Quantitative comparison of 2D and 3D shock control bumps for drag reduction on transonic wings

被引:9
|
作者
Deng, Feng [1 ]
Qin, Ning [2 ]
机构
[1] Nanjing Univ Aeronaut & Astronaut, Key Lab Adv Design Technol Flight Vehicle, Nanjing 210016, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Sheffield, Dept Mech Engn, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Drag reduction; flow control; natural laminar flow; shock control bump; transonic; GLOBAL OPTIMIZATION; 3-DIMENSIONAL BUMPS; DESIGN;
D O I
10.1177/0954410018778815
中图分类号
V [航空、航天];
学科分类号
08 ; 0825 ;
摘要
In this paper, the design spaces of the 2D and 3D shock control bumps on an infinite unswept natural laminar flow wing are investigated by adopting an optimization enhanced parametric study method. The design space spanned by the design variables are explored through a series of design optimization and their landscapes around the optima are revealed. The effects of the bump spacing, bump length, and Mach number are investigated respectively around the optima. The maximum cross-sectional area, bump incident angle, and aspect ratio are found to be important design parameters. The associated flow physics is discussed in relation to these parameters. The comparative performance of the 2D and 3D bumps are explained in the context of the transonic area rule. Two types of flow separation are identified by varying the bump aspect ratio at off-design conditions. It is concluded that the 2D and 3D shock control bumps can have nearly the same performances at optimal designs with similar cross-sectional areas. Some practical design principles and guidelines are suggested.
引用
收藏
页码:2344 / 2359
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A comparison of 2D and 3D simulations of the River Blackwater
    Barrett, Lawrence
    Wright, Nigel G.
    Sterling, Mark
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS-ENGINEERING AND COMPUTATIONAL MECHANICS, 2011, 164 (04) : 217 - 232
  • [22] Comparison of 2D and 3D images of fractures in a Vertisol
    Moreau, E
    Velde, B
    Terribile, F
    GEODERMA, 1999, 92 (1-2) : 55 - 72
  • [23] Comparison between 3D and 2D Cephalometric Analyses
    Bholsithi, W.
    Sinthanayothin, C.
    Chintakanon, K.
    Komolpis, R.
    Tharanon, W.
    4TH KUALA LUMPUR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING 2008, VOLS 1 AND 2, 2008, 21 (1-2): : 540 - +
  • [24] Comparison of 3D and 2D menus for cell phones
    Kim, Kyungdoh
    Proctor, Robert W.
    Salvendy, Gavriel
    COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 2011, 27 (05) : 2056 - 2066
  • [25] COMPARISON OF SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY OF 2D AND 3D ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY
    BELOHLAVEK, M
    FOLEY, DA
    GREENLEAF, JF
    SEWARD, JB
    CIRCULATION, 1993, 88 (04) : 350 - 350
  • [26] Comparison of random surfaces 2D and 3D parameters
    Pawlus, P.
    Reizer, R.
    Annals of DAAAM for 2006 & Proceedings of the 17th International DAAAM Symposium: INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING & AUTOMATION: FOCUS ON MECHATRONICS AND ROBOTICS, 2006, : 293 - 294
  • [27] Comparison of 2D and 3D FEA of a BLDC motor
    Wang, S
    Kang, J
    Park, K
    Yoon, H
    Jang, G
    COMPEL-THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR COMPUTATION AND MATHEMATICS IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING, 2000, 19 (02) : 529 - 537
  • [28] Registration Using Nanotube Stationary Tomosynthesis: Comparison of 3D/3D to 3D/2D Methods
    Frederick, B.
    Lalush, D.
    Chang, S.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2010, 37 (06)
  • [29] QUANTITATIVE 2D/3D IMAGING WITH LU-177
    Bailey, D. L.
    Willowson, K. P.
    Bronzel, M.
    Schembri, G. P.
    Roach, P. J.
    INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL, 2014, 44 : 4 - 4
  • [30] A quantitative analysis of wiring lengths in 2D and 3D VLSI
    Milenkovic, A
    Milutinovic, V
    MICROELECTRONICS JOURNAL, 1998, 29 (06) : 313 - 321