{ "cells": [ { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "direct-toner", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "slide" } }, "source": [ "# Recap of Fundamentals in Aerodynamics - 2D and 3D" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "exact-dividend", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "skip" } }, "source": [ "```{epigraph}\n", "... if we all designed bodies to have stagnation points at the back, then D'Alembert would rest happy, and we would have no drag. Presumably that would be a Good Thing generally, except for parachutists!\n", "```\n", "
\n" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "periodic-humanity", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "skip" } }, "source": [ "```{epigraph}\n", "It’s easy to explain how a rocket works, but explaining how a wing works takes a rocket scientist.\n", "```\n", "\n" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "advance-slovenia", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "skip" } }, "source": [ "```{epigraph}\n", "Aerodynamic theory is now (1930) rather like the physical theory of light; Sir William Bragg recently said that physicists use the electron theory on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and the wave theory on alternate days. Both have uses but reconciliation of the two ideas has not yet been achieved. So it is in aeronautics. In our experimental work we assume that viscosity is an essential property of air and the building of a compressed-air tunnel is the latest expression of that belief. The practically useful theory of Prandtl comes from considering air as frictionless or inviscid.\n", "```\n", "\n" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "strange-matter", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "-" } }, "source": [ "```{epigraph}\n", "To those who fear flying, it is probably disconcerting that physicists and aeronautical engineers still passionately debate the fundamental issue underlying this endeavor: what keeps planes in the air?\n", "```\n", "STAYING ALOFT; What Does Keep Them Up There?
\n" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "floating-unknown", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "-" } }, "source": [ "```{epigraph}\n", "On a strictly mathematical level, engineers know how to design planes that will stay aloft. But equations don't explain why aerodynamic lift occurs. There are two competing theories that illuminate the forces and factors of lift. Both are incomplete explanations. Aerodynamicists have recently tried to close the gaps in understanding. Still, no consensus exists.\n", "```\n", "" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "devoted-consumer", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "skip" } }, "source": [ "This chapter is a whirlwind tour of some of the basics of airfoil aerodynamics that is relevant for this course. Since airfoils can be imagined as the basic building blocks that make up the rotor, the fundamental understanding of airfoil aerodynamics laid down here would help develop a more intuitive understanding of rotor aerodynamics. As some of the quotes above imply, the mathematical theory of fluid behavior, and by extension the mathematiacl theory of flight, are well established. However, given the complex equations involved a straightforward cause and effect relation is difficult to establish and hence a simple intuitive explanation for something even as common and fundamental as the process of lift generation on an airfoil is still missing. Nevertheless, below we try to make as much progress as possible in the improving/refreshing the understanding of the fundamental fluid dynamics concepts involved. It is hoped that the discussions in this chapter will make the fundamental concepts, underlying much of fluid dynamics, more intuitive than the involved mathematical equations themselves.\n", "\n", "This chapter is predominantly based on the content in {cite}`BA3`, in particular Chapter 7 from this reference. Additionally, {cite}`A23` and {cite}`A23_1` provide a good overview of the historical development of the field of fluid dynamics. " ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "canadian-semiconductor", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "slide" } }, "source": [ "## Bodies in fluids" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "prompt-paraguay", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "skip" } }, "source": [ "Understanding the nature of forces acting on bodies of arbitrary shape is in our interest if the objective is to minimise the amount of work done in order to overcome the resistive forces due to friction caused due to relative motion between the body and the surrounding fluid. Optimum hull design of a cruise ship, minimum drag profile of a competitive road cyclist+cycle etc are a few examples where an understanding of fluid behavior would help achieve the objectives. Of course, we need not look too far for examples because a helicopter has various entities that might benefit from design based on a sound knowhow in fluid dynamics. A streamlined fuselage design such that drag (rotorcraft fuselage drag is referred to as parasite drag) is minimised would go a long way in reducing operating costs. " ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "adjacent-working", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "skip" } }, "source": [ "Some fundamental laws are followed by real fluids -" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "prepared-virus", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "fragment" } }, "source": [ "- conservation laws\n", " - energy, linear momentum and mass" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "removed-exception", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "fragment" } }, "source": [ "- they cannot penetrate the body surface ($F$)" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "overall-packet", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "-" } }, "source": [ "$$\\mathbf{v}. \\nabla F = 0$$" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "8255182f", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "skip" } }, "source": [ "Fluid cannot penetrate the surface of the body in consideration. This seems like a trivial concept to state explicitly but remember that when a problem involving fluids is mathematically stated, the condition at the boundaries of the fluid need to be clearly defined. In the case of an airfoil moving about in *infinite* fluid, the surface of the airfoil forms one of the boundaries (the other boundary is at infinite distance away and not a source of any disturbance). What happens to the fluid at this boundary, i.e. the surface of the airfoil, dictates what happens in the rest of the fluid. This behavior of the fluid, specifically the velocity in the case of an incompressible flow, is the quantity of interest because this would then eventually lead to the amount of lift generated from the subsequent behavior of the fluid due to the airfoil motion. Since we know from physical observations that fluid parcels do not permeate through object surfaces, the motion of the fluid at this boundary is exactly matched with the motion of the airfoil surface. This is refered to as the no penetration boundary condition." ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "formal-beverage", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "skip" } }, "source": [ "Any model of (Newtonian) fluids would have to satisfy the above laws and we do have a model that does that - the Navier-Stokes equations. " ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "mounted-edinburgh", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "slide" } }, "source": [ "## Navier-Stokes equations (NSE)" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "viral-parks", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "skip" } }, "source": [ "The NSE are essential to so many analyses you encounter involving fluid flows yet they can be solved without the use of a computer for only a handful of idealised scenarios. Even today, the fact that these equations are challenging to solve is what keeps many aerospace and mechanical engineers employed. Which is why in the early days of the invention of the airplane, and essentially the beginning of the field of aerodynamics, the exact mathematical theory to analyse the flow already existed (NSE had already been around for atleast half a century by the time of the first Wright brothers' flight) but was of little help since the equations couldn't be solved for the body of interest - a wing! Clever simplifications had to be devised based on meticulous experimental observations and astute engineering judgement so that the mathematical problem of lift generation could be posed in a way that it was atleast solvable, while of course simultaneously leading to results of acceptable accuracy. The schematic below shows the simplifications that are often adopted in fluid analyses based on the problem at hand.\n" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "subtle-coordinator", "metadata": { "slideshow": { "slide_type": "-" } }, "source": [ "Fluid models and equations with different approximations
\n", "\n", "Heirarchy of physical theories [taken from \"Understanding Aerodynamics\" by Doug McLean] [source] \n", "
\n", "Streamlines representing hypothetical fluid flow idealised as independent fluid 'particles' (Newton's approach)\n", "
\n", "Streamlines representing real fluid flow\n", "
\n", "Pressure field around NACA0010 at angle of attack of 4° [source] \n", "
\n", "Pressure field around NACA0010 at angle of attack of 8° [source] \n", "
\n", "Coefficient of pressure contour plot of NACA23012 airfoil at $M=0.4$ and $\\alpha = 2^°$ [source] \n", "
\n", "Pressure distribution around an airfoil that contributes to drag (left) and lift (right). Red arrows show positive contribution and blue arrows negative contribution. [source]
\n", "\n", "Vorticity of a continuum particle/element (modified from [source])
\n", "\n", "Schematic of the actual vorticity distribution around an airfoil due to the boundary layer and in the wake compared in real flow versus a simplified model [source]
\n", "\n", "Schematic showing the origins of flow vorticity in the boundary layer and further levels of modelling fidelity (modified from [source])
\n", "\n", "Flow between two streamlines. [source]
\n", "\n", "Solid wall modelled using the method of images. [source]
\n", "\n", "Flow around a Rankine body. [source]
\n", "\n", "Flow around a circular cylinder. [source]
\n", "\n", "Fuhrmann and Prandtl study of a uniform flow around an airship-like solid body. [source])
\n", "\n", "Flow around a circular cylinder with circulation. [source]
\n", "\n", "Vector notation for Kutta-Joukowski theorem ([source])
\n", "\n", "Schematic of the experimentally measured circulation around an airfoil section [source]
\n", "\n", "Streamlines around an airfoil (real flow) [source] \n", "
\n", "Streamlines representation around an airfoil based on a mathematically valid potential flow solution (not a real flow) [source]) \n", "
\n", "Instantaneous flow field just from impulsive start of airfoil [source] \n", "
\n", "Steady state flow field around an airfoil [source]) \n", "
\n", "Zero circulation in a fluid at rest ([source]) \n", "
\n", "Starting vortex observed behind an airfoil in a fluid ([source]) \n", "
\n", "Schematic representation of flow profiles behind a finite wing \n", " [source]
\n", "\n", "Schematic of the experimentally measured circulation around an airfoil section [source]
\n", "\n", "Tip vortices generated at the wing tips of a finite wing [source] \n", "
\n", "Modelling a finite wing using bound and trailing vortices [source] \n", "
\n", "\n", "Source of induced velocity on a finite-wing using Prandtl's lifting-line theory [source]
\n", "\n", "