadrilateralpanelstodefinethesurface.Sincethree
pointsdetermineaplane,thequadrilateralmaynotnecessarilydefineaconsistentflatsurface.In
practice,themethodsactuallydividepanelsintotriangularelementstodetermineanestimateof
theoutwardnormal.Itisalsoimportantthatedgesfitsothatthereisnoleakageinthepanel
2/14/2015
modelrepresentationofthesurface.Nathmanhasrecentlyextendedapanelmethodtohave
panelsincludewarp.xxviii
Figure5.23.IllustrationofthepanelmodelofanF16XL,Error:Reference
sourcenotfoundincludingthewakesusuallynotshowninfiguresofpanel
models,butcriticaltothemodel.
Figure5.24.Detailsofapanelmodelshowingthewakemodeldetailsandthatthewakes
areconnected.(fromaviewgraphpresentedataPANAIRusersshortcourse,Ref.Error:
Referencesourcenotfound)
2/14/2015
Thereisoneothersignificantdifferencebetweentwodimensionalandthreedimensional
panelmethods.Induceddragoccursevenininviscid,irrotationalflow,andthiscomponentof
dragcanbecomputedbyapanelmodel.However,itscalculationbyintegrationofpressures
overthesurfacerequiresextremeaccuracy,aswesawaboveforthetwodimensionalexample.
Theuseofafarfieldmomentumapproachismuchmoreaccurate.Fordragthisisknownasa
Trefftzplaneanalysis,seeKatzandPlotkin.Error:Referencesourcenotfound
2/14/2015
5.2.5Exampleapplicationsofpanelmethods
Manyexamplesofpanelmethodshavebeenpresentedintheliterature.Figure5.25shows
anexampleoftheuseofapanelmodeltoevaluatetheeffectofthespaceshuttleontheBoeing
747.Thisisaclassicexample.Otherusesincludethesimulationofwindtunnelwalls,support
interference, and ground effects. Panel methods are also used in ocean engineering. Recent
AmericasCupdesignshavebeendependentonpanelmethodsforhullandkeeldesign.The
effectsofthefreesurfacecanbetreatedusingpanelmethods.
Figure5.25.ThespaceshuttlemountedonaBoeing747.
(fromthecoverofanAIAAShortCoursewiththetitleAppliedComputationalAerodynamics)
Oneexamplehasbeenselectedtopresentinsomedetail.Itisanexcellentillustrationof
howapanelmethodisusedindesign,andprovidesarealisticexampleofthetypicalagreement
thatcanbeexpectedbetweenapanelmethodandexperimentaldatainademandingrealworld
application.TheworkwasdonebyEdTinocoandcoworkersatBoeing. xxixFigure5.26shows
themodificationsrequiredtomodifyaBoeing737200tothe737300configuration.Thepanel
methodwasusedtoinvestigatethedesignofanewhighliftsystem.TheyusedPANAIR,which
is a Boeing developed advanced panel method. xxx Figure 5.27 shows the panel method
representationoftheairplane.
2/14/2015
Figure5.26.TheBoeing737300relativetothemodel737200(Ref.Error:Reference
sourcenotfound.).
Figure 5.27.Thepanelrepresentation ofthe737300with15flapdeflection (Ref.

2/14/2015
Anunderstandingofthewingflowfieldfortwodifferenttakeoffflapsettingswasdesired.
Thecasesareflaps15,thenormaltakeoffsetting,andflaps1,thehighaltitude,hotday
setting.Theworkwasconductedinconcertwiththeflighttestprogramtoprovideinsightinto
theflighttestresultsbyprovidingcompleteflowfielddetailsnotavailablefromtheflighttest.
Thecomputationalmodelsused1750panelsforflaps1and2900panelsforflaps15.The
modelingusedtosimulatethisflowfieldillustratestypicalidealizationsemployedwhenapplying
panels methods to actual aircraft. Although typical, it is one of the most geometrically
complicatedexampleseverpublished.
Figure 528 shows the wing leading edge and nacelle. The inboard Krueger flap was
actuallymodeledasadoubletofzerothickness.Thepositionwasadjustedslightlytoallowthe
doubletsheettoprovideasimplematchingofthetrailingedgeoftheKruegerandtheleading
edgeofthewing.Thesetypesofslightadjustmentstokeeppanelschemesrelativelysimpleare
commonlyused.Theoutboardleadingandtrailingedgeflapgeometrieswerealsomodifiedfor
use in this inviscid simulation. Figure 529a) shows the actual and computational flaps 1
geometry.Inthiscasetheairfoilwasmodeledasasingleelementairfoil.Theflaps15trailing
edgecomparisonbetweentheactualandcomputationalgeometryisshowninFig.529b).The
tripleslottedflapwasmodeledasasingleelementflap.Atthissettingthegapbetweenthe
forwardvaneandmainflapisclosed,andthegapbetweenthemainandaftflapisverysmall.
Figure5.28.Inboardwingleadingedgeandnacelledetails(Ref.Error:Referencesource
notfound).
2/14/2015
a)Comparisonofactualandcomputationalwinggeometryfortheflaps1case(Ref.Error:
Referencesourcenotfound).
b)Actualandcomputationaltrailingedgegeometryfortheflaps15case(Ref.Error:Reference
sourcenotfound).
Figure5.29.Examplesofcomputationalmodelingforarealapplication.
Severalthreedimensionalmodelingconsiderationsalsorequiredattention.Intheflaps1
caseshowninFig.5.30,spanwisediscontinuitiesincludedtheendoftheoutboardleadingedge
slatandtrailingedgediscontinuitiesatthebackofthenacelleinstallation(calledthethrustgate)
betweentheinboardandoutboardflaps.Attheoutboardleadingedgetheedgesoftheslatand
wingwerepaneledtopreventleakage.A0.1inchgapwasleftbetweenthesesurfaces.Atthe
2/14/2015
trailingedgediscontinuityawakewasincludedtomodelacontinuoustrailingedgefromwhich
atrailingvortexsheetcouldbeshed.
Figure5.30.Spanwisediscontinuitydetailsrequiringmodelingforflaps1case(Ref.Error:
Similarconsiderationsarerequiredfortheflaps15.Here,specialcarewastakentomake
surethattheconfigurationwasclosed,andcontainednoholesinthesurfaceattheendsofthe
flapsegments.
Anotherconsiderationisthenacellemodel.Thisrequiresthespecificationoftheinletflow
attheengineface,amodelofthestrutwake,andboththeouterbypassairplumeandthe
primarywakefromtheinnerhotgasjet.Figure5.31showsthedetails.
2/14/2015
Figure5.31Nacellemodelillustratingtheapplicationofboundaryconditions(Ref.Error:
2/14/2015
CompletedetailsofthemodelarecontainedinRef.Error:Referencesourcenotfound.With
themodelcomplete,thesolutionwasobtained.Thespanwisedistributionofairfoilsectionlift
coefficientsispresentedinFigure532.Thefirstpartofthefigureshowstheresultsforthe
flaps1case,andthesecondpartofthefigurepresentstheflaps15case.Inbothcasesthejig
shape and flight shape including aeroelastic deformation are included. This is another
considerationinmakingaproperaerodynamicsimulation.Inbothcasestheshapeincludingthe
deformationunderloadshowsmuchbetteragreementwithflightandwindtunneldata.Notice
thelossofliftonthewingatthenacellestation,andthedecreaseinliftoutboardofthetrailing
edgeflaplocation.
a)flaps1case
b)flaps15case
2/14/2015
Figure5.32.SpanwisedistributionofliftcoefficientontheBoeing737300(Ref.Error:
Figure533presentsthechangeinsectionliftcoefficientwithangleofattackatseveralspan
stations.TheagreementbetweenPANAIRandflighttestisbetterfortheflaps1case.Viscous
effectsarebecomingimportantfortheflaps15case.
a)flaps1case
2/14/2015
b)flaps15case
Figure5.33.Comparisonofsectionliftcoefficientchangewithangleofattack(Ref.Error:
Referencesourcenotfound)
2/14/2015
Figure534completesthisexamplebypresentingthecomparisonofpressuredistributions
forthetwocasesatfourspanwisestations.Theflaps1caseagreementisgenerallygood.
Calculations are presented for both the actual angle of attack, and the angle of attack that
matchestheliftcoefficient.Matchingliftcoefficientinsteadofangleofattackisacommon
practiceincomputationalaerodynamics.Consideringthesimplificationsmadetothegeometry
andtheabsenceofthesimulationofviscouseffectstheagreementisverygood.Theflaps15
casestartstoshowtheproblemsthatarisefromthesesimplifications.Thisisagoodexampleof
theuseofapanelmethod.Itillustratesalmostalloftheconsiderationsthatmustbeaddressedin
actualapplications.
a)flaps1caseb)flaps15case
2/14/2015
Figure5.34.Comparisonofpressuredistributionsbetweenflightandcomputations
forthe737300,solidlineisPANAIRatflightlift,dashedlineisPANAIRatflight
angleofattack(Ref.Error:Referencesourcenotfound).
2/14/2015
5.2.6UsingPanelMethods
Commonsenserulesforpanels
Varythesizeofpanelssmoothly
Concentratepanelswheretheflowfieldand/orgeometryischangingrapidly
Dontspendmoremoneyandtime(i.e.,numbersofpanels)thanrequired
Panel placement and variation ofpanel size affect the quality ofthe solution. However,
extremesensitivityofthesolutiontothepanellayoutisanindicationofanimproperlyposed
problem.Ifthishappens,theusershouldinvestigatetheproblemthoroughly.
Panelmethodsareanaidtotheaerodynamicist.Youmustusetheresultsasaguidetohelp
youdevelopyourownjudgment.Rememberthatthepanelmethodsolutionisanapproximation
of the real life problem; an idealized representation of the flowfield. An understanding of
aerodynamicsthatprovidesanintuitiveexpectationofthetypesofresultsthatmaybeobtained,
andanappreciationofhowtorelateyouridealizationtotherealflow,isrequiredtogetthemost
fromthemethods.Thisinsightrequiresexperienceandstudy.
WhataPanelMethodCanandCan'tDo
1. Panelmethodsareinviscidsolutions.Youwillnotcaptureviscouseffectsexceptvia
usermodelingbychangingthegeometry.
2. Solutionsareinvalidassoonastheflowdevelopslocalsupersoniczones
[i.e., Cp < Cpcrit]. For twodimensional isentropic flow, the exact value of Cp for
criticalflowis:
C pcrit
M 2
1
1
M
(5.32)
5.2.7Advancedpanelmethods:WhatisaHigherOrderPanelMethod?
Socalledhigherorderpanelmethodsusesingularitydistributionsthatarenotconstant
overthepanel,andmayalsousepanelsthatarenonplanar.Higherordermethodswereactually
foundtobecrucialinobtainingaccuratesolutionsforthePrandtlGlauertEquationatsupersonic
speeds. At supersonic speeds, the PrandtlGlauert equation is actually a wave equation
(hyperbolic), andrequires muchmoreaccurate numerical solutionthanthe subsoniccaseto
avoidnoisypressuredistributionsasthesolution(MagnusandEptonError:Referencesource
notfound).However,subsonichigherorderpanelmethods,althoughnotasimportantasthe
2/14/2015
supersonicflowcase,havebeenstudiedinsomedetail.Intheory,goodresultscanbeobtained
usingfarfewerpanels withhigherordermethods.Inpractice theneedtoresolvegeometric
detailsoftenleadstotheneedtousesmallpanelsanyway,andalltheadvantagesofhigherorder
panellingmethodsarenotnecessarilyobtained.Nevertheless,sinceahigherorderpanelmethod
mayalsobearelativelynewprogramtakingadvantageofmanyyearsofexperience,thehigher
ordercodemaystillbeagoodcandidateforuse.
5.2.8Todaysstandardprograms:abriefsurvey
Panel methods are widely used in the aircraft industry, and have been for a long time.
Comparisonsbetweenvariouspanelcodeshavebeenmade(e.g., Margason,etal.xxxi),andin
general, all the new professionallydeveloped codes can be made to work well (recall the
attentiontodetailrequiredillustratedabove).Theselectionofaspecificcodewilllikelybebased
onnontechnicalconsiderations,suchascostoravailability.Oneofthenewestpanelcodesis
knownasPMARC,xxxiiforPanelMethodAmesResearchCenter,andhasreceivedagreatdealof
developmenteffort.Weprovideabriefdescriptionofthecodesanewaerodynamicistwillmost
likelyencounter,eitheratworkorreadingtheliterature.Tables51through53arebasedonthe
summarybyMagnusandEpton,Error:Referencesourcenotfound withslightupdating,and
providespecificreferences.
PANAIR Boeingdevelopedcode,fundedbyavarietyofgovernmentagencies.
Thiscodeprovidestotalflexibility, i.e.itisreallyanintegralequationsolverandnotan
aerodynamiciststoolperse.Itisahigherorderpanelmethod,andcanhandlebothsubsonic
andsupersonicflow.Itisrelativelyexpensiveanddifficulttorun(aPANAIRuserwould
takemonthstotrain,anditwouldprobablybecomehisprimaryjob).
Toeffectivelyusethecodegoodpreandpostprocessingsystemsmustbeavailable.
AlthoughBoeinghasthesesystemsinplace,theywereinternallydevelopedandarenot
availableoutsidethecompany.
VSAEROAMIdeveloped(AnalyticalMechanicsInc.,FrankDvorakandBrianMaskew).
Thiscodewasoriginallyalowordermethod,buthasbeenextendedtoincludevariationsof
thesingularitystrengthoverapanel,andhasnowbeendescribedasmultiorder.Error:
ReferencesourcenotfoundItisforsubsonicflowonly.Ithandlesgeneralgeometries,and
includesoptionstotreatviscouseffectsandvortexflows.OriginallydevelopedforNASA,
thecodehasbeenmuchfurtherdevelopedbyAMIasacommercialproduct(theyalsohavea
plottingpackageandothersupportingsoftwareavailableforpurchase)Thiscoderequires
considerableusertraining.SupportfromAMIisavailable,butnoneofthecodesarepriced
2/14/2015
for student use. Typical development enhancements of the code are described by
Nathman.xxxiii
Thepublicdomainversionofthiscodewasobtainedbyseveralgroupsthatworkedonthe
designoftheAmericasCupYachtcompetitorsinthemid1980s.Thecodewasusedforhull
andkeeldesign.Oneofthemodificationsthatwasmadeforthisapplicationwastheaddition
ofthefreesurfacerepresentingtheairwaterinterface(recallthatthefreesurfaceproblem
means that the surface displacement is unknown, and the boundary condition is that a
constantpressureexistsattheinterface).
Versions of the Hess Code further developments ofthe research team at Douglas, now
Boeing,McDonnellDouglasdevelopednumerousversionsundervariousgovernmentcontracts,
anditseemstobeavailablemainlyatNavyfacilities.
Woodward: An old panel method that is sometimes encountered is the code known as the
Woodward or WoodwardCarmichael code. Woodward's first methods were developed
whilehewasatBoeing,andweresupportedbyNASAAmes,primarilyfortheUSSupersonic
Transport program (which was an important national effort in the 1960s). Subsequently,
Woodward went into business and continued to develop codes. USSAERO treats both
supersonicandsubsonicflow,andaversionthatcombinesanumberoffeaturesofeachcode,as
wellasadditionaldesignoptionsisalsoavailable,andknownasWoodward12orW12SC3.
PMARCThisisthenewestpanelmethodcode,andwasdevelopedatNASAAmestoprovide
anextremelyflexiblemethodtosimulateawiderangeofverygeneralgeometries.Anexampleis
thesimulationofhighliftsystemsandjetexhaustsforVSTOLaircraft.Thecodeisalower
orderpanelmethod,andcansimulateunsteadyaswellassteadyflow.Thewakepositioncanbe
obtainedaspartofthesolution.Ithasbeenusedforunderwaterapplications aswellasfor
aircraft.
Thehistoryofpanelmethodsisillustratedinthefollowingtables.Table5.1summarizes
someofthekeyearlymethodsthatweredeveloped.(W12SC3 isincludedbecauseitwasa
valuable combination of two early codes,xxxiv providing significant new design capability,
particularlyatsupersonicspeeds;despitethetitleofthereport,W12SC3canberunatsubsonic
speeds.) Table 5.2 reviews the extremely active era of the development of advanced panel
methods.Finally,Table5.3providesdetailsonthecurrentproductioncodeslikelytobeusedon
currentaerodynamicdesignandanalysisprojects.Panelsmethodscanalsotreatunsteadyflows,
witharecentexamplebeingthedevelopmentsmadebyvanZyl.xxxv
2/14/2015
Source code and PC executable versions of the PAN AIR and Woodward codes are
availableforalowprice,togetherwithacollectionofotherprogramsaerodynamicanalysisand
designprograms,fromPublicDomainAeronauticalSoftware.xxxvi
2/14/2015
Table5.1ComparisonofSomeMajorPanelMethodPrograms:EarlyCodes
Originatorand
MethodName
Hessand
Smithxxxvii
(Douglas)
Rubbertxxxviii
(vortexlattice)
Woodwardxxxix
(WoodwardI)
Year
1962
Panel
Geometry
flat
Source
Type
constant
Doublet
Type
none
Boundary
Conditions
Specificatonof
normalflow
Restrictions
1964
flat
none
constant
normalflow
1967
flat
constant
linear
normalflow
Rubbertand
Saarisxl
(BoeingA230)
HessIxli
1968
flat
constant
constant
normalflow
nearlyconstant
paneldensity
1972
flat
constant
linear
normalflow
wingsand
bodiesonly
USSAEROxlii
(WoodwardII)
1973
flat
W12SC3Error:
Reference
sourcenot
found
(Grumman)
1983
flat
Comments
nonlifting
wingsand
bodiesonly
planarwings
only
wingsmustbe
planar
subsonic
and
supersonic,
analysis
only
combines
Woodward
I&II
features
mixeddesign
andanalysis
Table5.2ComparisonofSomeMajorPanelMethodPrograms:AdvancedMethods
Originator
and
Method
Name
Roberts
and
Rundlexliii
Mercer,
Weberand
Lesfordxliv
Year
Panel
Geometry
Source
Type
Doublet
Type
Boundary
Conditions
1973
paraboloidal
quadratic
quadratic
normal
flow
1973
flat
none
Smooth,
cubic,
quadratic
Morino
andKuoxlv
(SOUSSA)
1974
continuous,
hyperboloida
l
constant
constant
Normal
flowin
least
squares
sense
potential
Johnson
and
Rubbertxlvi
Ehlersand
Rubbertxlvii
(Machline
paneling)
1975
paraboloidal
linear
quadratic
normal
flow
1976
flat
linear
continuous
quadratic
normal
flow
2/14/2015
Restrictions
planarwings
Comments
Numerical
integrations,very
expensive
Subsonic/supersonic,
cubicspanwise,
quadraticchordwise
nothin
configurations
unsteady
Planarwings,
special
paneling
supersonicflow
Ehlerset
al.xlviii
(PANAIR
pilotcode)
1977
continuous
piecewiseflat
linear
continuous
quadratic
arbitrary
in,
subsonicand
supersonic
Table5.3ComparisonofMajorPanelMethodPrograms:ProductionCodes
Originatorand
MethodName
MCAIRxlix
(MacDonnell)
PAN
AIRError:
Reference
sourcenot
found
(Boeing)
HessIIl
(Douglas)
VSAEROli
(AMI)
QUADPANlii
(Lockheed)
PMARCErro
r:Reference
sourcenot
found
(NASAAmes)
Year
Panel
Geometry
Source
Type
Boundary
Conditions
constant
Doublet
Type
quadratic
1980
flat
1980
continuous
piecewise
flat
continuous
linear
continuous
quadratic
arbitrary in
,
Subsonicand
supersonic
1981
parabolic
linear
quadratic
1981
flat
constant
constant
normal
flow
Exterior
andinterior
normal
flow
subsonic
1981
flat
constant
constant
1988
flat
constant
constant
Restrictions
Comments
Designoption
Unsteady,wake
rollup
5.3VortexLatticeMethods
VortexLatticeMethods(vlm)aresimilartopanelmethodsbuteasiertouseandcapableof
providingremarkableinsightintowingaerodynamics andcomponentinteraction. Theywere
amongtheearliestmethodsutilizingcomputerstoactuallyassistaerodynamicistsinestimating
aircraftaerodynamics.VortexlatticemethodsarebasedonsolutionstoLaplacesEquation,and
aresubjecttothesamebasictheoreticalrestrictionsthatapplytopanelmethods.
Asacomparison,mostvortexlatticemethodsare:
Similar to Panel methods:
singularitiesareplacedonasurface
thenoflowthroughconditionissatisfiedatanumberofcontrolpoints
asystemoflinearalgebraicequationsissolvedtodeterminesingularitystrengths
Different from Panel methods:
2/14/2015
Orientedtowardliftingeffects,andclassicalformulationsignorethickness
Boundaryconditions(BCs)areappliedonameansurface,nottheactualsurface
(notanexactsolutionofLaplacesequationoverabody,butembodiessome
additionalapproximations,i.e.,togetherwiththefirstitem,wefindCp,
notCpupperandCplower)
Singularitiesarenotdistributedovertheentiresurface
Orientedtowardcombinationsofthinliftingsurfaces
(recallpanelmethodshadnolimitationsonthickness).
Vortexlatticemethodswerefirstformulatedinthelate1930s,andthemethodincludeswing
tip vortex effects through the use of a trailing vortex filament system. It was first called a
VortexLatticein1943byFaulkner.Theconceptisextremelysimple,butbecauseofitspurely
numericalapproach(i.e.,noanswersareavailableatallwithoutfindingthenumericalsolutionof
a matrix too large for routine hand calculation) practical applications awaited sufficient
development of computersthe early 1960s saw widespread adoption of the method. A
workshop was devoted to these methods at NASA in the mid 1970s.liii A nearly universal
standardforvortexlatticepredictionswasestablishedbyacodedevelopedatNASALangley,
whoseauthorsincludeMargasonandLamar liv,LamarandGloss,lvandLamarandHerbert.lvi,lvii It
isgenerallyknownastheLamarVortexLatticeMethod.Eachnewversionhadconsiderably
morecapabilitythanthepreviousversion.Thefinaldevelopmentinthisseriesisdesignated
VLM4.997.Theoriginalcodescouldhandletwoliftingsurfaces,whileVLM4.997canhandle
four.Manyotherpeoplehavewrittenvortexlatticemethodcodes.Thecurrentmethodsthatare
widelyusedarethecodebyDrelaandYoungren, AVL,lviii and Tornado,aMATLABcode
developedbyTomasMelinatKTHinSweden. lixVORLAX,lxaspartoftheHASCcodelxiisalso
widely used. AMI, the authors of the VSAERO panel method described above have also
released a vortex lattice code, VLAERO.lxii The vlm method is simple enough that many
studentshavewrittentheirowncodes,whichareeasilyexecutedoncurrentpersonalcomputers.
NoteworthyvariationsonthebasicmethodhavebeendevelopedbyLanlxiii (QuasiVortex
LatticeMethod),andMooklxivandcoworkers.Mookdevelopedvortexlatticeclassmethodsthat
treat flowfields that contain leading edge vortextype separation and also handle general
unsteadymotions.ThebookbyKatzandPlotkinError:Reference sourcenotfound contains
another variation, using vortex rings, and includes a FORTRAN code. Kay wrote a code lxv
2/14/2015
(JKayVLM)usingthemethodofKatzandPlotkintoestimatestabilityderivativesandthatcode
isalsoreadilyavailable.
Tounderstandthemethod,anumberofbasicconceptsmustbereviewed.Thenwedescribe
oneimplementationofthevlmmethod,anduseittoobtaininsightsintowingandwingcanard
aerodynamics.Naturally,themethodisbasedontheideaofavortexsingularityasthesolution
ofLaplacesequation.Agooddescriptionofthebasictheoryforvorticesininviscidflowand
thinwinganalysisiscontainedinKaramcheti,Error:Referencesourcenotfound pp.494496,
499500,and518534andhasbeenreviewedinChapter4.Agoodgeneraldescriptionofthe
vortexlatticemethodisgivenbyBertinandCummings.Error:ReferencesourcenotfoundAfter
someillustrationsoftheresultsfromvlmmethods,anexampleofavortexlatticemethodusedin
adesignmodeispresented,wherethecamberlinerequiredtoproduceaspecifiedloadingis
found.
2/14/2015
5.3.1Boundaryconditionsonthemeansurfaceandthepressurerelation
Animportantdifferencebetweenvortexlatticemethodsandpanelmethodsisthewayin
which the boundary conditions are handled. Typically, the vortex lattice method uses an
approximateboundaryconditiontreatment;thisboundaryconditioncanalsobeusedinother
circumstancestogoodadvantage.Thisisagoodtrickappliedaerodynamicistsshouldknow
andunderstand,andthatiswhyitiscoveredindetailhere.Ingeneral,thisapproachresultsin
thesocalledthinairfoilboundarycondition,andarisesbylinearizingandtransferringthe
boundaryconditionfromtheactualsurfacetoaflatmeanreferencesurface,thatistypicallya
constantcoordinatesurface.Consistentwiththeboundaryconditionsimplification,asimplified
relationbetweenthepressureandvelocityisalsopossible.Thesimplificationintheboundary
condition and pressurevelocity relation provides a basis for treating the problem as a
superpositionoftheliftandthicknesscontributionstotheaerodynamicresults.KaramchetiError:
Referencesourcenotfoundprovidesanexcellentdiscussionofthisapproach.
Tounderstandthethinairfoiltheoryboundaryconditiontreatment,weprovideanexamplein
twodimensions.Recall(fromEqn.254)thattheexactsurfaceboundaryconditionforsteady
inviscidflowis:
V n 0
(5.33)
on F(x, y) 0 y f (x) . Theunitnormalvector is n F(x, y) / F(x, y) andthevelocity

fieldisdefinedusingthenotationdefinedinFig.5.35.
Vsin
Vcos
Figure5.35.Basiccoordinatesystemforboundaryconditionanalysis.
2/14/2015
DefinethevelocitycomponentsofVas:
V V
q(x, y)
123
(5.34)
adisturbancevelocity
whereqisadisturbancevelocitywithcomponentsuandv.Ifweassumeirrotationalflow,then
thesecomponentsaredescribedintermsofascalarpotentialfunction, u=xandv=y.The
totalvelocityVthenbecomes(intermsofvelocitycomponents):
uTOT V cos u(x, y)
vTOT V sin v(x, y)
(5.35)
andwecanwriteouttheboundaryconditionas:
F
F
i
j 0
x
y
V n (uTOTi vTOT j)
or
F
F
cos u(x, y) V sin v(x, y) 0
x
y
(5.36)
(5.37)
onF(x,y)=0,andrecallingtherelationshipbetweenFandfgivenbelowEqn.(5.33):
F
df (x)
y f (x)
x x
dx
.
F
y f (x) 1
y y
(5.38)
SubstitutingforFinEq.(5.37)wehave:
V cos u
df
V sin v 0
dx
(5.39)
df
V sin
dx
(5.40)
which,solvingforv,is:
v V cos u
on y = f(x).Notethat v isdefinedintermsoftheunknown u.ThusEq.(5.40)isanonlinear

boundaryconditionandfurtheranalysisisneededtoobtainausefulrelation.*
Linearized form of the boundary condition
TherelationgivenabovebyEq.(5.40)isexact.Ithasbeenderivedasthestartingpointfor
thederivationofusefulrelationswhenthebody(whichisassumedtobeathinsurfaceatasmall
angleofattack)inducesdisturbancestothefreestreamvelocitythataresmallincomparisonto
*
Observethatevenwhentheflowfieldmodelisdefinedbyalinearpartialdifferentialequation,anassumption
whichwehavenotyetmade,theboundaryconditioncanmaketheproblemnonlinear.
2/14/2015
thefreestreamvelocity.Thusweassume: u << V
, v << V
,and F/x < F/y.Notethatthis
introducesabiasinthecoordinatesystemtosimplifytheanalysis,atypicalconsequenceof
introducingsimplifyingassumptions.Consistentwiththisassumption,thecomponentsofthe
freestreamvelocityare(rememberingthatisinradiansandsmall):
V cos V
V sin V
(5.41)
andtheexpressionforvinEq.(5.40)becomes:
v V u
DividingbyV
,
df
V
dx
v
u df
1
V
V dx
(5.42)
(5.43)
thelinearizedboundaryconditionisobtainedbyneglectingu/V
comparedwithunity(consistent
with the previous approximations). With this assumption, the linearized boundary condition
becomes:
v df
V dx
ony f (x) .
(5.44)
Thisformoftheboundaryconditionisnotvalidiftheflowdisturbanceislargecomparedto
thefreestreamvelocity{foraerodynamicallystreamlinedshapesthisisusuallyvalideverywhere
exceptattheleadingedgeoftheairfoil,whereastagnationpointexists(u=V
)andtheslopeis
infinite(df/dx= )}. Inpractice,alocalviolationofthisassumptionleadstoalocalerror.So,if
thedetailsoftheflowattheleadingedgearenotimportanttotheanalysis,whichsurprisinglyis
oftenthecaseatlowanglesofattack,thelinearizedboundaryconditioncanbeused.
Transfer of the boundary condition
AlthoughEqn.(5.44)islinear,itishardtoapplybecauseitisnotappliedonacoordinate
line.*Wenowuseafurtherapproximationofthisrelationtogettheusefulformofthelinearized
Thesimplificationintroducedbyapplyingboundaryconditionsonconstantcoordinatesurfacesjustifiestheuseof
ratherelaboratetransformations,whichwillbediscussedinmoredetailinChap.7,GeometryandGrids:Major
ConsiderationsinUsingComputationalAerodynamics.
2/14/2015
boundarycondition.UsingaTaylorseriesexpansionofthevcomponentofvelocityaboutthe
coordinateaxisweobtainthevvelocityonthesurface:
v{x, y f (x)} v(x,0) f (x)
v
... .
y y0
(5.45)
Forthethinsurfacesunderconsideration,f(x)issmall,andbecausethedisturbancesareassumed
small,v/yisalsosmall.Forexample,assumethatvandv/yarethesamesize,equalto0.1,
anddf/dyisalsoabout0.1.Therelationbetweenvontheairfoilsurfaceandtheaxisis:
v{x, y f (x)} (0.1) (0.1)(0.1) 0.1 0.01
{ .
neglect
(5.46)
Neglectingthesecondterm,weassume:
(5.47)
v{x, f (x)} v(x, 0) .
Wenowapplyboththeupperandlowersurfaceboundaryconditionsontheaxisy=0,and
distinguishbetweentheupperandlowersurfaceshapesbyusing:
f fu
f fl
ontheuppersurface
.
onthelowersurface
(5.48)
UsingEq.(5.48),wewritetheupperandlowersurfaceboundaryconditionsas:
v x, 0
V
up
df
u ,
dx
v x, 0
V
low
dfl
.
dx
(5.49)
Thesearethelinearizedandtransferredboundaryconditions.Frequently,theseboundary
conditionsresultinasurprisinglygoodapproximationtotheflowfield,evenintransonicand
supersonicflow.
Decomposition of boundary conditions to camber/thickness/alpha
Furthersimplificationandinsightcanbegainedbyconsideringtheairfoilsintermsofthe
combinationofthicknessandcamber,anaturalpointofview.Wethuswritetheupperandlower
surfaceshapesintermsofcamber,fc,andthickness,ft,as:
fu fc ft
fl fc ft
andthegeneralproblemisthendividedintothesumofthreepartsasshowninFig.5.36.
2/14/2015
(5.50)
General
Thickness
Flatplate
Camber
airfoil
at =0
at
at =0
at
Figure5.36.Decompositionofageneralshapeatincidence.
Thedecomposition oftheproblemissomewhatarbitrary,sincelinearityallowsforany
decompositiontobeused.Cambercouldalsobeconsideredtoincludeangleofattackeffects
usingthe boundarycondition relations givenabove. Theaerodynamicist must keeptrack of
detailsforaparticularproblem. Toproceedfurther,wemakeuseofthebasicvortexlattice
methodassumption:theflowfieldisgovernedbyalinearpartialdifferentialequation(Laplaces
equation,allowingforsuperpositionofsolutions).Superpositionallowsustosolvetheproblem
inpiecesandaddupthecontributionsfromthevariouspartsoftheproblem.Thisresultsinthe
finalformofthethinairfoiltheoryboundaryconditions,substitutingEq.(5.50)intoEq.(5.49):
v x,0
v x,0
V
up
low
dfc dft
dx dx
dfc dft
dx dx
(5.51)
Theproblemcanbesolvedforthevariouscontributionsandthecontributionsareaddedtogether
toobtainthecompletesolution.Ifthicknessisneglectedtheboundaryconditionsarethesame
fortheupperandlowersurface.
Thin airfoil theory pressure relation
Consistentwiththelinearizationoftheboundaryconditions,ausefulrelationbetweenthe
pressureandvelocitycanalsobeobtained.Forincompressibleflows,theexactrelationbetween
thepressurecoefficientandvelocityis:
V
C p 1
V
(5.52)
Assuming twodimensional flow for this example, we express the velocity considering
disturbancestothefreestreamvelocityusingtheapproximationsdiscussedabove:
2/14/2015
V 2 V cos u V sin v V u V v
2
(5.53)
ExpandinganddividingbyV2 weget:
V2
u u2
v v2
2
1
2
.
V2
V V2
V V2
(5.54)
SubstitutingintotheCprelation,Eqn.(552),weget:
u u2
v v2
2
CP 1 1 2 2 2
V V
V V2
11 2
u u
v v
2 2 2
V V
V V2
(5.55)
andif,u/V
andv/V
are<<1,thenthelastfourtermscanbeneglectedincomparisonwith
thethirdterm.Thefinalresultis:
C p 2
u
.
V
(5.56)
This is the linearized or thin airfoil theory pressure formula. From experience gained
comparingvariouscomputationalresults,wehavefoundthatthisformulaisaslightlymore
severe restriction on the accuracy of the solution than the linearized boundary condition.
Equation(5.56)showsthatunderthesmalldisturbanceapproximation,thepressureisalinear
functionofu,andwecanaddtheCpcontributionfromthickness,camber,andangleofattackby
superposition. A similar derivation can be used to show that Eq. (5.56) is also valid for
compressibleflowuptomoderatesupersonicspeeds.
Cp due to camber/alpha (thickness effects cancel!)

Next,wemakeuseoftheresultinEq.(5.56)toobtainaformulafortheloaddistributionon
thewing,whichisthedifferencebetweenthepressureonthetopandbottomsurfaces:
C p C pl C pu .
(5.57)
Usingsuperposition,thepressurescanbeobtainedasthecontributionsfromwingthickness,
camber,andangleofattackeffects:
2/14/2015
C pl C pThickness C pCamber C pAngleofattack
C pu C pThickness C pCamber C p
sothat:
Angleofattack
C p C pThickness C pCamber C pAngleofattack
2 C
(5.58)
C pThickness C pCamber C pAngleofattack .

pCamber
C pAngleofattack
(5.59)
Equation(5.59)demonstratesthatforcaseswherethelinearizedpressurecoefficientrelationis
valid, thickness does not contribute to lift to first order in the velocity
disturbance.
Theimportanceofthisanalysisisthatwehaveshown:
1. howtheliftingeffectscanbeobtainedwithoutconsideringthickness,and
2. thatthecamberedsurfaceboundaryconditionscanbeappliedonaflatcoordinate
surface,resultinginaneasytoapplyboundarycondition.
Theprinciplesdemonstratedherefortransferandlinearizationofboundaryconditionscanbe
appliedinavarietyofsituationsotherthantheapplicationtovortexlatticemethods.Oftenthis
ideacanbeusedtohandlecomplicatedgeometriesthatcannoteasilybetreatedexactly.
Theanalysisshownhereproducesanentirelyconsistentproblemformulation.Thisincludes
the linearization of the boundary condition, the transfer of the boundary condition, and the
approximationbetweenvelocityandpressure.Alloftheapproximationsareconsistentwitheach
other,andimprovingoneoftheseapproximationswithoutimprovingthemallinaconsistent
mannermayactuallyleadtoworseresults.Sometimesyoucanmakeagreementwithdatabetter,
sometimesitmaygetworse.Youhavetobecarefulwhentryingtoimprovetheoryonanadhoc
basis.
Toexaminetheuseoftheseideaswepresentatwodimensionalexample.Forthenumerical
calculationtheairfoilisdividedintoanumberofequallengthpanels.Avortexisplacedatthe
quarterchordpointofeachpanelandthenoflowthroughboundaryconditionissatisfiedatthe
threequarterchordpointoftheindividualpanel.Thiscanbeshowntoproduceexactthinairfoil
theoryforasmallnumberofpanels,andisknownasthe1/43/4rule.Theexampleillustrates
theaccuracyofthemethodsdescribedabove.InFig.5.37,wecomparetheresultsobtainedfora
2/14/2015
5%circulararccamber.* Threesolutionsarepresented.Thecurvelabeledlineartheoryuses
classicalanalyticalthinairfoiltheorywithresultsobtainedsatisfyingtheboundaryconditionon
themeansurface.Thisiscomparedwithnumericalresultsforthecasewheretheboundary
conditionisappliedexactlyonthecamberline,andtheresultobtainedapplyingtheboundary
conditiononthemeansurfaceusingtheapproximatemethoddescribedabove.Thedifference
betweenplacingthevortexontheactualcambersurfaceandsatisfyingtheboundarycondition
ontheactualsurface,andthemoreapproximatetraditionalapproachoflocatingthevortexand
controlpointonthemeansurfaceisextremelysmall.
C
Cpbc'soncamberline
pbc'soncamberline
Cpbc'sonaxis
Cpbc'sonaxis
C
Cplineartheory
plineartheory
0.90
0.80
0.70
Cp
0.60
0.50
0.40
5%Circulararccamberline
=0
40panels
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.0
0.2
0.4
x/c
0.6
0.8
1.0
Figure5.37.Comparisonin2Dofthe1/43/4ruleforvortexcontrolpointlocationswith
lineartheory,andincludingacomparisonbetweenplacingthevortexand
controlpointonthecamberlineorontheaxis.
5.3.2TheClassicalVortexLatticeMethod
Arelativelylargecamberforapracticalairfoil,theNACA4412exampleweusedaboveillustratingpanels
methodswasanextremecasewith4%camber.
2/14/2015
Therearemanydifferentvortexlatticeschemes.Inthissectionwedescribetheclassical
implementation,inwhichahorseshoevortexisplacedoneachpanel. *Knowingthatvorticescan
representliftfromourairfoilanalysis,thisapproachplacesavortexfilamentatthe1/4chord
locationofapanelandthentheboundaryconditionissatisfiedatthe3/4chordpointonthe
panel,thesocalled1/43/4rule.Thiswastheapproachusedabovetoobtaintheresults
showninFig.5.37.ThisisillustratedinFig.5.38,wherethehorseshoevortexisshownon
eachpanel.Eachhorseshoevortexconsistsoftheboundvortexattachedtothepanel,andtwo
trailingvortexlegsthatattachtotheendoftheboundvortexandextendtodownstreaminfinity
(sinceavortexcannotendinafluid).Usingthisapproach,weproceedasfollows:
1. Dividetheplanformupintoalatticeofquadrilateralpanels,andputahorseshoevortexon
eachpanel.
2. Placetheboundvortexofthehorseshoevortexonthe1/4chordelementlineofeachpanel.
3. Placethecontrolpointonthe3/4chordpointofeachpanelatthemidpointinthespanwise
direction(sometimesthelateralpanelcentroidlocationisused).
4. Assumeaflatwakeintheusualclassicalmethod.
5. Determinethestrengthsofeachnrequiredtosatisfytheboundaryconditionsbysolvinga
systemoflinearequations.Thissystemcomesfromwritingdownthesumofallthe
horseshoevortexinducedvelocitycontributionsateachcontrolpoint,andthenusingthat
velocityintheequationrequiredtosatisfythenoflowthroughcondition.Thisresultsina
systemfortheunknownvaluesofthens.
Alternately,methodshavebeendevelopedthatemployvortexringsaroundeachpanel.Thepanelatthetrailing
edgestillhastouseavortexthatextendstodownstreaminfinitytomodelthewake.Acuriouspropertyofvortex
ringsisthattheyareequivalenttoaconstantstrengthdoubletpanel,aspointedoutbyPaulRubbertina1978AIAA
shortcourseonAppliedComputationalAerodynamics.
2/14/2015
y
bound vortices
control points
X
X
X
X
X
x
Trailing vortices extend to infinity
Figure5.38.Thehorseshoevortexlayoutfortheclassicalvortexlatticemethod.
Notethattheliftisontheboundvortices.Tounderstandwhy,considerthevectorstatement
oftheKuttaJoukowskiTheorem, F V .Assumingthefreestreamvelocityistheprimary
contributortothevelocity,thetrailingvorticesareparalleltothevelocityvectorandhencethe
forceonthetrailingvorticesarezero(recallthatifvectorsareparallel,thecrossproductiszero).
Moreaccuratemethodsfindthewakedeformationrequiredtoeliminatetheforceinthepresence
ofthecompleteinducedflowfield.
Asinthecaseofpanelsmethods,thealgebrarequiredtoobtaintheinfluencecoefficients
connectingthevelocitiesinducedataspecificlocationbyeachhorseshoevortexislengthy.The
velocityinducedbyavortexfilamentisgivenbytheBiotSavartLaw,seeSection4.8.3above.
Each horseshoe vortex makes a contribution with a single value of . Bertin and
CummingsError:Reference sourcenotfound contains adetailed derivation. Toillustrate the
essenceofthemethod,weconsiderthesimpleplanarsurfacecase,withoutdihedral.Usingthe
basicboundaryconditionrelationgiveninEq.(5.51)andrealizingthatin3Dthedownwash
velocityisw,theboundaryconditionis:
w dfc
a
V dx
Now,thedownwashwatapointm,duetoahorseshoevortex,n,canbewrittenas:
2/14/2015
(5.60)
(5.61)
wm Cm,n n .
where Cm,n isaninfluencecoefficientthatisbasedontheBiotSavartLawandthegeometric

distance between point m and the horseshoevortex n.The next step is to sum the induced
velocitiesfromallthehorseshoevorticesatapoint m,andusethatvelocityintheboundary
condition,Eq.(5.60),
2N
dfc
dx
wm Cm,nk n V
n1
(5.62)
where there are N horseshoe vortices on each side of the wing, resulting in a total of 2N
horseshoevorticesrepresentingthewing.Thuswehavethefollowingequationthatsatisfiesthe
boundaryconditionsandcanbeusedtorelatethecirculationdistributionandthewingcamber
andangleofattack:
2N
C
n1
m,nk
n dfc
V dx
m 1,...,2N .
(5.63)
Equation(5.63)containstwocases:
or
1. The Analysis Problem.Givencamberslopesand,solveforthecirculation

strengths,/V?)[asystemof2Nsimultaneouslinearequations].
2.The Design Problem.Givenn/V?),whichcorrespondstoaspecifiedsurface
loading,wewanttofindthecamberandrequiredtogeneratethisloading(only
requiressimplealgebra,nosystemofequationsmustbesolved).
Noticethatthewaydfc/dxandarecombinedillustratesthatthedivisionbetweencamber,
angleofattackandwingtwistisarbitrary(twistcanbeconsideredaseparatepartofthecamber
distribution, and is useful for wing design). However, care must be taken in keeping the
bookkeepingstraight.
A reduction in the size of the problem is available in many cases. If the geometry is
symmetricalandthecamberandtwistarealsosymmetrical,thennisthesameoneachsideof
theplanform(butnottheinfluencecoefficient).Therefore,weonlyneedtosolveforNs,not
2N. This is also true if ground effects are desired, where the image of a vortex placed
symmetrically below the ground plane can be included in the influence coefficient matrix
2/14/2015
withoutaddingadditionalunknowns,asshowninKatzandPlotkinError:Referencesourcenot
found.Thesystemofequationsforthecaseofplanformsymmetrybecomes:
N
C
n1
m,nkleft
df
Cm,nkright n c
dx
V
m 1,..., N .
(5.64)
Doingthisseemseasywhynotjustprogramitupourselves?Youcan,butmostoftheworkis
takenupby:
A. Automaticlayoutofpanelsforarbitrarygeometry.Asanexample,whenconsidering
multipleliftingsurfaces,thehorseshoevorticesoneachsurfacemustlineup.The
downstream leg of a horseshoe vortex cannot pass through the control point of
anotherpanel.
and
B. Convertingntotheaerodynamicsvaluesofinterest,CL,Cm, etc.,andthe
spanload,istediousforarbitraryconfigurations.
Nevertheless,manypeople,includinglotsofstudentshavewrittenvlmcodes.Themethodis
widely used in industry and government for aerodynamic estimates for conceptual and
preliminary design predictions. It provides good insight into the aerodynamics of wings,
includinginteractionsbetweenliftingsurfaces.
Typicalanalysisuses(inadesignenvironment)include
Predictingtheconfigurationneutralpointduringinitialconfigurationlayout,and
studyingtheeffectsofwingplacementandcanardand/ortailsizeandlocation.
Findingtheinduceddrag,CDi,fromthespanloadinconjunctionwithfarfieldmethods.
Withcare,estimatingcontrolanddevicedeflectioneffectiveness(estimateswhere
viscouseffectsmaybeimportantrequirecalibration.Someexamplesareshowninthe
nextsection.Forexample,take60%oftheinviscidvaluetoaccountforviscouslosses,
andalsorealizethatadeflectionoff=2025isaboutthemaximumusefuldevice
deflectioninpractice).
Investigatingtheaerodynamicsofinteractingsurfaces.
Findingtheliftcurveslope,CL,approachangleofattack, etc.
Typicaldesignapplicationsinclude:
Initialestimatesoftwisttoobtainadesiredspanload,orrootbendingmoment.
Startingpointforfindingacamberdistributioninpurelysubsoniccases.
Beforeexamininghowwellthemethodworks,twospecialcasesrequirecomments.The
firstcaseariseswhenacontrolpointisinlinewiththeprojectionofoneofthefinitelength
vortexsegments.Thisproblemoccurswhentheprojectionofasweptboundvortexsegment
2/14/2015
fromonesideofthewingintersectsacontrolpointontheotherside.Thishappenssurprisingly
frequently. The velocity induced by this vortex is zero, but the equation as usually written
degeneratesintoasingularform,withthedenominatorgoingtozero.Thusaspecialformofthe
equation shouldbeused.Inpractice, whenthis happensthecontribution canbesettozero
withoutinvokingthespecialform.Figure5.39showshowthishappens.Usingthesocalled
Warren12planformand36vorticesoneachsideofthewing,weseethattheprojectionofthe
lineofboundvorticesonthelastrowofthelefthandsideoftheplanformintersectsoneofthe
controlpointsontherighthandside.
A model problem illustrating this can be constructed for a simple finite length vortex
segment. The velocity induced by this vortex is shown in Fig. 5.40. When the vortex is
approached directly, x/l = 0.5, the velocity is singular for h = 0.However, as soonas you
approachtheaxis(h=0)offtheendofthesegment(x/l>1.0)theinducedvelocityiszero.This
illustrateswhyyoucansettheinducedvelocitytozerowhenthishappens.
Thesecondspecialcasethatneedstobediscussedariseswhentwoormoreplanformsare
usedwiththismethod,which is oneofthemostpowerfulapplications ofthevortexlattice
method.However,caremustbetakentomakesurethatthetrailingvorticesfromthefirstsurface
donotintersectthecontrolpointsonthesecondsurface.Inthiscasetheinducedvelocityisin
factinfinite,andthemethodbreaksdown.Usuallythisproblemissolvedbyusingthesame
spanwisedistributionofhorseshoevorticesoneachsurface.Thisalignsthevortexlegs,andthe
controlpointsarewellremovedfromthetrailingvorticesoftheforwardsurfaces.
2/14/2015
0.50
Warren12planform
0.00
exampleisfor36horseshoe
vorticesoneachside,all
vorticesnotshownfor
clarity
projectionofbound
vorticesonthisrow
intersectcontrolpoint
onotherside
ofplanform
0.50
horseshoevortex
1.00
controlpoint
1.50
2.00
2.50
trailinglegsextendtoinfinity
3.00
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Figure5.39.Exampleofcaserequiringspecialtreatment,theintersectionofthe
projectionofavortexwithacontrolpoint.
1.00
0.80
x
h
x=0
p
x/l
0.5
0.60
Vp
0.40
1.5
0.20
2.0
3.0
0.00
0.0
0.5
1.0
h/l
1.5
2.0
Figure5.40.Velocityinducedbyfinitestraightlinesectionofavortex.
2/14/2015
5.3.3ExamplesoftheUseandAccuracyofthevlmMethod
Howwelldoesthevortexlatticemethodwork?Inthissectionwedescribehowthemethodis
normallyappliedandpresentseveralexampleresultsobtainedusingthemethod.Thevortex
latticelayoutisclearformostwingsandwingtailorwingcanardconfigurations.Themethod
can be usedfor wingbodycases by simply specifying the projected planform of the entire
configurationasaflatliftingsurfacemadeupofanumberofstraightlinesegments.Theexact
originofthissomewhatsurprisingapproachisunknown,butitssuccessisillustratedinexamples
givenbelow.
Togetgood,consistent,andreliableresultsusingLamarsprogramdiscussedabovesome
simplerulesforpanellayoutshouldbefollowed(likelyequallyvalidforanyvlmmethod).This
requiresthatafewcommonrulesofthumbbeusedinselectingtheplanformbreakpoints:i)the
numberoflinesegmentsshouldbeminimized,ii)breakpointsshouldlineupstreamwiseonfront
andrearportionsofeachplanform,andshouldlineupbetweenplanforms,iii)streamwisetips
shouldbeused,iv)smallspanwisedistancesshouldbeavoidedbymakingedgesstreamwiseif
theyareactuallyhighlyswept,and v)trailing vortices fromforwardsurfacescannothitthe
controlpointofanaftsurface.Figure541illustratestheserequirements.
TheWarren12TestCase
Onereferencewingcasethatisastandardusedtochecktheaccuracyofvortexlatticecodes
istheWarren12planform.Itprovidesacheckcasefortheevaluationofanynewormodified
vlmcode,aswellasacheckonthepanelschemelayout,andisdefined,togetherwiththe
official characteristics from previous calculations, in Fig. 5.42 below. For the Warren 12
results, the reference chord used in the moment calculation is the average chord (slightly
nonstandard,normallythereferencechordusedisthemeanaerodynamicchord)andthemoment
referencepointislocatedatthewingapex(whichisalsononstandard).
As with all computational aerodynamics methods, vlm should be checked to assess the
convergencecharacteristics.Figure5.43istakenfromtheoriginalNASAreportdescribingthe
Lamarprogram,Error:Referencesourcenotfoundandshowsthatthebasicforceresultscanbe
obtainedwitharelativelysmallnumberofchordwisepanels,butrequiresafarilylargenumber
ofspanwiserowsofpanels.TheoriginalprogramdistributedbyNASAallowedforamaximum
2/14/2015
of200horseshoevortices,whichisaboutwhatisneededtoobtainresultsthatareconvergedin
thenumberofvortices.
y
lineupspanwise
breaksonacommon
break,andmakethe
edgestreamwise
firstplanform
ModelTips
startsimple
cruderepresentation
oftheplanformisallright
keepcentroidsofareas
thesame:actualplanformto
vlmmodel
Makeedges
streamwise
secondplanform
x
Figure5.41. Exampleofavlmmodelofanaircraftconfiguration.Notethatoneside
ofasymmetricalplanformisshown.
2/14/2015
Figure5.42.DefinitionandreferenceresultsfortheWarren12wing.
Figure 5.43 Convergence of the lift curve slope and stability with increasing
numbersofpanels, N s isthenumberofspanwisepanels, N c isthenumberof
chordwisepanels.(fromRef.Error:Referencesourcenotfound).
Isolatedsweptwingexample
Next,weshowhowavlmcalculationcompareswithexperimentaldataforanisolatedwing
case.Error:ReferencesourcenotfoundHereweselectedanaspectratio10wingwithaquarter
chordsweepof35andataperratioof0.5.Theairfoilwasa12%thickNACA65A012section.
TheMachnumberislow,0.14,andtheReynoldsnumberis6millionfortheliftcomparison,
and10millionforthepitchingmomentcomparison.ThetestwasconductedattheNACAAmes
ResearchCenter.TheresultsaregiveninFig.5.44.Theagreementforthepredictionofliftis
giveninFig.5.44a.Weseeverygoodagreementatlowalpha,wheretheflowisattached.Figure
5.44bcomparesthepitchingmomentvariationwiththeliftcoefficient.Thisisoneofthemost
2/14/2015
importantconsiderationsinairplaneaerodynamics,andtheagreementisexcellentuntiltheflow
startstoseparateatthewingtipandthewingpitchesup,aproblemwithsweptwings.
1.50
datafromNACARMA50K27
AR=10,c/4=35,=0.5
1.00
CL
M=0.14,Re=6million
VLMpccalculation
0.50
0.00
0.50
10.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
Angleofattack,deg.
15.0
20.0
a)liftcoefficient
0.08
datafromNACARMA50K27
0.06
Cm
AR=10,c/4=35,=0.5
Re=10million
0.04
xref=c/4
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
VLMpccalculation
0.06
0.4
2/14/2015
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
CL
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
b)pitchingmoment
Figure5.44ComparisonofVLMpcwithwindtunneldataforanisolatedwing.lxvi
Wing-Body-Tail Example
Thecomparisonof vlm resultswithwindtunneldataforawingbodytailconfiguration lxvii is
giveninFig.5.45.Figure5.45ashowstheconfiguration,andFigs.5.45bandccomparethe
resultswiththewindtunneldatafortheliftandpitchingmomentcoefficients.Theeffectofthe
horizontaltailisincludedineachfigure.
a)themodel
2/14/2015
1.00
Symbols:WindTunnelData
Lines:VLMpcpredictions
0.80
Tailon
0.60
CL
0.40
Tailoff
0.20
0.00
datafromNASATND13
M=0.60
0.20
2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
b)lift
Figure5.45WingBodyTailcase
2/14/2015
12.0
14.0
1.00
VLMpc
0.80
0.60
Tailoff
WindTunnelData
CL
0.40
Tailon
0.20
0.00
0.20
datafromNASATND13
M=0.60
0.40
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
Cm
0.15
0.20
0.25
c)comparisonofpitchingmomentestimatefromVLMpcwithwindtunneldata
Figure5.45WingBodyTailcaseConcluded(NASATND13)
Control Surface Deflection Example
Thevlmmethodcanalsobeusedtoestimatecontrolsurfacedeflectioneffects.Anexampleis
showninFig.5.46.Becausethemethodisinviscid,andthecontroldeviceisatthebackendof
thesurfaceandsubjectedtosignificantviscouseffects,themethodgenerallyoverpredictsthe
effectiveness.ThecaseshownisforanNACA23012airfoilwitha20%chordplaneflapata
Reynoldsnumberof8million.lxviii
2/14/2015
1.4
VLM and Thin Airfoil Theory CL

Experimental Delta CL
1.2
1.0
CL
0.8
0.6
0.4
Flapchordtoairfoilchordratio=0.20
Reynoldsnumber=8million
WTdatafromNACAR661
0.2
0.0
10
20
30
flapdeflection
40
50
Figure5.46Controlsurfacedeflectioneffectivenesscomparisonbetween
avlmcalculationandwindtunneldata.
Pitch and Roll Damping Estimation Example
Thevlmmethodcanalsobeusedtopredictthevalueofthepitchandrolldampingcoefficients,
Cmq and Cl p .Thesecharacteristicsareimportantinestablishingthestabilitycharacteristicsof
airplanes, and the method described in Etkin lxix is easily implemented. Figure 5.47 shows a
comparisonofthevlmpitchandrolldampingresultsusinganothervlmmethod,JKayVLM,for
anF18typeairplanecomparedtoestimatesfromDATCOM,Error:Referencesourcenotfound
whichwedescribedpreviouslyinChap.2.Thecaseshowsreasonablygood,butnotperfect
agreement.MoredetailscanbefoundinthereportbyKay,etal.Error:Referencesourcenot
found
2/14/2015
Data
VLM
Data
DATCOM
1.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
1.00
Cmq
2.00
Clp
3.00
4.00
DATCOM
0.10
0.20
0.30
5.00
0.40
6.00
7.00
VLM
Mach.2
Mach.6
a)pitchdamping
0.50
Mach.2
Mach.6
b)rolldamping
Figure5.47VLMPitchandrolldampingresultcomparisonwithdataand
DATCOM.Error:Referencesourcenotfound
2/14/2015
Slender lifting body results from Jim Pittmanlxx
Toillustratethecapabilityofthevortexlatticemethodforbodiesthataremorefuselagelike
than winglike, wepresentthe lifting bodycomparison ofthe experimental and vlm results
publishedbyJimPittmanofNASALangley.Figure5.48showstheconfigurationused.Figure
5.49providestheresultsofthevortexlatticemethodcomparedwiththeexperimentaldata.In
thiscasethecambershapewasmodeledbyspecifyingcamberslopesonthemeansurface.The
model used 138 vortex panels. The bars at several angles of attack illustrate the range of
predictionsobtainedwithdifferentpanelarrangements.Forhighlysweptwings,leadingedge
vortexfloweffectsareincluded,asdescribedinChapter4.Lamarsprogramcontainstheoption
ofusingtheleadingedgesuctionanalogylxxitomodeltheseeffects.*Remarkablygoodagreement
withtheforceandmomentdataisdemonstratedinFig.549.Thenonlinearvariationofliftand
momentwithangleofattackarisesduetotheinclusionofthevortexlifteffects.Theagreement
betweendataandcomputationbreaksdownathigheranglesofattackbecausethedetailsofthe
distributionofvortexflowseparationarenotprovidedbytheleadingedgesuctionanalogy.The
dragpredictionisalsoverygood.Theexperimentaldragisadjustedbyremovingthezerolift
drag,whichcontainsthedragduetofrictionandseparation.Theresultingdragduetoliftis
comparedwiththevlmestimates.Thecomparisonsaregoodprimarilybecausethisplanformis
achieving, essentially, no leading edge suction (see Katz and Plotkin, Ref. Error: Reference
sourcenotfound,pp.107and131133toreviewtheleadingedgesuctionconcept)andhencethe
dragissimplyCD=CLtan,whichiseasytopredict,butaerodynamicallyinefficient.
Figure5.48.Highlysweptliftingbodytypehypersonicconcept(Ref.Error:Reference
sourcenotfound).
*
TheleadingedgesuctionanalogyistheempiricalobservationbyEddiePolhamus,afterexaminingexperimental
data,thatthemagnitudeofthevortexliftisapproximatelyequaltothevalueoftheleadingedgesuctionforattached
flow,butrotated90.
2/14/2015
Figure5.49.ComparisonofCL,Cm,andCDpredictionswithdata(Ref.Error:Reference
sourcenotfound).
NonplanarresultsfromKalman,Rodden,andGiesinglxxii
Alloftheexamplespresentedaboveconsideredessentiallyplanarliftingsurfacecases.The
vortexlatticemethodcanalsobeusedforhighlynonplanaranalysis,andtheexamplecases
usedatDouglasAircraftCompanyinaclassicpaperError:Referencesourcenotfoundhavebeen
selectedtoillustratethecapability.SeveralofthecaseswererecomputedusingtheJKayVLM
code,Error:Referencesourcenotfoundandprovideaninterestingcomparisonwiththeoriginal
resultsfromDouglas.
Figure5.50providesanexampleoftheresultsobtainedforanextremenonplanarcase:the
ring,orannular,wing.Inthiscasetheestimatesarecomparedwithothertheories,andseentobe
verygood.ThefigurealsoincludestheestimateofCmq.Asillustratedabove,CmqandClpcan
becomputedusing vlm methods,andthiscapabilityisincludedintheJohnLamarsvortex
latticemethod,VLMpc.*
JKayVLMandVLMpcareavailableonthewebathttp://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/MRsoft.html,
togetherwithlinkstoafewothervlmcodes.
2/14/2015
Figure5.50.PredictionsbyKalman,Rodden,andGiesingError:Referencesource
notfoundusingvlm(symbols)oftheaerodynamiccharacteristicsofaringwing,
comparedwiththeory(solidlines)andslenderwingtheory(dashedlines),both
fromBelotserkovskii.lxxiii
GroundEffectsandDihedralEffectsExamples
Figure 5.51 provides an example of the effects of the presence of the ground on the
aerodynamics ofsimpleunsweptrectangularwings.Theliftandpitchingmomentslopesare
presentedforcalculationsmadeusing JKayVLM andcomparedwiththeresultspublishedby
Kalman, Rodden and Giesing,Error: Reference source not found and experimental data. An
image is used below the ground plane to represent grount effect, as described above. The
agreementbetweenthedataandcalculationsisexcellentfortheliftcurveslope.The AR =1
wingshowsthesmallesteffectsofgroundproximitybecauseofthethreedimensionalrelief
providedaroundthewingtips.Astheaspectratioincreases,themagnitudeofthegroundeffects
increases.Theliftcurveslopestartstoincreaserapidlyasthegroundisapproached.
Thewingsalsoexperienceasignificantchangeinthepitchingmomentslope(aerodynamic
centershift),* andthisisalsoshown.Notethatthepredictionsstarttodifferasthegroundis
*
ThisshiftisthereasonthatgroundeffectsmachinescannotjusttakeoffandwhyWIGvehiclescannotflyoutof
groundeffect.
2/14/2015
approached. JKayVLM actuallyrotatestheentiresurfacetoobtainanothersolutiontousein
estimatingtheliftcurveslope.Thestandardprocedureusedbymostmethodsistosimplychange
theslopeconditionatthemeanline,asdiscussedpreviouslyinthischapter.Becauseofthe
proximitytotheground,thismightbeacasewherethetransferoftheboundaryconditionmay
notbeaccurate.
8.0
7.0
c/4
6.0
CL
5.0
4.0
AR
4
3.0
2.0
1.0
1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
h/c
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.20
0.10
CM
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.0
AR=1
AR=2
AR=4
0.2
h/c
1.4
Figure5.51.Exampleofgroundeffectsforasimplerectangularwing.Dashedlines
fromKalman,Rodden,andGiesing,Error:Referencesourcenotfound,
solidlinesarepredictionsbyJKayVLM.Error:Referencesourcenotfound
SymbolsareexperimentalresultsbySanders.lxxivPitchingmoment
referencetakenaboutthequarterchord.
Figure5.52presentssimilarinformationfortheeffectofdihedralangleonawing.Inthis
casetheeffectsofanhedral,wherethewingtipapproachtheground,areextremelylarge.The
2/14/2015
resultsofdihedralchangesforawingoutofgroundeffectareshownforcomparison.Both
methodsagreewellwitheachother,withdifferencesappearingonlyasthewingtipsapproach
theground.Hereagain,JKayVLMactuallyrotatestheentiregeometry,apparentlyresultingin
anincreaseintheeffectsasthetipsnearlycontacttheground.Italsopreventscalculationsfrom
beingobtainedasclosetothegroundasthepublishedresults.Inmakingthesecalculationsitwas
discoveredthatthewingpanelwasrotatedandnotsheared,sothattheprojectedspandecreases
asthedihedralincreases,andthisproducesmuchmorepronouncedchangesintheliftcurve
slopeduetothereductioninprojectedspan.
12
Solidlines:computedusingJKayVLM
Dashedlines:fromKalman,Rodden,andGiesing
ARref=4,Planformrotatedbythedihedralangle,
10
CL
h/c=0.5
6
h/c=1
4
h/c=
2
Note:Mostofthedecreaseinliftcurveslopeforthewingoutofground
effectisduetotheeffectofreducedspanasthewingrotatesfrom
thezerodihedralcondition
0
40
30
20
10
0
10
Dihedralangle,
20
30
Figure5.52.Exampleofgroundeffectsforawingwithdihedral(acasefrom
Kalman,RoddenandGiesing,Ref.Error:Referencesourcenot
2/14/2015
40
found),includingacomparisonwithresultsfromJKayVLM(Ref.
Error:Referencesourcenotfound)
5.3.4InverseDesignMethodsandProgramDesCam
Althoughmostoftheanalysisdiscussedabovecorrespondstotheanalysisproblem,the
designproblemcanalsobetreated.Inthissectionweprovideoneexample:thedeterminationof
thecamberlineshaperequiredtoobtainaspecificchordloadinthetwodimensionalcase.We
taketheopportunitytoillustrateamethodduetoLanError:Referencesourcenotfoundthatuses
amathematicallybasedselectionofvortexandandcontrolpointplacementsinsteadofthe1/4
3/4ruleusedabove.
Recallthatalineofvortexsingularitiesinducesaverticalvelocityonthesingularityline
givenby(seeChapter4andKaramcheti.Error:Referencesourcenotfound)
c
( x)
dx .
x x
1
w(x)
2
(5.65)
Inthinwingtheorytheverticalvelocity,w,canberelatedtothecamberlineslopeasshownin
Eq.5.51.Vortexstrengthcanberelatedtothestreamwisevelocityby ul V uu V ,where
theinducedvelocitiesareantisymmetricaboveandbelowthecamberline.Thisinturncanbe
usedtorelatethevorticitytothechangeinpressure,CpthroughEq.5.56:
u
u
u
u
C p C pl C pu 2 l 2 u 2 u l
V
V
V V
whichleadsto:
C p (x)
2
(x)
(5.66)
(5.67)
resultingintheexpressionforcamberlineslopeintermsofdesignchordload:
c
dz
1 C p
dx .
dx
4 x x
(5.68)
Here dz/dx includes the slope due to the angle of attack. Note that the integral contains a
singularity,andthissingularityintroducestheextracomplicationsthatrequirespecialanalysis
fornumericalintegration.TheoriginalLantheory(Ref.Error:Referencesourcenotfound)was
2/14/2015
usedtofind C p (inaslightlydifferentform),butitcanalsobeusedtoobtaindz/dxdirectly
from C p .Todothis,Landerivedasummationformulatoobtaintheslope.Oncetheslopeis
known,itisintegratedtoobtainthecamberline.
LanshowedthattheintegralinEq.(5.68)canbefoundveryaccuratelyfromthesummation:
dz
1 N C p

dx i
N k 1 4
xk (1 xk )
xi xk
(5.69)
where:
xk
1
2k 1

1 cos
2
2N
k 1,2,..., N
(5.70)
and:
xi
1
i
1 cos

2
N
i 0,1,2,..., N .
(5.71)
HereN+1isthenumberofstationsonthecamberlineatwhichtheslopesareobtained.
Given dz/dx,the camber line is then computed byintegration using the trapezoidal rule
(marchingforwardstartingatthetrailingedge):
dz
xi1 xi dz
2 dx i dx i1
(5.72)
DES tan 1 z0
(5.73)
zi1 zi
Thedesignangleofattackisthen:
Thecamberlinecanthenberedefinedinstandardnomenclature,i.e.,z(x=0)=z(x=1)=0.0:
zi zi (1 xi ) tan DES
(5.74)
Howwelldoesthiswork?ProgramDesCamimplementsthemethoddescribedhere,andthe
users manual is provided inApp. C.Here wecompare the results from DesCam with the
analyticformulagiveninAppendixAfortheNACA6Seriesmeanlinewitha=0.4.Theresults
are shown in Figure 5.53 below. The camber scale is greatly enlarged to demonstrate the
excellentcomparison.Eventhoughthechordloadisconstructedbytwostraightlinesegments,
theresultingrequiredcamberlineishighlycurvedovertheforwardportionoftheairfoil.Note
2/14/2015
thatthinairfoiltheoryallowsonlytwopossiblevaluesforthepressuredifferentialattheleading
edge,zeroorinfinity.Acloseexaminationofthecamberlineshaperequiredtoproduceafinite
loadrevealsasingularity,sincetheslopeisinfinite.Thisfeatureismucheasiertostudyusing
theanalyticsolution,asgiveninAppendixA.Thisapproachcaneasilybeextendedtothree
dimensions.Noticethatthedesignproblemisdirect,inthatitdoesnotrequirethesolutionofa
systemofequations.
(ZZ0)/CDesCam
(zz
)/cDesCam
0
Z/CfromAbbott&vonDoenhoff
z/cfromthinairfoiltheory
0.12
DesignChord
Loading
0.10
z/c
0.08
2.00
1.50
CP
1.00
0.06
0.50
0.04
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.0
0.2
0.4
x/c
0.6
0.8
0.50
1.0
Figure5.53.ExampleandverificationofcamberdesignusingDesCam.
5.3.5AlternateandAdvancedvlmMethods
Many variations of the vortex lattice method have been proposed over the years. They
address both the improvement in accuracy for the traditional case with a planar wake, and
extensionstoincludewakepositionandrollupaspartofthesolution.Thetraditionalvortex
latticeapproachesassumethatthewingwakeremainsflatandalignedwiththefreestream.This
assumptionisacceptableformostcases,althoughnottechnicallycorrect.Theeffectofthewake
onthewingthatgeneratesitissmallunlessthewingishighlyloaded.However,theinteraction
betweenthewakefromanupstreamsurfaceandatrailingliftingsurfacecanbeinfluencedbythe
rollupandposition.
2/14/2015
Inthebasiccasewherethewakeisassumedtobeflatandataspecifiedlocation,theprimary
extensionsofthemethodhavebeendirectedtowardimprovingtheaccuracyusingasmaller
numberofpanels.Houghlxxv demonstratedthatimprovementinaccuracycouldbeachievedby
usingalatticethatwasslightlysmallerthanthetrueplanformarea.Basically,heproposeda1/4
panelwidthinsetfromthewingtips.
PerhapsthemostimportantrevisionofthevortexlatticemethodwasproposedbyLanError:
Referencesourcenotfound,andcalledthequasivortexlatticemethod.InthismethodLan
usedmathematicalmethods,ratherthanthemoreheuristicargumentsdescribedabove,tofindan
approximationforthethinairfoilintegralinthestreamwisedirection.Theresultwas,ineffect,a
method where the vortex and control point locations were established from the theory of
Chebychevpolynomials toobtainanaccuratevalueoftheintegrals withasmallnumberof
panels. The mathematically based approach also led to an ability to compute leading edge
suctionveryaccurately.
ThewakerollupandpositionproblemhasbeenaddressedbyMookError:Referencesource
notfound amongothers,andhisworkshouldbeconsultedfordetails.Amethodsimilar to
MookshasbeenpresentedinthebookbyKatzandPlotkin.Error:Referencesourcenotfound
Theyproposeavortexringmethod,whichhasadvantageswhenvorticesareplacedonthetrue
surfaceofahighlycamberedshapes.
5.3.6Unsteadyflowextension
Extensions toinclude unsteadyflowhavealsobeenmade.Forthecaseofharmonically
oscillatingsurfacesandanassumedflatwaketheextensionwasgivenbyAlbanoandRodden.lxxvi
Inthiscasethevortexisaugmentedwithanoscillatingdoublet,andthesocalled doubletlattice method isobtained.Thedoubletlatticemethodiswidelyusedforsubsonicflutter
calculations.Kalman,Giesing,andRoddenError:Referencesourcenotfoundprovideadditional
detailsandexamples(theyalsodemonstratedthehighlynonplanarcapabilityofthevlmmethod
asgivenabove).Arefinementtothismethodandaninvestigationofpaneldensityrequirements
wasmadebyRoddenatal.lxxvii,lxxviii
Ageneralunsteadyflowcalculationmethod,includingwakerollupandincorporationof
leadingedgevorticeshasbeendevelopedbyMookandcoworkers.Error:Referencesourcenot
2/14/2015
found Katz and PlotkinError: Reference source not found also describe vlm methods for
unsteadymotioninsomedetail,andbiologicallyinspiredinterestinflappingflighthasalsoled
tothedevelopmentofgeneralunsteadymethods. lxxixTheresultingcodeshavethepotentialtobe
usedtomodeltimeaccurateaerodynamicsofvehiclesinarbitrarymaneuveringflight,including
the high angle of attack cases of interest in fighter aerodynamics. These methods are also
currentlybeingusedinstudieswheretheaircraftaerodynamicsiscoupledwithadvancedcontrol
systemsaswellasstructuraldynamics.Inthiscaseactivecontrolisincorporatedandadverse
aeroelasticbehaviorcansuppressed.
5.3.7Summary
The summary provided above illustrates the current state of affairs. Classical vortex lattice
methods,perse,arenotcurrentlybeingdeveloped.However,unsteadymethodscontinuetobe
developed. The steady flow methods are continuously used in a variety of applications for
conceptualdesigntradestudiesandinadvancedsimulationmethodswhereseveraldisciplines
arebeingstudiedsimultaneouslyandanaffordablemodeloftheaerodynamicsisrequired.They
arealsowidelyusedinconceptualdesignandtheearlystagesofaircraftpreliminarydesign.
5.4Project
UseWinVorView tosolvetheaerodynamics oftheT38aircraft atavarietyofconditions.
WinVorViewisaGUIprogramwrittentorunVorlaxError:Referencesourcenotfoundona
PC; Vorlax is avortex lattice program.Youshoulddothe followingprior tostarting your
projectinordertobecomefamiliarwiththeprogramanditsuse.
DragtheWinVorViewfolderontothetoplevelofyourC:drive(i.e.C:\WinVorView;
DONOTrunfromfromyourDesktop!)
ThefolderhasahermitefilefortheT38(ahermitefileisasimplifiedgeometryfile).
DoubleclickontheprogramandopentheT38file(theviewisnottoscale,soresizethe
windowtomaketheT38lookbetter).
Trythedifferentviews(View,Hermite,etc.).
Thefirstthingtodoisslicethegeometry(Actions,SliceGeometry)...makesureyou
haveenoughslicestoadequatelymodeltheinlet,etc.Thenumberofslicesmustbean
oddnumberatleast51slicesshouldbeused.ReslicingthecontrolsurfacesisOK.
Treatthegeometryasflat.
NowrunVorlax(Actions,RunVorlax,Create).Youneedtogothroughthewizardand
inputtherequiredgeometricvariables(besuretotabthroughtheinputboxes,otherwise
youwontbeabletoproceedtothenextwindow).Specifysymmetricgeometry/flight
2/14/2015
conditionsandusecosinechordwisepanelspacing.Oncetheinputfileiscomplete,run
thecases.Note:makesureyouaresavingtheresultsinthesamedirectoryasyour
hermitefileandnametheoutputfileswiththesamenameasthehermitefile.Thedigital
outputwillbeint38.cof.
ThebasicgeometricparametersfortheT38are:
Wingarea,S:
Aspectratio,AR:
Taperratio, :
170ft2
3.75
0.30
OthergeometricdimensionsfortheT38canbefoundinIntroductiontoAeronautics,Appendix
B.lxxxYouwillneedthisinformationtoproperlypredicttheaerodynamiccoefficients.SettheX
andZmomentreferencecentersandtheheightabovethegroundto0.0.
Thefirstthingyoushoulddoisperformapanelsensitivitystudyontheconfiguration.Run
WinVorViewat=10oandM=0.4with100vortexpanelsandfindtheresultingCLandCD.
Nowrerunwith200panels,300panels,etc.,untilyoufindthenumberofpanelsthatgiveyou
convergedresults.Youmayneedtocontinuethisupto1500ormorepanels!Graphyour
results(CLandCDvs.#panels)andcommentontheresultsasappropriate.
Nowruntheprogramforthefollowingcombinationofconditions:M=0.0,0.4,0.8and=0o,
2o,4o,6o,8o,10o,12o,14o,16o,18o.GraphtheresultsforCLandCDasafunctionofangleof
attack,withonegraphforeachMachnumber(youcanplotbothcoefficientsononegraphby
usingtwoverticalscalesifyouwant).Sincethevortexlatticeprogramonlypredictsdragdueto
lift,youshouldaddtheexperimentalvalueofzeroliftdragcoefficienttoyourresults.FortheCL
andCDresultsatM=0.4,comparewiththeactualaircraftdata.AlsoforM=0.4compareyour
resultswiththetheoreticalvaluesyouobtainusingthetheoreticalliftcurveslopeforawing:lxxxi
C L
2 AR
tan 2
2 4 AR (1
)
2
2
Wherethe2terminthenumeratoristheclassical2Dthinairfoiltheoryliftcurveslopeper
radian,ARistheaspectratio,b2/Sref, 1 M 2 ,andisthesweepofthemaxthicknessline.
YoushouldcorrectthetheoreticalliftcurveslopeandforcompressibilityusingthePrandtl
Glauertrule(Ref.Error:Referencesourcenotfound):
CL
DatafortheT38aregivenbelow.
2/14/2015
C L ( M 0)
1 M 2
fromBrandt,etal(Ref.Error:Referencesourcenotfound)
2/14/2015
fromBrandt,
fromBrandt,etal(Ref.Error:Referencesourcenotfound)
Commentonhowwellthevortexlatticeprogramwasabletopredicttheaerodynamicsofthe
vehicle.Whatdiditdowell?Whatdidntitdowell?Whatdidntitdoatall?Howwelldidthe
resultsoftheprogramcomparewithboththeaircraftdataandthetheoreticalvalues?Comment
ontheshortcomingsrelativetotheassumptionsforapotentialflowmethod.
2/14/2015
5.5Exercises
1.ProgramPANEL(oranequivalent2Dpanelmethod).
a) ObtainacopyofprogramPANELandthesamplecase.
b) ConvertPANELtorunonyourPC.
c) Runthesamplecase:NACA4412,20pts.upper,20pts.lower, =4,andverify
againstsamplecase.
d)Document
i) compiletimerequiredonyourPC
(citecomputerandcompilerused)
ii) theexecutiontimeforthesamplecase
iii) theaccuracyrelativetothesamplecase.
iv) theexactmodificationsrequiredtomakethecode
workonyourcomputer
2.StartworkonprogramPANEL
a)Saveareferencecopyoftheworkingcode!
b) Check convergence with panels (NLOWER+NUPPER must be less than 100
currently).Howmanypanelsdoyouneedtogetresultsindependentofthenumber
ofpanels?Whathappenstothecomputertimeasthenumberofpanelsincreases?
c) Checkthecoordinatesgeneratedbytheairfoilroutinevs.exact(considerusingthe
NACA 0012,seeApp.Aforgeometrydefinition), includingexamination ofthe
coordinatesatthetrailingedge.Thisisbestdonebymakingatableofexactand
computedvaluesatselectedvaluesofx/c.Whatdidyoufindout?
d) Locatethesourcestrengths,andsumthesourcestrengthsxpanellengthstogetthe
totalsourcestrength.Doesitsumtozero?Shouldit?
e) Whereisthemomentreferencecenterinthiscode?
Submitanassessmentofyourfindings.
3.ModifyprogramPANEL:
You need a version of PANEL that will allow you to compute the pressure
distributiononarbitraryairfoils.Thisexercisewillgiveyouthiscapability.Modify
thecodetointerpolateinputairfoilpointstotheprogramdefinedsurfacepoints,
x/c.Theresultingcodeshould:
a)acceptarbitraryairfoilinputdata
b)echoalltheinputdataontheoutput
c)generateanoutputfileforpostprocessing
(bothforplottingandastheinputtoaboundarylayercode)
d)outputCmabouttheairfoilquarterchordpoint.
Hint:Dontalterthepaneldistribution.Thepanelingschemeshouldbeindependent
oftheinputdistributionofairfoilcoordinates.Thisproducesamuchmoregeneral
2/14/2015
andaccurateprogram.Thisproblemisusuallysolvedbyfindingboththex/cand
y/cvaluesasfunctionsoftheairfoilarclength,startingatthelowersurfacetrailing
edge.Asplinefitisusuallyusedtointerpolatethevaluesalongthearclength.
Check your modified code. Run the airfoil you ran previously with internal
coordinate generation. Thistime useaninput filewiththesamecoordinates as
externalinputs.Submitadescriptionofyourwork,andassessyourresults.
4.Assesstheaccuracyofincompressiblepotentialflowtheory.RunyourmodifiedPANELcode
usingtheairfoilyouselectedintheexerciseinChap.1.(Whathappensifyourairfoilhasa
trailingedgewithfinitethickness?Whatdoyoudonow?)
comparethecomputedpressuredistributionwiththeexperimentaldata
comparethecomputedforceandmomentresultswiththedata
(overarangeofanglesofattack
TurninaCONCISEreportdescribingtheresultsofyourwork.Includeaplotshowingthe
pressure distribution comparison, and a plot(s) showing comparison with forces and
moments.Whatdoyouconcludeabouttheaccuracyofthismethod?
5.AirfoildesignusingprogramPANEL
Takeyourreferenceairfoil:
a)addthicknessonthebottom(midchord)whathappens?
b)shavesomethicknessoffthebottom(midchord)?
c)addthicknessonthetop(midchord)whathappens?
d)deflectthetrailingedgedownacoupleofdegrees
(howsensitiveistheairfoiltochangesattheTE?)
Hint:usesmooth'stothereferencefoilemployinganalyticformulas.
TurninaCONCISEreportcomparingtheeffectsonthepressuredistributionduetothe
abovemodifications.
6. Howgoodisthinairfoiltheory?ComparethethinairfoilCpforaflatplatewithprogram
PANEL.
Recallthinairfoiltheoryforanuncamberedflatplate:
C p 4
x/c
.
x/c
a)pickanNACA0012airfoilat=2and12andrunPANEL.
b)plotCp/asafunctionofx/c.
c)howmanypanelsdoyouneedtogetaconvergedsolutionfromPANEL?
d)whatconclusionsdoyoureach?
7. ObtainacopyofXFOILandcomparetheresultsyouobtainedinExercise6.
2/14/2015
8. GetacopyofVLMpcfromthewebsite,oranequivalent3Dvlmmethod.Installtheprogram
onyourpersonalcomputerandrepeatthesamplecase,checkingthatyouroutputisthesame
asthesampleoutputfiles.Studytheoutputtofamiliarizeyourselfwiththevarietyof
informationgenerated.Turninareportdescribingyourefforts(nottheoutput),includingany
modsrequiredtomakethecoderunonyourcomputer.
9. Howgoodisthinairfoiltheory?ComparethethinairfoiltheoryCpfora2Dflatplateairfoil
withprogramVLMpc.
Flatplatethinairfoiltheory:
CP 4
1 x/c
x/c
i.Pickanaspectratio10unsweptwingat=3and12andrunVLMpc.
ii.Plot(Cp)/asafunctionofx/catthewingroot.
iii.HowmanypanelsdoyouneedtogetaconvergedsolutionfromVLM?
iv.Whatconclusionsdoyoureach?
10.ComparethevalidityofanaerodynamicstriptheoryusingVLMpc.Consideran
uncambered,untwistedwing,AR=4,=.4,le=50,ataliftcoefficientof1.Plotthe
spanload,andtheCpdistributionatapproximatelythecentersection,themidspanstation,
andthe85%semispanstation.Compareyourresultswithaspanloadconstructedassuming
thatthewingflowisapproximatedas2Dattheangleofattackrequiredtoobtainthespecified
lift.Alsocomparethechordloads,Cp,atthethreespanstations.Howmanypanelsdoyou
needtoobtainconvergedresults.Documentyourresults.Doyouconsiderthisaerodynamic
striptheoryvalidbasedonthisinvestigation?Comment.
11.Comparethewingaerodynamiccenterlocationrelativetothequarterchordofthemacfor
thewinginexercise10,aswellassimilarwings.Consideronewingwithzerosweeponthe
quarterchord,andaforwardsweptwingwithaleadingedgesweepof50.Comparethe
spanloads.Documentandanalyzetheseresults.Whatdidyoulearnfromthiscomparison?
12.Forthewingsinexercise11,comparethesectionliftcoefficients.Wherewouldeachone
stallfirst?Whichwingappearstoabletoreachthehighestliftcoefficientbeforethesection
stalls.
13.Fortheprobleminexercise12,addtwisttoeachwingtoobtainnearellipticspanloads.
Comparethetwistdistributionsrequiredineachcase.
14.PickaNASAorNACAreportdescribingwindtunnelresultsforasimpleoneortwolifting
surfaceconfigurationatsubsonicspeeds.Comparetheliftcurveslopeandstabilitylevel
predictedbyVLMpcwithwindtunneldata.Submitareportdescribingyourworkand
assessingtheresults.
15.Addacanardtotheaftandforwardsweptwingsanalyzedinexercise11.Plotthesumofthe
spanloads.Howdoesthecanardeffectthewingspanload.
16.Considerthewingsinexercise15.Howdoesliftchangewithcanarddeflection?Addan
equivalenttail.Comparetheeffectoftailorcanarddeflectionontotalliftandmoment.Did
youlearnanything?What?
17.Constructadesigncodeusingthe1/43/4ruleandcomparewithDESCAM.
18.Constructalittle2Dcodetostudygroundeffects.
19.Comparewingandwing/tail(canard)resultsforCLwithstandardanalyticformulas.
2/14/2015
5.6References
2/14/2015
Bertin,J.J.,andCummings,R.M.,AerodynamicsforEngineers,5thEdition,PrenticeHall,Inc.,
UpperSaddleRiver,2008.
ii
Erickson,L.L.,PanelMethodsAnIntroduction,NASATP2995,Dec.1990.
iii
Hess,J.L.,PanelMethodsinComputationalFluidDynamics,Ann.Rev.ofFluidMech.,Vol.22,
1990,pp.255274.
iv
Hess,J.L.,LinearPotentialSchemes,AppliedComputationalAerodynamics,P.A.Henne,ed.,
AIAA,Washington,1990.pp.2136.
v
Katz,J.,andPlotkin,A.,LowSpeedAerodynamics,2ndEdition,CambridgeUniversityPress.
Cambridge,2001.
vi
Moran,J.AnIntroductiontoTheoreticalandComputationalAerodynamics,JohnWiley&Sons,
NewYork,1984.pp.103112,118123,260287republishedbyDover,2003.
vii
Cebeci, T., An Engineering Approach to the Calculation of Aerodynamic Flows, Horizon Publishing,
Long Beach, 1999.
viii
Karamcheti,K.,PrinciplesofIdealFluidAerodynamics,2ndRev.Ed.,KriegerPublishing,
Melpourne,1980.
ix
Hildebrand, F.B., Advanced Calculus for Applications, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1962
x
Ashley,H,andLandahl,M.,AerodynamicsofWingsandBodies,AddisonWesley,Reading,1965
(republishedinpaperbackbyDoverPublishing).
xi
Curle,N.,andDavis,H.J.,ModernFluidDynamics,Volume1:IncompressibleFlow,VanNostrand,
London,1968.
xii
Neal,David,PhDStudent,VirginiaTech,2007,privatecommunication
xiii
Houghton,E.L.,andCarpenter,P.W.,AerodynamicsforEngineeringStudents,4thEd.,Halsted
Press,NewYork,1993,pp.257265,203211.(coderemovedfromthe5thEd.)
xiv
Kuethe,A.M.,andChow,CY.,FoundationsofAerodynamics,5thEd.,JohnWiley,NewYork,
1998,pp.156164.
xv
Wauquiez,Christian,http://www.nada.kth.se/~chris/pablo/pablo.html,Pablotheorydescribedaspart
ofhisLicentiatesThesis,ShapeOptimizationofLowSpeedAirfoilsusingMATLABand
AutomaticDifferentiation,KTH,Stockholm,2000.
xvi
Drela, M., XFOIL: An Analysis and Design System for Low Reynolds Number Airfoils, in Low
Reynolds Number Aerodynamics, Mueller, T.J., ed., Lecture Notes in Engineering No. 54, Springer
Verlag, 1989. http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/xfoil/
xvii
Abbott,I.H.,andvonDoenhoff,A.E.,TheoryofWingSections,Dover,NewYork,1959.
xviii
Stack, J., Lindsey, W.F., and Littell, R.E., The Compressibility Burble and the Effect of
Compressibility on Pressures and Forces Acting on an Airfoil, NACA R-646, 1938.
xix
Jameson,A.,AccelerationofTransonicPotentialFlowCalculationsonArbitraryMeshesbythe
MultipleGridMethod,AIAAPaper791458,ProceedingsoftheAIAA4thComputationalFluid
DynamicsConference,AIAA,NewYork,1979,pp.122146.
xx
Kroo,Ilan,AerodynamicAnalysesforDesignandEducation,AIAAPaper922664,June1992.
xxi
Volpe,G.,InverseAirfoilDesign:AClassicalApproachUpdatedforTransonicApplications,in
AppliedComputationalAerodynamics,ed.byP.A.Henne,AIAAProgressinAstronauticsand
Aeronautics,Vol.125,AIAA,NewYork,1990,pp.191220.
xxii
Labrujere,Th.E.,andSloof,J.W.,ComputationalMethodsfortheAerodynamicDesignofAircraft
Components,Ann.Rev.ofFluidMech.,1993,Vol.25,pp.183214.
i
Bristow,D.R.,ANewSurfaceSingularityMethodforMultiElementAirfoilAnalysisand
Design,AIAAPaper7620,Jan.1976.
xxiv
Aidala,P.V.,Davis,W.H.,Jr.,andMason,W.H.,SmartAerodynamicOptimization,AIAAPaper
831863,July1983.
xxv
PANAIRUsersClassShortCoursePresentationMaterial,1981.
xxvi
Hess,J.L.TheProblemofThreeDimensionalLiftingPotentialFlowandItsSolutionbyMeansof
SurfaceSingularityDistributions,ComputerMethodsinAppliedMechanicsandEngineering,Vol.
4,1974.pp.283319.
xxvii
Carmichael,R.L.,andErickson,L.L.,"PANAIRAHigherOrderPanelMethodforPredicting
SubsonicorSupersonicLinearPotentialFlowsAboutArbitraryConfigurations,"AIAAPaperNo.
811255,June1981.
xxviii
Nathman,JamesK.,ImprovementofaPanelMethodbyIncludingPanelWarp,AIAAPaper
2004721,Jan.2004.
xxix
Tinoco,E.N.,Ball,D.N.,andRice,F.A.II,PANAIRAnalysisofaTransportHighLift
Configuration,JournalofAircraft,Vol.24,No.3,1987,pp.181188.
xxx
Magnus,A.E.,andEpton,M.A.,PANAIRAComputerProgramforPredictingSubsonicor
SupersonicLinearPotentialFlowsAboutArbitraryConfigurationsUsingaHigherOrderPanel
Method,VolumeITheoryDocument(Version1.0),NASACR3251,April1980.
xxxi
Margason,R.J.,Kjelgaard,S.O.,Sellers,W.L.,Moriis,C.E.K.,Jr.,Walkley,K.B.,andShields,
E.W.,SubsonicPanelMethodsAComparisonofSeveralProductionCodes,AIAAPaper85
0280,Jan.1985.
xxxii
Ashby,D.L.,Dudley,M.R.,Iguchi,S.K.,Browne,L.,andKatz,J.,PotentialFlowTheoryand
OperationGuideforthePanelCodePMARC,NASATM102851,Jan.1991.
xxxiii
Nathman, J.K., Subsonic Panel Methods Second (Order) Thoughts, AIAA Paper 98-5563. Sept.
1998.
xxxiv
Mason, W.H., and Rosen, B.S., The COREL and W12SC3 Computer Programs for Supersonic
Wing Design and Analysis, NASA CR-3676, Dec. 1983.
xxxv
VanZyl,L.H.,UnsteadyPanelMethodforComplexConfigurationsIncludingWakeModeling,
JournalofAircraft,Vol.45,No.1,JanFeb.2008,pp.276285.
xxxvi
PublicDomainAeronauticalSoftware,http://www.pdas.com
xxxvii
Hess, J.L., and Smith A.M.O., Calculation of Nonlifting Potential Flow About Arbitrary ThreeDimensional Bodies, Douglas Report ES40622, Douglas Aircraft Company, 1962
xxxviii
Rubbert, P.E., Theoretical Characteristics of Arbitrary Wings by a Nonplanar Vortex Lattice
Method, Boeing Report D6-9244, The Boeing Company, 1964.
xxxix
Woodward, F.A., Tinoco, E.N., and Larsen, J.W., Analysis and Design of Supersonic Wing-Body
Combinations, Including Flow Propertis in the Near Field, Part I Theory and Application, NASA
CR-73106, 1967.
xl
Rubbert, P.E., and Saaris, G.R., A General Three-Dimensional Potential Flow Method Applied to
V/STOL Aerodynamics, SAE Paper No. 680304, 1968.
xli
Hess, J.L., Calculation of Potential Flow About Arbitrary 3-D Lifting Bodies, Douglas Report
MDC-J5679-01, Oct. 1972.
xlii
Wooward, F.A., An Improved Method for the Aerodynamic Analysis of Wing-Body-Tail
Configurations in Subsonic and Supersonic Flow, NASA CR-2228, Parts I and II, 1973.
xxiii
Roberts, A., and Rundle, K., Computation of First Order Compressible Flow About Wing-Body
Configurations, AERO MA No. 20, British Aircraft Corporaion, Feb. 1973
xliv
Mercer, J.E., Weber, J.A., and Lesfor, E.P., Aerodynamic Influence Coeficient Method Using
Singularity Splines, NASA CR-2423, May 1974.
xlv
Morino, L., and Kuo, C-C, Subsonic Potential Aerodynamics for Complex Configurations: A
General Theory, AIAA J., Vol. 12, No. 2, pp 191-197, Feb. 1974.
xlvi
Johnson, F.T., and Rubbert, P.E., Advanced Panel-Type Influence Coefficient Methods Applied to
Subsonic Flow, AIAA Paper no. 75-50, Jan. 1975.
xlvii
Ehlers, F.E., and Rubbert, P.E., A MAch Line Panel Method for Computingthe Linearized
Supersonic Flow, NASA CR-152126, 1979.
xlviii
Ehlers, F.E., Epton, M.A., Johnson, F.T., Magnus, A.E., and Rubbert, P.E., A Higher Order Panel
Method for Linearized Flow, NASA CR-3062, 1979.
xlix
Bristow, D.R., Development of Panel Methods for Subsonic Analysis and Design, NASA CR
3234, 1980.
l
Hess, J.L., and Friedman, D.M., An Improved Higher Order Panel Method for Three-Dimensional
Lifting flow, Douglas Aircraft Co. Report No. NADC-79277-60, 1981.
li
Maskew, B., Prediction of Subsonic Aerodynamic Characteristics: A Case for Lower Order Panel
Methods, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 19, no. 2, 1982 pp. 157-163..
lii
Coopersmith, R.M., Youngren, H.H., and Bouchard, E.E., Quadrilateral Element Panel Method
(QUADPAN), Lockheed-California Rpt. LR 29671, 1981.
liii
VortexLatticeUtilization,NASASP405,May1976
xliii
liv
Margason,R.J.,andLamar,J.E.,VortexLatticeFORTRANProgramforEstimatingSubsonic
AerodynamicCharacteristicsofComplexPlanforms,NASATND6142,Feb.1971
lv
Lamar,J.E.,andGloss,B.B.,SubsonicAerodynamicCharacteristicsofInteractingLiftingSurfaces
WithSeparatedFlowAroundSharpEdgesPredictedbyaVortexLatticeMethod,NASATND
7921,1975
lvi
Lamar,J.E.,andHerbert,H.E.,ProductionVersionoftheExtendedNASALangleyVortexLattice
FORTRANComputerProgram,Vol.I,UsersGuide,NASATM83303,1982(requiresupdate
packet,July,1984)
Herbert,H.E,andLamar,J.E.,ProductionVersionoftheExtendedNASALangleyVortexLattice
FORTRANComputerProgram,Vol.II,SourceCode,NASATM83304,1982
lviii
Drela, M., and Youngren, H., AVL, An extended Vortex Lattice Method,
http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/avl.
lix
Melin, T., Tornado, http://www.redhammer.se/tornado/
lx
Miranda, L.R., Eliott, R.D., and Baker, W.M., A Generalized Vortex Lattice Method for Subsonic
and Supersonic Flow Applications, NASA CR-2865, Dec. 1977.
lxi
Albright, A.E., Dixon, C.J., and Hegedus, M.C., Modification and Validation of Conceptual Design
Aerodynamic Prediction Method HASC95 With VTXCHN, NASA CR 4712, March 1996.
lxii
Nathman,J.K.,andMcComas,A.,ComparisonofStabilityandControlCalculationsfromVortex
LatticeandPanelMethods,AIAAPaper2008314,Jan.,2008.
lvii
Lan,C.E.,AQuasiVortexLatticeMethodinThinWingTheory,JournalofAircraft,Vol.11,
No.9,September1974,pp.518527.
lxiii
Mook,D.T.,andNayfeh,A.H.,ApplicationoftheVortexLatticeMethodtoHighAngleofAttack
SubsonicAerodynamics,SAEPaperNo.851817,October,1985.
lxiv
JacobKay,W.H.Mason,W.Durham,F.LutzeandA.Benoliel,ControlPowerIssuesin
ConceptualDesign:CriticalConditions,EstimationMethodology,SpreadsheetAssessment,Trimand
Bibliography,VPIAero200,November1993.(softwareandreportavailable,
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/MRsoft.html)
lxvi
Tinling, B.E., and Kolk, W.R., The Effects of Mach Number and Reynolds Number on the
Aerodynamic Characteristics of Several 12-Percent-Thick Wings Having 35 of Sweepback and
Various Amounts of Camber, NACA RM A50K27, Feb. 1951.
lxvii
Stivers,LouisS.,Jr.,EffectivenessofanAllMovableHorizontalTailonanUnsweptWingand
BodyCombinationforMachNumbersfrom0.60to1.40,NASATND13,Aug.1959.
lxviii
Abbott, Ira H., and Greenberg, Harry, Test in the Variable-Density Wind Tunnel of the NACA
23012 Airfoil with Plain and Split Flaps, NACA R No. 661, 1938.
lxix
Etkin,B.,DynamicsofFlightStabilityandControl,2ndEd.,JohnWiley&Sons,NewYork,1982.
lxv
Pittman,J.L.,andDillon,J.L.,VortexLatticePredictionofSubsonicAerodynamicsofHypersonic
VehicleConcepts,JournalofAircraft,Vol.14,No.10,1977,pg10171018.
lxxi
Polhamus,E.C.,PredictionofVortexLiftCharacteristicsbyaLeadingedgeSuctionAnalogy,
JournalofAircraft,Vol.8,No.4,1971,pp.193199.
lxx
Kalman,T.P.,Rodden,W.P.,andGiesing,J.,ApplicationoftheDoubletLatticeMethodto
NonplanarConfigurationsinSubsonicFlow,JournalofAircraft,Vol.8,No.6,1971,pp.406415.
lxxii
lxxiii
Belotserkovskii,S.M.,TheTheoryofThinWingsinSubsonicFlow,PlenumPress,NewYork,1967.
Saunders, G.H., Aerodynamic Characteristics of Wings in Ground Proximity, Canadian

Aeronautics and Space Journal, June 1965, pp. 185-192.
lxxv
Hough,GaryR.,RemarksonVortexLatticeMethods,JournalofAircraft,Vol.10,No.5,1973,
pp.314317.
lxxiv
Albano,E.,andRodden,W.P.,ADoubletLatticeMethodforCalculatingLiftDistributionson
OscillatingSurfacesinSubsonicFlows,AIAAJ.,Vol.7,No.2,February1969,pp.279285;errata
AIAAJ.,Vol.7,No.11,1969,p.2192.
lxxvii
Rodden, W.P., Taylor, P.F. and McIntosh, S.C. Jr., Further Refinement of te Subsonic oublet-Lattice
Method, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 35, No. 5, Sept-Oct 1998, pp. 720-727.
lxxviii
Rodden, W.P., Taylor, P.F., McIntosh, S.C., Jr. and Baker, M.L., Further Convergence Studies of
the Enhanced Doublet-Lattice Method, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 4, July-Aug 1999, pp. 682688.
lxxix
Fritz, T.E., and Long, L.N., Object-Oriented Unsteady Vortex Lattice Method for Flapping Flight,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No. 6, Nov-Dev 2004, pp. 1275 1289.
lxxx
Brandt, S.A., Stiles, R.J., Bertin, J.J., and Whitford, R., Introduction to Aeronautics: A Design
Perspective, Reston, VA: AIAA, 1997.
lxxxi
Nicolai, L.M., Fundamentals of Aircraft Design, METS, Inc., San Jose, 1975
lxxvi

Panel Methods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Panel Methods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5.

arrows indicate constant distribution of the singularity across the panel

control point on each panel,

div grad grad dV grad grad n dS. .

The1/rinEq.(5.19)canbeinterpretedasasourceofstrength / n ,andthe (1/r)term

Theproblemistofindthevaluesoftheunknownsourceanddoubletstrengths and fora

b) unit vector orientation

andthevelocitycomponentsatthecontrolpoint xi , yi are ui u(xi , yi ), vi v(xi , yi ).

ui sin i vi cos i 0, foreachi,i=1,...,N .

u1i v1 j cos1i sin1 j uN i vN j cos N i sin N j

Figure 5.27.Thepanelrepresentation ofthe737300with15flapdeflection (Ref.

on F(x, y) 0 y f (x) . Theunitnormalvector is n F(x, y) / F(x, y) andthevelocity

on y = f(x).Notethat v isdefinedintermsoftheunknown u.ThusEq.(5.40)isanonlinear

v{x, f (x)} v(x, 0) .

Cp due to camber/alpha (thickness effects cancel!)

C p C pThickness C pCamber C pAngleofattack

C pThickness C pCamber C pAngleofattack .

where Cm,n isaninfluencecoefficientthatisbasedontheBiotSavartLawandthegeometric

1. The Analysis Problem.Givencamberslopesand,solveforthecirculation

VLM and Thin Airfoil Theory CL

Saunders, G.H., Aerodynamic Characteristics of Wings in Ground Proximity, Canadian

You might also like