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
  • [41] Usability Comparison between 2D and 3D Control Methods for the Operation of Hovering Objects
    Lee, Daeseong
    Kim, Hajun
    Yoon, Heesoo
    Lee, Wonsup
    DRONES, 2023, 7 (08)
  • [42] Comparison of 2D and 3D models for numerical simulation of vibration reduction by periodic pile barriers
    Liu, Xinnan
    Shi, Zhifei
    Mo, Y. L.
    SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2015, 79 : 104 - 107
  • [43] 3D and 2D/3D holograms model
    A. A. Boriskevich
    V. K. Erohovets
    V. V. Tkachenko
    Optical Memory and Neural Networks, 2012, 21 (4) : 242 - 248
  • [44] A quantitative analysis of wiring lengths in 2D and 3D VLSI implementation of 2D systolic arrays
    Milenkovic, A
    Milutinovic, V
    1997 21ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MICROELECTRONICS - PROCEEDINGS, VOLS 1 AND 2, 1997, : 833 - 836
  • [45] An improved 2.75D method relating pressure distributions of 2D airfoils and 3D wings
    Xu, Zhen-Ming
    Han, Zhong-Hua
    Song, Wen-Ping
    AEROSPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2022, 128
  • [46] Comparison of Traditional 2D and Virtual Patterns Design in 3D
    Cichocka, Agnieszka
    Bruniaux, Pascal
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENT INFORMATICS, 2009, 13 (05) : 542 - 549
  • [47] TBC and PML conditions for 2D and 3D BPM: a comparison
    Fogli, F
    Bellanca, G
    Bassi, P
    OPTICAL AND QUANTUM ELECTRONICS, 1998, 30 (5-6) : 443 - 456
  • [48] A comparison of 2D and 3D PIV measurements in an oblique jet
    M. Abe
    E. K. Longmire
    K. Hishida
    M. Maeda
    Journal of Visualization, 2000, 3 (2) : 165 - 173
  • [49] 21/2D or 3D?
    Roth, S
    Küster, B
    Sura, H
    KUNSTSTOFFE-PLAST EUROPE, 2004, 94 (07): : 65 - 67
  • [50] 2D and 3D on demand
    Philippi, Anne
    F & M; Feinwerktechnik, Mikrotechnik, Messtechnik, 1998, 106 (06): : 412 - 414