Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
This document has been reproduced from the best copy furnished by the
organizational source. It is being released in the interest of making available as
much information as possible.
This document may contain data, which exceeds the sheet parameters. It was
furnished in this condition by the organizational source and is the best copy
available.
This document may contain tone-on-tone or color graphs, charts and/or pictures,
which have been reproduced in black and white.
Portions of this document are not fully legible due to the historical nature of some
of the material. However, it is the best reproduction available from the original
submission.
JANUARY 1975
Rv . F T
1
DONALD S. HAGUE
Prepared by
Originally Published as
^s
LJ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
n n
(I)
Page
_
ABSTRACT............................ 1
L
SUMMARY .........................:................................. 2
J^
INTRODUCTION .......................^............................. 3
A
4i
MATHEMATICAL MODELS .................................................. 4
CONCLUSION ........................................................ 9,
d
REFERENCES ........................................................ 44
ii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
L^
Figure Description
i
1
3 (a) - 3 (v)
Cs^
tL
g
4w
ABSTRACT
n
I
.
I
Y4
Sy
SUMMARY
4s
An investigation has been conducted on the Lawrence Radiation Center,
Berkeley, CDC 7600 digital computer to determine the effects of additional
thickness distributions to the up p er surface of an NACA 64 1 -212 airfoil.
Additional thickness distributions employed were in the form of two second-
order polynomial arcs which have a specified thickness, y, at a given
chordwise location, x. The forward arc disappears at the airfoil leading
edge, the aft arc disappears at the airfoil trailing edge. At the
l:s juncture of the two arcs, x = x, continuity of slope is maintained.
r
The effect of varying the maximum additional thickness and its chordwise
location on airfoil lift coeeficient, pitching moment, and pressure dis-
tribution was investigated. Rovults were obtained at a Mach number of
0.2 with an angle-of-attack of 6 0 on the basic NACA 64 1- 212 airfoil. All
calculations employ the full potential flow equations for two dimensional
flow. The relaxation method of Jameson is employed for solution of the
potential flow equations.
ti Increases in the rearward location of the maximum additional thickness
and increases in the magnitude of the additional thickness both produce
increases in the airfoil lift coefficient. Conversely moving the location
of maximum thickness forward or decreasing the maximum thickness both
''reduce the magnitude of the quarter chord pitching moment. The magnitude
of the largest pressure peak varies in a complicated manner with maximum
additional thickness and its chordwise location. For maximum thickness
locations forward of the 2/3 chord additional thickness initially produces
G
a reduction in pressure peak with a lift coefficient increase. With
larger amounts of additionalthickness pressure peak value and lift
2
^ P
INTRODUCTION
y3i profile changes which improve the moment characteristics decrease the lift
( coefficient. With the low - order model of the present investigation a
} systematic examination on the effect of _profile changes " can be carried
a nd tre nds revealed b optimization
studies wereconfirmedishAend nterestingby product of the
the systematic
3
investigation of profile changes is that a gain in lift coefficient can be
decrease the pressure gradient and hence holds promise for the development
MATHEMATICAL MODELS
U = 0x , V -^: 0y
and a is the local speed of sound determined from the energy !aquation`and
y:
the stagnation speed of sound
a2 a o 2 - (^2
1 ) ( n2 = v2)
ii
Solutions are obtained by Jameson's finite difference scheme, reforenc `e 4,"
BasicAirfoil
+ a2.x2 + a 3. x 3 ; j = 1,2,3,4
e yj = a o. F 1 + a l. x
^ J J J .
Cot,' , 'ueients in the four polynomial arcs are selected on the following
it
on the .ui 9oil profile in each of the four airfoil arcs. Crout's method for
trajngulaeication and back substitution of the resulting systems of linear
simultaneous equations. Note that if four points are specified on the
r
aft portion (i = 2 oi'4), a discontinuity in slope occurs where the poly-
numials join. This produces a small ripple in the pressure distribution
at the juncture point. However, since the juncture occurs at a region
of small slope (x = .5) the effect is not significant. The approximate
NACA 64 1-212 airfoil developed by this method is presented in Figure 1.
Additional Thickness
In the present study additional thickness is limited to the upper
airfoil surface. The additional thickness has the form
Ay (x) - y I - f %X x) 2] ; x
1 \ /
r /
A Y(x) =YI1-/ x=x 11
2
x
LL ` 1-x I J
These functions are of second-order ranging parabolically with 4 _ ix-xl.
x
Additional thickness is zero at the ending edge ( =0) and trailing edge (x=1)
and has a maximum of Ay=y at x=x. Additional thickness and slope of6ithe
additional thickness are continuous throughout the interval o < n <1. Second
derivative of the additional thickness distribution is constant in the
forward and aft airfoil arcs but has a discontinuity at the ,arc junction,
x=x. It follows that a continuous polynomial representation of the additional
,n
C,
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
0 = Max (C L ]
12
where
CL = iAp(x)dx
and the integration is around the airfoil contour. Since the airfoil
contour is completely described in terms of the two parameters x and y
where
xL< x5 xM
YL5 Y:5 YM
rJ
I
L..
Moment Minimization
Minimization of the momor!,4,coefFicient has form
A = Min [CM^
where
(
u , "m ({^ (x - J^) ep(x)dx
CM <'.177 - .22 CL
This function has been used to define airfoil which have favorable lift/
moment dyinracteristics by solution of the problem
j
p = Min 1.177 - .22 C L - CM I -
Optimization Strtttiiary
Three optimal airfoil results have been obtained consistent with the
class of airfoil profiles considered here. These results are summarized
in Table II. It can be seen that in all cases the position of maximum
thickness, z, is either at the extreme forward or rearward position allowed.
Similarly, depending on problem specification, the amount of additional"
OF
0^^j ^
QUP GE 7
AID
I _..,icss is either minimized c ,, maximized. The low dimensionality of
this problem (two parameters, x and y) permit a ready mapping of these
results as a function of x and y. This is done in the following section.
it SYSTEMATIC VARIATION OF
AIRFOIL SHAPING PARAMETERS
k^ t/c 12% + y
ORIG.^^
P,`i^^
L 01.1 P OOR
RUE 8
il y
As it moves to the extremes of the range the actual airfoil thickness
is less than this amount as the positions of maximum thickness on the ;asic
and additional thickness distributions are significantly different.
Moment coefficient variation with i and y is presented in Figure S.
It can be soon that the increased lift available from additional thickness
' is accompanied by an increase in undesirable pitching moment coefficient.
'rhe conclusion of the previous section that moment coefficient is
minimized by moving z forward and diminishing is borne out by Figure 5,
again confirming the_ optimization study results.
A final verification of the optimization procedures employed is
provided_by Figure 6. Here the variation of C M and C L with i and y is
presented together with the line function
.177 - . 22 CL - CM = 0
CONCLUSION
OMGINAL 9
OP POOR UAGE
Q ALIZY
b
,-
c^
fw ORIGINAL PAGE 18
OF p OOB QUALM 10
q
TABLE I
C
i
CONVERGENCE FOR C MAXIMIZATION
^I L
1 s^
R
x Y -CL
i FUNCTN( 1)
?SUOA( 1) 1 'ALPHA( 2)
^0 1 Ji j .^ UUOOE-03 -;8,41
U 1 . X08 1" U36^t:-03 -.8942
10 1 3 .2583 1.1667E-03 -,5952
10 1 5 .2626 1r4155E-03 -,8968
2 1 6 .2753 1.8311E-03 -.8982
} 2 1 7 .2879 - 4 21166E-03 -09022
2 1 3 .3132 3..0776E-03 +.9078
2 1 9 .3638 4..7398E-03 -,9196
10 2 10 .3688 4..7533E-03 -.9198
i0 2 11 8 3758 502172E 03 ''-.9216
10 2 12 .3824 5..5611E-03 -.9258
2 2 13 .4010 6.3824E-03 -:9320
' 2 2 14 . 1 1196 7:2U37E-03 -,9385
2 15 .4567 8".8462E-03 -.9520
2 2 16 .5311 1.2131E-02 -;9826
10 3 17 .5505 1,2761E-02 -.9863
10' 3 16 .5675 1;2812E.-02 -;9920
Ij 10 3 20 0 58.08 - 1.494E-02 -.9993
2 3 21 .6305 1..4856E-02 -1.018
2 3 22 .6802 1.6219E-02 --1.041
2 3 23 .7746 1x89/1/IE-02 -1.105
2 3 24 19000 2.439/IE-02
10 11 25 .9000 2 "U-1.6E-02 -is313
It ^^^ ^0 4 26 .9000 2.7157E-02 -1.350
i; 10 4 27 ,9000 3.0116E-02 -1:399
2 4 28 0 9000 -" 3,5838E-02 -1':493-
2 4 29 9 9000 4r1560E-02 -1:586
^f 2 4 30 4 9000'" 5.30.03E-02 -1,765
Ij
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALITY 11
11
_ ^
l
TABLE II
r ,
Maximum -
Problem Thickness Position Thickness
r
Max CL Aft Max.
- 0
12
^n r-
z
0
M
H
a
F
H 1
rl
9i
ai
G
t ^
a
h -^
6
/ N -
H
N
f 1
V
Tr
li
'I
l^
1^)
13
r Sa
II
li
ii
b) .3
it
e Ili
tj
Sa
.5
d) .7
.9
C c
y
f
cn R
i1
^I
N
f '` y
a-
J
H
t II Q
^`
r
c I!i
Q
M 7j^
L
i LIJ
^ JI
I^ ^^ ^ K
0
!^
jl'
{t{ l v N
d
^^
J
LO
777 - j a
R 7^^r 7rR ^: r
7L1 A'0
^oa 9TH
iii
n
16
t
1
L
F^
U
Ln
N ^'
F N
H
x
ji
I
C
LD
ti
V I . _^ ^ v H
u
a
It o
I I><
CD,
4
If ~
v
Z M
c^
M
14 '>< w
N
If
N -.
f ^,
ll
CD
7A ? or 7 07 7
18
s
i
i
f
I
I
i
ell
I
,
9
l
,. s
un
CD j
2U
F
dA ^
li )I N II
x
z
LD
^r
(!7
^' z
w
N
x iL
w w
N
N
AJ
Rj
19
fi
C\j
II r2
II
x
CD
LLJ
20
ti
u,
I
. t
! I ems!
^ J
i%
C)
W
C
^^
f ^i
/^ V
H
m Ln
Ln
F N
1 x 0a
z a i!
CD a
(n M
W \1i
H
W
E x
w
' (Ni
f r\J
i
jig
1-7i
f)
It
LO
I
! ^i
l=
^I
I r E li
i^E4
^j
21
14 rw
i
u
4 r
y co
O
1
u
^ I
H
11 - ^1 ^ I
Ek r' /
CO
iv
i II ~
a
^ X M
L! W
{
CD
c J
{ N
d'
Co
1
fit
^,
Y 22
f ,
1
_r
a -
,,,
n
O)
O xU
II
N i
ad
H
rr)
H.a0
^ II
N
I
CJ7 V
M
w
M
( w
a
L1J
^ N ii
I,
Nt i
ra (,^
iI
as r as r as t a
ii
23
I
k u ^
I`
it
m N ^
'I
LD
Ln
N
I^
\^ H1 l-
aN
n M
as
a
k^ J ^:
u
u
^
1
^^ I
H
(JI ^
^` t w yx
O
W u
^ Ty u
`^ o
j,
U co 8
I
3
I ^ Qv
c i
i
u
li CD
` D
0 L
U) 1 I
a
MI
4^
i
CD
U-)
I
D V
ELI
i
IAJ
ii
i C^1
CD
}
I}
{{k CD
_F ^
r
j^
i
Doi? 9Y'r no 02 1 Or i
,; 1
i
{d^
I"
25 d t
I
^I
i i
CP.
jI
II N
11A
A
^^ ^i^l
CD
U-i
X
LLI
N
CD
CD
co
26
It
4y
Jam' FU-1
S
F
lr!^
><
7
L
^
r D
v
{M,^
' W 5
f ^- M
w
f x
1!
27
u
^Lv
CD
Qa
II
:i
Ln
00
it
H
aH
n
w
a
1 ^'
M
o
U
6
W w
W
d^tJ
^ N
G CD
28
i1
_d
l 4Y
IL II
4
Y
4V
N
N
H
M
Y;
H
inn
w
I a
O
M
LO
^ z
w
w r
Ij
N
I
n
CLD
hP
CJ
W
29
r.^rr^rr.^r.N
ul
Q it
I
C\i
^i
II
cn
C\j
C\i
LID
30
IF
CD
x.
LO
I<
>
YY
CD
LLI MW
LD
31
ri
v
s
LU
N 4
CO
s t '
CD
y o
^r
v_
W
co
u^ r as r ami oo i o^o cn ^ n oa
a r o^'r ao r
32
\^ `
^ \)z `
cn
CD
\^ n
E
dp 8
CD
I,,
'><
it i'u" 27
C:)
LLJ
\^ ^ ^
LLJ
^ ^ (^ ^
^ ^^
\
C-0
I
2
33
U
I L4
U
r-i
to
>< aN
^^ O
w
CL
H
^,J;, z d
CD
r
Y_u
^J
1VI M
ICI
v
EJ
w
N
LLJ
j^
^ a
(v
I CD
I_
ns a=c arc ^r o r 24'1
f `w'
I
1
34
41
LO
CD
!14
L)
M.
00
Co .a
U)
f-
CD
LLJ
><
U-j
r\j
I
^ 9t
I cl)
3S
-
c
T7 1
IV
u
pn
cn
(_
Co
V)
z1
U-i
CN
CIO
li a0
4
1
36
N ?
C%j
N
N
a
00 F
i(
U
o
F 1
Q
N
W
r-1
^O L]
Q
a
dIj
^ 4 I
a
N
ti O O O ^ m
O
i II
IX
t-1
r W
N N
f a
I +;
i fy
i^
37
i
N
(.4 I
N
I^
WD
F
co
7. !i
~
4
Q
V
ou
Mw ,
,o o jl
w
U
@F
C iI
a
co
c
If
I> iK ua '.
F.1
w
Lid
N 0
U {
M N N
^ " 1 1 D
C7
`A w
UFi
38
^I
I^
I{
W
N
I 0M
^
vn oo 4
N a
'. I ,I
1K
o ^^ a z
L
sr ^a
G
i
Ey
Q
L
F41
14^ a
c
u ^
^^
tn
N
it w
.If N N , F ;
i^
^I
^f &^
' N
H !I
I y
H ^'
I ^D M '^
H
Ix w iF
I n.^,
In
Il
o
d U
H ^
^ 00
v a I(
i co
~ N
. i A^
F^
U w
'Q M N - t
1 I I I
i J }
+ 1
1
41
r
- - - - p -
ii
00
yit
fi
iX
42
O
43
it
"i
L11 !/
i
n j(
REFERENCES
ii
Ll
1. Hicks, R: M., Merman, E. M., and Vanderplaatz, G. N., "Assessment
of Airfoil Design by Numerical Optimization," NASA TMX-3092,
July 1974.
^L^
ft
II
1i,
44
f^