This article was downloaded by: [106.219.50.

223]
On: 23 February 2015, At: 10:41
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid

Mechanics
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcfm20

Ground Viscous Effect on 2d Flow of Wing in Ground

Proximity
a

Zhi-Gang Yang , Wei Yang & Qing Jia

a

Shanghai Automotive Wind Tunnel Center, Tongji University, Shanghai 201804, P. R.

China
Published online: 19 Nov 2014.

To cite this article: Zhi-Gang Yang, Wei Yang & Qing Jia (2010) Ground Viscous Effect on 2d Flow of Wing
in Ground Proximity, Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics, 4:4, 521-531, DOI:
10.1080/19942060.2010.11015338
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2010.11015338

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 521531 (2010)

GROUND VISCOUS EFFECT ON 2D FLOW OF WING IN

GROUND PROXIMITY
Zhi-Gang Yang, Wei Yang* and Qing Jia

Downloaded by [106.219.50.223] at 10:41 23 February 2015

Shanghai Automotive Wind Tunnel Center, Tongji University, Shanghai 201804, P. R. China
* E-Mail: david_yangwei@yahoo.cn (Corresponding Author)
ABSTRACT: Viscous effect of wing in ground effect in wind tunnel test was investigated numerically. Ground
settings in wind tunnel test were simulated by specifying different ground boundary conditions in CFD. It was
revealed for fixed-ground based wind tunnel test that: boundary layer developed from the ground deforms effective
ground surface and introduces a decreased effective ground clearance; a sharp increase in boundary layer thickness
and adverse pressure gradient are captured, which is attributed to deceleration of flow under the leading edge; a
separation bubble on ground forms in very small ground clearance and large angle of attack, which helps air flow
around the leading edge and delays the stall; measured aerodynamics in fixed-ground based wind tunnel test are not
accurate due to ground viscous boundary layer flow; ground viscous flow simulation is of great importance in indepth studies on ground effect. The results obtained will be useful in developing and evaluating wind tunnel tests
and studies for wing in ground effect craft.
Keywords:

wing in ground effect, aerodynamics, viscous effect, boundary layer separation, numerical method

of endplate in holding high pressure under wing

was verified; some experiments predicted adverse
pressure gradient over the upper surface and a
boundary layer separation near the trailing edge.
In these studies, the potential effect and viscous
effect were combined and roughly estimated.
Furthermore, experiments were mainly done in
wind tunnels with fixed ground, only few tests
were conducted with a moving road. In regions
very close to ground proximity, viscous effect
could become dominant and the accurate
simulation of the viscous effect would improve
the accuracy of prediction for ground effect.
For wind tunnel test, moving belt is an effective
facility for studying viscous effect of ground
effect. But not all of the wind tunnels have
moving belt systems. From this point of view, the
current work numerically investigates wing in
ground effect in wind tunnel test with and without
moving belt in 2D and attempts to find a
correction method. Also, in order to capture the
near wall flow features, such as transition, a
computational method is established and
validated. Then, based on numerical simulation,
the present work focuses on revealing the viscous
effect of ground effect flow and the flow pattern
under fixed-ground based wind tunnel test. Both
effects of inlet boundary turbulence level and
viscous near ground flow are taken into
consideration. The work will hopefully achieve a
better understanding of the mechanism of ground
effect.

1. INTRODUCTION
Favorable aerodynamic performance is obtained
when a wing is in close proximity to the ground.
Many works have been carried out on
development of Wing-in-ground effect (WIG)
craft to fully utilize the advantages of ground
effect (Rozhdestvensky, 2006). The benefits of
ground effect are also mentioned in the context of
race cars (Zerihan and Zhang, 2000; Mahon and
Zhang, 2005 and 2006; Ahmed et al., 2007).
Both potential effect and viscous effect play a role
in ground effect. When air flows through the
narrow region between the wing and the ground,
an air cushion with high pressure is created. A
substantial increase in lift can be captured as the
wing is approaching the ground. On the other
hand, air flow is viscous, and near wall viscous
flow for both wing and ground may affect the
flow pattern. Study of these two kinds of effect
helps to fully understand the mechanism of
ground effect. Various studies have been
undertaken to examine and to explain the effect of
ground on wings, through analytical, numerical
and experimental methods (Firooz and Gadami,
2006; Zhang and Zerihan, 2003; Kang and Zhao,
2007; Ahmed and Sharma, 2005; Yang and Yang,
2008a, 2008b and 2009; Yang et al., 2009).
Aerodynamic characteristics such as lift, drag,
and pressure were focused on in these studies;
chord dominated and span dominated ground
effect were investigated respectively; efficiency
Received: 7 Apr. 2010; Revised: 7 Jun. 2010; Accepted: 10 Jun. 2010
521

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 4, No. 4 (2010)

shown by its authors to perform well for flows

involving rotating and large-scale separation. The
SST model is a zonal two-equation turbulence
model that is k near the wall and transitions
to k model away from the wall. It employs
blending functions to take advantage of the
superior performance of the k- model in the near
wall regions and the freestream independence of
the k model in the farfield. One of the above
turbulence models will be applied to study
viscous flow in ground effect based on
performance in resolution of boundary layer flow.

2. DESCRIPTION OF COMPUTATIONS
2.1

Governing equations

Downloaded by [106.219.50.223] at 10:41 23 February 2015

The computation simulates the NACA0012 airfoil

in ground effect. We aim to study the viscous
effect of ground in modeling ground effect.
Further details of wing in ground effect can be
referred to Yang and Yang (2009). The flow
velocity is set at 60m/s. The Reynolds number is
4106 based on the chord length c. The flow was
modeled as incompressible because of the low
Mach number.
The governing equations are the incompressible
RANS equations for continuity and momentum
(Fluent 6.2 User's Guide, 2005):
U i
0
xi

2.3 Computational domain and boundary

conditions
The computational domain is shown in Fig. 1.
The airfoil has a chord length, c, of 1m. The
inflow boundary was placed a distance x1/c=6
upstream of the trailing edge of airfoil and the
outflow boundary a distance x2/c=10 downstream
of the trailing edge of airfoil. The height of
domain was y/c=6. The domain was thought by
the authors to be large enough to minimize the
influence of the boundaries on the final solution
and small enough to minimize the number of grid
cells. C-H type grids were adopted. For the
resolution of turbulent boundary layer profiles, a
minimum normal spacing of 110-5 c is selected
and the near wall grid consists of approximately
50 prism layers, so that the y at the cells next to
the wall are around 1 along the airfoil surface and
ground. The grid between airfoil and ground
contains 120 layers at h/c=0.05 to 200 layers at
h/c=0.3. Ground clearance, or flight height, h is
defined by distance from the ground to the trailing
edge of airfoil.
A velocity inlet boundary condition is specified
with a uniform profile at 60m/s. Inlet turbulence
level (Tu) is set at 0.2% for study of near ground
viscous effect and 0.2%, 0.5%, 1% for study of
inlet boundary turbulence level effect at certain
ground clearance and angles of attack. At the
outflow boundary, a pressure outlet boundary
condition is prescribed with a gauge pressure of
zero. A slip boundary condition (symmetry) was
specified on the top boundary. The effect of
boundary layer on wind tunnel test was simulated

(1)

U i (U iU j )
2U i
1 P

( ui' u'j ) (2)

xi
t
x j
x j x j x j

where

ui'u 'j

is the Reynolds stress term, which

must be determined with a statistical turbulence

model. The incompressible RANS equations are
solved using an implicit, segregated, twodimensional finite volume method. A secondorder accurate scheme is used for the convective
and viscous terms of the RANS equations.
Pressure-velocity coupling is implemented with
the SIMPLE algorithm.
2.2

Turbulence modeling

Before numerically investigating the viscous flow,

four turbulence models were evaluated by
comparing the calculation of the turbulent stresses
for flat plate and airfoil in freestream, they are
one-equation Spalart-Allmaras (S-A) model
(Spalart and Allmaras, 1992), the two-equation
Standard k (SKE) model (Launder and
Spalding, 1972), the Realizable k (RKE)
model (Shih et al., 1995) and the Menters
k / sst (shear stress transport) turbulence
model (Menter, 1994). The Spalart-Allmaras
model was designed specifically for aerospace
applications involving wall-bounded flows and
has been shown to give good results for boundary
layers subjected to adverse pressure gradients.
The standard k model is based on model
transport equations for the turbulence kinetic
energy ( k ) and its dissipation rate ( ). Accuracy
for a wide range of turbulent flows explains its
popularity in industrial flow. The Realizable
k model represents a more advanced version
of two-equation turbulence model. It has been

Symmetry
Pressure

Ground
x3

x2

x1

Fig. 1
522

Placement of the airfoil and computational

domain.

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 4, No. 4 (2010)

10

-2

were compared to clarify the viscous effect and to

emphasize the importance of viscous ground
simulation in wind tunnel test.

12,000 Cells
60,000 Cells
120,000 Cells

3.1
f

Different turbulence models were evaluated based

on their capability to capture characteristics of
near wall viscous flow, such as boundary layer
transition. For wing in ground effect, both viscous
flows near the wing and ground are important.
Therefore, the turbulence model evaluation was
conducted for two cases, an airfoil in freestream
and a flat plate with uniform velocity.
For airfoil in freestream, the computation
simulates the experiment carried out by Lee and
Kang (2000). The computational domain for
evaluation has the same size as the test section in
experiment, 300mm(H)2000mm(L). The airfoil
was mounted at the center of the domain. The
Reynolds Number is 6105 based on a chord of
0.3m and a flow velocity of 30m/s. The
background turbulence level is 0.3 percent, which
is the same as in the experiment. As shown in Fig.
2, mesh independence was determined with a
mesh of 60,000 cells. The turbulence model used
in mesh independence study is k / sst model.
All computations presented later in the present
study are implemented with mesh densities
similar or greater to that of the mesh-independent
case. Variations of skin friction coefficient on the
lower surface of NACA0012 airfoil with different
turbulence models are shown in Fig. 3. Transition
is assumed to start and end at the locations of
local minimum and maximum values of skin
friction, respectively. The experiment reported
that the transition starts at x/c=0.617 (x=185mm)
and ends at x/c=0.783 (x=235mm). The S-A
model, SKE model and RKE model failed to
capture the transition of the boundary layer. The
k / sst model gives a better description about
transition characteristics over the airfoil surface.
However, more viscous effect is introduced and
the transition takes place earlier than that of
experiment as shown in Fig. 3.
For evaluation of the flat plate flow, the
computation was conducted based on the same
setting and domain as described in section 2.3.
The ground part served as the flat plate.
Computation based on k / sst model predicts
the skin friction acceptably (Fig. 4). The airfoil in
the following computations will be placed in the
region between x=1m and x=2m. It is thought by
authors that the k / sst model is a reasonable
choice for our computations.

C
10

-3

1.5

Fig. 2

2.5

3.5

Skin friction for different mesh densities.

S-A
S-KE
R-KE
KW-SST
Lee
H, 2000
H. Lee,
2000

-2

10

0.2

C f=0.0592/Rx

Cf

Downloaded by [106.219.50.223] at 10:41 23 February 2015

4
x 10

-3

10

0.5

Cf=0.664/Rx

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Rx

Fig. 3

Evaluation of turbulence models

5.5
5

x 10

Skin friction for lower surface of NACA0012.

by specifying slip boundary condition on the

ground from the inlet boundary to a position
x3/c=2 upstream of the trailing edge of airfoil
(Mcmanus and Zhang, 2006). Non-slip boundary
condition was specified on airfoil and ground.
Three experimental cases were considered, a
fixed-ground based wind tunnel test with velocity
of the ground set to zero, a mirror-image method
based wind tunnel test with a symmetry ground
and a moving-belt based wind tunnel test with
velocity of the ground set to the freestream
velocity of 60m/s.
3. COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
Flow of wing in ground effect is complex. To
simulate this complex flow, turbulence models
were firstly evaluated for turbulent boundary
layer flows, and a turbulence model was chosen
based on the performance for these flows. Then,
viscous effect of wing in ground effect flow was
numerically studied. Finally, the results for
different kinds of ground boundary conditions
523

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 4, No. 4 (2010)

displacement thickness. Because the main effect

of viscosity is to slow down the fluid near a wall,
so the edge of the boundary layer is defined to be
the point at which the fluid velocity equals 99%
of the local free-stream velocity. The boundary
layer thickness, denoted by , is simply the
thickness of the viscous boundary layer region.
The displacement thickness, denoted by * , is the
distance a streamline just outside the boundary
layer is displaced away from the wall compared to
the inviscid solution.
Fig. 5 shows the displacement thickness and
boundary layer thickness of wing with different
ground boundary conditions. They are very small
compared to flight height, and ground setting in
numerical simulation has no effect on
development of boundary layer along the airfoil.
Nevertheless, the boundary layer development on
stationary ground can be affected by the ramming
effect under airfoil (Fig. 6). The displacement
thickness and boundary layer thickness for
h/c=0.1 are smaller than those for h/c=0.3. It is

-3

x 10

4.5

0.2

C f=0.0592/Rx
Computation

Cf

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

x (m)

Fig. 4

Skin friction for flat plate.

-3

x 10

4.5

stationary
symmetry
moving wall

4
3.5

*/m

3
2.5

-3

x 10

5.5

1.5
1

h/c=0.1
h/c=0.3

0.5
4.5

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

*/m

0
0.1

x/c

(a) Displacement thickness.

4
3.5

0.014

0.013

2.5

stationary
symmetry
moving wall

0.012

2
0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

0.9

0.95

x/c

0.011

/m

(a) Displacement thickness.

0.01

0.016

0.009

0.015
0.008

0.014
0.007
0.006
0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

0.012

x/c

(b) Boundary layer thickness.

Fig. 5

3.2

h/c=0.1
h/c=0.3

0.013

/m

Downloaded by [106.219.50.223] at 10:41 23 February 2015

0.011
0.01

Displacement thickness and boundary layer

thickness of airfoil, h/c=0.1.

0.009
0.008
0.007

Viscous effect of ground boundary layer

0.006
0.5

In the numerical simulation of the airfoil, the

angle of attack was set at 6 degrees. Two main
parameters were used in the present work to
characterize the size and shape of a boundary
layer, the boundary layer thickness and the

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

x/c

(b) Boundary layer thickness.

Fig. 6

524

Displacement thickness and boundary layer

thickness of airfoil with stationary ground.

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 4, No. 4 (2010)

60

u h/c=0.1
u h/c=0.3

0.04

no wing
h/c=0.3
h/c=0.1

0.03

50

/m

u /ms-1

0.1

40

Actual airfoil surface

y/m

0.02

0.05

Effective airfoil surface

he

-0.05

Effective ground surface

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Actual ground surface

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

Near wall flow with stationary ground.

0.85

0.9

0.95

Fig. 8

Changes of effective shape of the body with

stationary ground, h/c=0.1.

-0.2

.2
-0

-0.1

-0.4

-0.4
-0.6

-0.6
-0.8

-0.8

0.2

0.
4

0.2
0.8

0.6

0.6

(a) h/c=0.1
Fig. 9

0.8
0.637

0.63

0.4

0.637

0.6

0.6

0.4
0.4

Downloaded by [106.219.50.223] at 10:41 23 February 2015

0.8

x/c

x/c

Fig. 7

-0.1

0.01
30
-0.4
-0.4

(b) h/c=0.05

Static pressure coefficient distribution with stationary ground.

thickness, which leads to a change in effective

flight height and an over-estimation of the ground
effect. For example, the effective relative flight
height is he/c=0.076 for h/c=0.1 and he/c=0.2878
for h/c=0.3, when the ground is considered to be
stationary. The viscous boundary layer effect is of
increasing importance as the ground clearance is
reduced or the angle of attack is increased.

indicated that the high static pressure which

distributed between airfoil and ground
compressed the boundary layer. The smaller the
ground clearance is, the more the boundary layer
is compressed.
The development of boundary layer from the
ground is sketched in Fig. 7. u is the velocity at
the edge of boundary layer. Due to ramming
action, the velocity is low under the airfoil near
the leading edge, and then the flow accelerates
along the lower surface. Accordingly, the velocity
at edge of boundary layer experiences a process
of increase after decrease. Decrease of velocity
leads to an increase of pressure, and fluid
transforms part of its kinetic energy into potential
energy. In other words, local adverse pressure
gradient is highly increased, which results in a
significant growth in boundary layer. The
development of boundary layer restores to
original state with the acceleration of flow.
The effect of viscous boundary layer flow on
study of wing in ground effect is illustrated in Fig.
8. It is clear that viscous effect of fixed ground
causes an effective deforming of the ground
surface. The ground is raised by displacement

3.3

Separation bubble on ground

The adverse pressure gradient along the ground is

increased near the leading edge with airfoil
approaching to ground (Fig. 9). At certain flight
height the boundary layer, after losing a part of its
energy due to friction, no longer has sufficient
amount of energy to overcome the adverse
pressure gradient, and boundary layer separation
occurs (Fig. 10). The momentum transfer due to
turbulent mixing eventually eliminates the reverse
flow near the wall and the flow reattaches
downstream. Breakdown of boundary layer flow
is recovered by reattachment. The separationreattachment region is featured with dead air
zone, which could modify the effective shape of

525

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 4, No. 4 (2010)

-3

x 10

-3

Without airfoil
h/c=0.05
h/c=0.1
h/c=0.3

4
3.5

x 10

2.5

Cf

Cf

2.5

=6

=8

=10

=12

1.5

1.5

1
0.5

0.5
0
-0.5
-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

x/c

-0.5

0.5

x/c
(b) h/c=0.1

(a) 6
Downloaded by [106.219.50.223] at 10:41 23 February 2015

Fig. 10 Skin friction of the stationary ground.

(a) Stationary

(b) Symmetry

(c) Moving wall

Fig. 11 Streamlines in flow with different ground settings, h/c=0.05, 6 .

(a) 8

(b) 12

(c) 16

Fig. 12 Streamlines in flow with stationary ground, h/c=0.05.

tending to flow around the leading edge. Thus, the

stagnation point on airfoil moves forwards when
being compared with that of moving wall ground
boundary condition. It can also be noticed in Fig.
13 that the ramming effect under airfoil in ground
effect with small ground clearance stagnates the
flow at a further distance away from the leading
edge of airfoil for cases of moving wall; while the
separation bubble effect at small ground clearance
shifts the stagnation point towards leading edge
more than that in larger ground clearance. High
static pressure stored near the trailing edge of
airfoil is released when airfoil stalls at big angle
of attack. High favorable pressure gradient is
present behind the separation bubble. The
separation bubble shrinks to some extent
accordingly (Fig. 14).

ground. Fig. 10 describes the fact that a large

angle of attack can lead to boundary layer
separation on ground and the separation region is
growing with angle of attack, which is attributed
to the strengthened air cushion under airfoil. The
viscous boundary layer flow near ground is
sensitive to flight height and angle of attack, so is
the prediction accuracy of flow for fixed ground
based CFD and wind tunnel test.
A separation bubble can be captured near ground
when the ground was set to be stationary in Fig.
11. Flows for the other two ground boundary
conditions are similar without separation. The
separation bubble grows with increase of the
angle of attack. It continues growing until the
airfoil stalls (Fig. 12). The oncoming viscous flow
near ground is pushed upwards away from ground
by the separation bubble towards the airfoil,
526

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 4, No. 4 (2010)

0.08

2500

h/c=0.05 stationary
h/c=0.05 moving wall
h/c=0.1 stationary
h/c=0.1 moving wall

0.07

2000
1500
1000

Pa

x/c

0.06

0.05

500

Separation region

0.04

=6

-500
0.03

-1000
0.02

10

11

12

13

-1500
-1

14

1.6

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.3

1.3

stationary
symmetry
moving wall

1.2

CL

CL

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fig. 14 Static pressure distribution near ground.

1.6

1.1

stationary
symmetry
moving wall

1.2
1.1

0.9

0.9
0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0.8

0.045

CD

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

11

12

13

14

15

16

(a) h/c=0.05
1.6

1.6

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.3

1.3

stationary
symmetry
moving wall

1.2
1.1

CL

CL

Downloaded by [106.219.50.223] at 10:41 23 February 2015

-0.6

=16

x/c

Fig. 13 Stagnation point.

0.8
0.005

-0.8

=12

1.2
1.1

0.9
0.8
0.005

stationary
symmetry
moving wall

0.9

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0.8

0.045

CD

10

(b) h/c=0.1
Fig. 15 Lift and drag coefficient.

limitations of height and angle of attack on insight

into ground effect.

Fixed-ground based wind tunnel test reduces flow

that is fundamentally different from the actual
flow in extreme ground effect. The viscous effect
of the near ground flow plays a decisive role in
the study of wing in ground effect, which is
characterized by complex flow between wing and
ground surface (or water surface). Viscous effect
in fixed-ground based wind tunnel test imposes

3.4

Ground viscous effect on aerodynamics

Aerodynamics of 2D wing in extreme ground

effect with different ground boundary conditions
is presented in Fig. 15. It is generally agreed that
527

Downloaded by [106.219.50.223] at 10:41 23 February 2015

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 4, No. 4 (2010)

As one can expect, air flow will speed up firstly

and then slow down along the airfoil surface
when air flows over an airfoil. The minimum
static pressure is achieved where the flow velocity
reaches the maximum. As shown in Fig. 16, less
suction effect is realized with induced flow over
airfoil due to the separation bubble on ground.
Loss of pressure effect under lower surface
spreads from leading edge to trailing edge with
airfoil pitching up. Reduction of suction effect
and loss of pressure effect result in poor
performance in aerodynamics for wing in ground
effect based on stationary ground boundary
condition. Near the trailing edge, flow over airfoil
is uninfluenced by ground boundary conditions at
small angle of attack, while it is affected at large
angle of attack. Curves for ground boundary
conditions of symmetry and moving wall coincide.
Prediction of aerodynamics for wing in ground
effect is essentially determined by reasonable
simulation of ground effect. Fixed-ground based
wind tunnel test or CFD study introduces
complex viscous ground boundary layer flow
which deforms the effective ground shape and
leads to unrealistic results, while wind tunnel test
and CFD study based on mirror method or
especially facilities such as boundary layer
suction and moving belt can simulate more
realistically the ground effect phenomenon.

fixed ground in wind tunnel test slows down the

flow under wing or vehicle, static pressure
increases due to decrease of dynamic pressure and
pressure effect under lower surface of airfoil is
strengthened. Furthermore, effective flight height
is reduced by displacement thickness due to
viscous boundary layer flow, and ground effect is
over-estimated. Accordingly, higher lift is
expected. However this is not true when the
separation bubble appears on the ground in very
small ground clearance or at large angle of attack
for airfoil in ground effect, in which case lift is
underestimated and stall can be delayed under
strong separation bubble effect.
As mentioned in previous sections that the
separation bubble can grow with decrease of
flight height and increase of angle of attack.
Under these situations, air flow upstream is
blocked and deflected by the separation bubble.
Less air flows through the narrow space between
airfoil and ground. Ramming effect under airfoil
is weakened. Synchronously, stagnation point
moves upstream. The separation bubble also helps
the air flow around the leading edge with less
energy consumption. This change represents
decrease of suction over airfoil. It is obvious that
adverse pressure gradient decreases and stall is
delayed. Growth of the separation bubble means
more pressure effect leaks out, resulting indistinct
difference from reality or reductions of the other
two cases. Aerodynamics and pressure
distribution based on ground boundary conditions
of symmetry and moving wall are well matched.
Shear flow near moving ground leads to a high
pressure near the trailing edge, which contributes
to separating the flow over airfoil. So, airfoil
under moving ground boundary condition stalls
slightly earlier at flight height of h/c=0.05.

3.5

All kinds of viscous flow are complex and

sensitive to Reynolds number and background
turbulence level. Generally, an increasing inlet
turbulence level could result in forward motion of
transition point and change of boundary layer
separation. Effect of background turbulence level
on ground boundary layer separation occurrence

1.5

0.5

0
0.3

-0.5

Cp

Effect of background turbulence level

0.25

Cp

0.2

-1

-2
0.15

-1

0.5

-2

0.4

-3

0.3

-6

0.1

-1.5

-4

0.05

0.2

-6.5

-2

-2.5

0.1

-5

-0.05

-7

-0.1

-2.5

0.7

0.8

-3

-3
-3.5

0.75

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.85

0.9

0.95

stationary
symmetry
moving wall
0.8

0.9

0
0.85

-6

0.9

-7
1

-8

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

x/c

x/c
(a) 6

(b) 12
Fig. 16 Pressure coefficient, h/c=0.05.
528

0.95

stationary
symmetry
moving wall

-7.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

was studied by changing the turbulence level at

inlet boundary from 0.2% to 1%. The angle of
attack is 6 degrees. As analyzed previously,
boundary layer under wing in extreme ground
effect encounters high adverse pressure gradient
and grows significantly. Higher adverse pressure
gradient would trigger the separation of boundary
layer. Fig. 17 presents the boundary layer
developments under wing in ground effect along
stationary ground with different background
turbulence levels at h/c=0.1. Change of
background turbulence level does not bring
significant variation in boundary layer
development under wing in ground effect. Fig. 18
shows the skin friction under wing for stationary
ground at h/c=0.05. Fig. 19 shows the streamlines
at h/c=0.05. Boundary layer separation occurs.
Curves of skin friction for different inlet
turbulence level coincide. Skin friction was less
affected by changes of inlet boundary turbulence
level. The separation bubble is also insensitive to
the background turbulence level. It is clear that
viscous flow under wing in extreme ground effect
is more affected by ground simulation than by
inlet boundary turbulence level.

4. CONCLUSIONS
The present work is driven by the need to reveal
mechanism of ground effect. A variety of
investigations on wing in ground effect is in
progress based on wind tunnel tests. In order to
evaluate the viscous effect in ground effect,
especially for fixed-ground based wind tunnel test,
detailed numerical investigations that simulated
wind tunnel test on wing in ground effect with
different ground boundary conditions were
carried out. The conclusions of the present study
are as follows:

Viscous ground boundary layer flow for fixed

ground based wind tunnel test raises the floor
because of the displacement thickness. It is
thought that ground effect is over predicted due
to viscous effect, which causes decrease of
effective ground clearance.

A separation bubble is created on the ground

under the leading edge due to high adverse
pressure gradient in very small ground
clearance and at large angle of attack for fixed
ground. It is affected by background turbulence
level. The resulting flow not deviates from
actual ground effect flow for craft or race cars.

0.04

x 10

-3

Tu = 0.2%
0.035

Tu = 1%

2.5

0.03

0.025

Cf

/m

Downloaded by [106.219.50.223] at 10:41 23 February 2015

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 4, No. 4 (2010)

1.5

0.02

0.015

0.5

0.01
-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

x/c

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

x/c

Fig. 17 Boundary layer thickness near stationary

ground, h/c=0.1 and 6 .

(a) Tu=0.2%

Tu = 0.2%
Tu = 0.5%
Tu = 1%

Fig. 18 Skin friction for stationary ground with

different inlet turbulence level, h/c=0.05
and 6 .

(b) Tu=0.5%

(c) Tu=1%

Fig. 19 Streamlines with different background turbulence levels, h/c=0.05 and 6 .

529

0.8

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 4, No. 4 (2010)

The ground separation bubble grows with

decrease of flight height and increase of angle
of attack. It deflects the oncoming flow and
makes more air flow over the upper surface.
The formation of a boundary layer separation
bubble results in delaying stall for small ground
clearance.

It is precisely because of viscous effect that

wind tunnel test based on fixed ground falls
into difficulty in accurately predicting
aerodynamics and ground effect. Aerodynamics
is overestimated before separation bubble
occurs and is underestimated after.

2. Ahmed MR, Takasaki T, Kohama Y (2007).

Aerodynamics of a NACA4412 airfoil in
ground effect. AIAA Journal 45(1):3747.
3. Firooz A, Gadami M (2006). Turbulence flow
for NACA 4412 in unbounded flow and
ground effect with different turbulence
models and two ground conditions: Fixed and
moving ground conditions. Proceedings of
the International Conference on Boundary
and Interior Layers (BAIL 2006), July 24th
28th, 2006, Gttingen.
4. Fluent 6.2 User's Guide, Fluent Inc., Lebanon,
NH, 2005.
5. Kang DW, Zhao LL (2007). PIV
measurements of the near-wake flow of an
airfoil above a free surface. Journal of
Hydrodynamics, Ser. B 19(4):482487.
6. Launder BE, Spalding DB (1972). Lectures in
Mathematical Models of Turbulence.
Academic Press, London, England.
7. Lee H, Kang SH (2000). Flow characteristics
of transitional boundary layers on an airfoil in
wakes. Journal of Fluids Engineering
122(3):522532.
8. Mahon S, Zhang X (2005). Computational
analysis of pressure and wake characteristics
of an aerofoil in ground effect. Journal of
Fluids Engineering 127(2):290298.
9. Mahon S, Zhang X (2006). Computational
analysis of a inverted double element airfoil
in ground effect. ASME Journal of Fluids
Engineering 128(6):11721180.
10. Mcmanus J, Zhang X (2006). A
computational study of the flow around an
isolated wheel in contact with the ground.
Journal of Fluids Engineering-Transactions
of the ASME 128(3):520530.
11. Menter FR (1994). Two-equation eddyviscosity turbulence models for engineering
applications. AIAA Journal 32(8):15981605.
12. Rozhdestvensky KV (2006). Wing-in-ground
effect vehicles. Progress in Aerospace
Science 42(3):211283.
13. Shih TH, Liou WW, Shabbir A, Yang Z, Zhu
J (1995). A new k eddy viscosity model
for high Reynolds number turbulent flows.
Computers & Fluids 24(3):227238.
14. Spalart PR, Allmaras SR (1992). A oneequation turbulence model for aerodynamic
flows. 30th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, USA, 6
9 January, AIAA paper 92-0439.
15. Yang W, Yang Z (2008a). A study on
longitudinal stability and configuration of
wing-in-ground effect based on CFD.
NASPC/TUWMAE2008, Beijing, China:

Downloaded by [106.219.50.223] at 10:41 23 February 2015

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to recognize the support
of Shanghai Automotive Wind Tunnel Center.
This work was supported by Program for
Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research
Team in University.
NOMENCLATURE

c
CD
CL
Cp
h
p
Re

u
u
+

mean chord length (m)

drag coefficient
lift coefficient
pressure coefficient
flight height (or ground clearance)(m)
pressure (Pa)
Reynolds number
velocity in freestream (m/s)
boundary layer edge velocity (m/s)
non-dimensional wall distance

Greek symbols

angle of attack (deg)

density (kg/m3)
kinematic viscosity (m2/s)

Subscripts

i, j

coordinate index

REFERENCES
1. Ahmed MR, Sharma SD (2005). An
investigation on the aerodynamics of a
symmetrical airfoil in ground effect.
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science
29(6):633647.
530

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 4, No. 4 (2010)

16.

17.

18.

Downloaded by [106.219.50.223] at 10:41 23 February 2015

19.
20.

Tsinghua University; 30th Oct.2nd Nov.

2008.
Yang W, Yang Z (2008b). Numerical
simulation on span-dominated ground effect
of 3D wing in ground effect. Computer Aided
Engineering 17(3):1317. (in Chinese)
Yang W, Yang Z (2009). Aerodynamic
investigation of a 2D wing and flows in
ground
effect.
Chinese
Journal
of
Computational Physics 26(2):231240.
Yang Z, Yang W, Li YL (2009). Analysis of
two configurations for a commercial WIG
craft based on CFD. 27th AIAA Applied
Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA-2009-4112,
2225 June 2009, San Antonio, Texas.
Zerihan J, Zhang X (2000). Aerodynamics of
a single element wing in ground effect.
Journal of Aircraft 37(6):10581064.
Zhang X, Zerihan J (2003). Off-surface
aerodynamic measurements of a wing in
ground effect. Journal of Aircraft 40(4):716
725.

531