Flow Control Optimization by Tangential Blowing-Out on Transonic Airfoil

Аuthors

Abramova K. A.^*, Soudakov V. G.^**

Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute named after N.E. Zhukovsky (TsAGI), 1, Zhukovsky str., Zhukovsky, Moscow Region, 140180, Russia

*e-mail: kseniya.abramova@tsagi.ru
**e-mail: vit_soudakov@tsagi.ru

Abstract

Aerodynamic characteristics optimization of the transonic airfoil while flow-around control was performed based on numerical modelling. A jet of compressed air was blown-out from a small slot nozzle tangentially to the upper surface of the airfoil in the region of the shock wave. The blowing-out affects the shock wave and boundary layer interaction (SBLI), thus improving the airfoil performance.

The flow-around modelling was performed in the framework of the Reynolds equations. Computations were carried out in the 2D-setting for a mode with the Mach number of M = 0.72 and Reynolds number Re = 2.6 ∙ 106, computed by the chord, which corresponds to the testing mode in the wind tunnel.

Numerical optimization was performed to find optimal blowing-out parameters. With this, the blowing-out position, its intensity and the angle of attack were varied. Two objective functions were considered, namely, aerodynamic quality maximization and drag minimization at the constant lifting force. For the first objective function, position was being varied from 55% to 96% of the chord, and for the second one from 55% to 65% of the chord. The intensity was being varied from 100 to 300 kPa. The angle of attack was varied from 0.9 to 2.5 degrees.

The adaptive single-objective optimization was used. This method consists in employing Optimal Area Filling, Kriging response surface, and MISQP gradient algorithm (Mixed-Integer Sequential Quadratic Programming). Optimization revealed that for the lift-over-drag ratio objective function maximization, the optimal slot position was 83% of the chord, and the optimal jet intensity is C_µopt = 0.0049. For the objective function of Cxa minimization at a constant Cya ≈ 0.51, the utmost right position of the nozzle (65%) of all considered, and jet intensity Cµopt = 0.0051 are optimal. Tangential blowing-out with optimal parameters increased K_max by 6% for the case of maximum quality; in the case of minimization of drag, K_max increased by 3.5%, while the drag decreased by 1.1%.

Further the authors are planning consider more complex objective functions, accounting for the jet reaction contribution, as well as energy consumption for its blowing-out.

Keywords:

active flow control, aerodynamic performance, tangential jet blowing-out, airfoil

References

1. Pearcey H.H. Shock-induced separation and its prevention by design and boundary layer control, In: Boundary layer and flow control – its principles and application, Pergamon Press, Ed. by Lachmann, London, 1961, vol. 2, 1170 - 1361.

2. Gadetskiy V.M., Serebriyskiy Ya.M., Fomin V.M. Investigation of the influence of vortex generators on turbulent boundary layer separation, NASA TT F-16056, 1974, available at: https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19750004829/page/n9

3. KrogmannP., Stanewsky E., Thiede P. Effects of suction on shock/boundary layer interaction and shock-induced separation, Journal Aircraft, 1985, no. 22(1), pp. 37 - 42.

4. Leonov S.B., Yarantsev D.A., Gromov V.G., Kuriachy A.P. Mechanisms of Flow Control by Near-Surface Electrical Discharge Generation, AIAA-Paper, no. 2005 - 780, 2005.

5. Marino A., Catalano P., Marongiu C., Peschke P., Hollenstein C., Donelli R. Effect of http://www.aflonext.eu/files/3AF%202017/AFLoNext_3AF_Presentation_Sartor_170404.pdf Transonic Conditions, AIAA-Paper, 2013 - 2752, 2013.

6. Sartor F., Minervino M., Wild J., Wallin S., Maseland H., Dandois J., Soudakov V., Vrchota P. Flow Control at Trailing Edge of Wings and Profiles: an Overview of the Aflonext Project, 52nd 3AF International Conference on Applied Aerodynamics, 28 March 2017, Lyon.

7. Gueresh D., Popov S.A. Trudy MAI, 2018, no. 100, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=93356

8. Sakornsin R., Popov S.A. Trudy MAI, 2013, no. 65, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=35943

9. Skorynina A.O., Erokhin P.V., Artamonova L.G. Trudy MAI, 2012, no. 61, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=35658

10. Tishchenko M.N., Artamonov B.L. Trudy MAI, 2012, no. 55, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=30115

11. Gubskii V.V. Trudy MAI, 2013, no. 68, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=41737

12. Petrov A.V. Energeticheskie metody uvelicheniya pod"emnoi sily kryla (Energy methods of increase of wing lift), Moscow, Fizmatlit, 2011, 404 p.

13. Abramova K.A., Brutyan M.A., Lyapunov S.V., Petrov A.V., Potapchik A.V., Ryzhov A.A., Soudakov V.G. Investigation of buffet control on transonic airfoil by tangential jet blowing, 6th European Conference for Aeronautics and Space Sciences (EUCASS), June 25 – Juli 3, 2015, Krakow.

14. Petrov A.V, Bokser V.D, Sudakov G.G., and Savin P.V. Application of tangential jet blowing for suppression of shock-induced flow separation at transonic speeds, ICAS Paper 2010-3.7.2, 2010.

15. Petrov A.V., Potapchik A.V., Soudakov V.G. Investigation of flow control over the supercritical airfoil by tangential jet blowing at transonic speeds, ICAS Paper 2016-0173, 2016.

16. Panteleev A.V., Letova T.A., Pomazueva E.A. Trudy MAI, 2015, no. 79, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=55635

17. Pis'mennaya V.A. Trudy MAI, 2015, no. 79, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=55650

18. Brodskii A.V. Avtomatizatsiya resheniya zadach optimizatsii pri proektirovanii aerokosmicheskoi tekhniki // Trudy MAI, 2013, №71, URL: http://trudymai.ru/published.php?ID=47068.

19. Baranov V.N., Zo L.U. Trudy MAI, 2011, no. 46, available at: http://trudymai.ru/eng/published.php?ID=26056

20. Exler O., Schittkowski K., Lehmann T. A comparative study of numerical algorithms for nonlinear and nonconvex mixed-integer optimization, Mathematical Programming Computation, 2012, vol. 4, pp. 383 - 412.

Download