Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:20:51.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigation of self-deploying high-lift effectors applied to membrane wings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2017

N. Osterberg  and
R. Albertani
N. Osterberg
Affiliation:
Oregon State University, Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering, Corvallis, USA
R. Albertani*
Affiliation:
Oregon State University, Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering, Corvallis, USA
*
roberto.albertani@oregonstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Flow separation followed by aerodynamic stall limits the operation of aircraft. Expanding the flight envelope of aircraft has been a goal of aerodynamicists for decades. This work presents findings from tests in the Oregon State University wind tunnel investigating the effectiveness of a passively actuated suction-surface flap on membrane wings. Experiments were conducted on a rigid plate and membrane wings with and without a pop-up flap. All wings had an aspect ratio of 2, while membrane pre-strain and Reynolds number were varied. An increase in lift at stall was observed for all testing conditions with flap deployment. The observed average increase in maximum lift varied from 5% to 15% for different test conditions. The variation in flap effectiveness is compared to membrane pre-strain, Reynolds number, and wing camber. A quadratic relationship between modelled camber and flap effectiveness is observed, and an optimal level of membrane camber is found to maximise flap effectiveness.

Keywords

Membrane aerofoilpliant wingpop-up flapfeather flaphigh-lift effector
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 121 , Issue 1239 , May 2017 , pp. 660 - 679
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Anderson, J. Inventing Flight: The Wright Brothers & Their Predecessors, 2004, JHU Press, Baltimore, Maryland, US.Google Scholar
2. Wenham, F. Aerial locomotion and the laws by which heavy bodies impelled through air are sustained, 1st Annual Report of the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain, 1866 http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/library/Wenham/WenhamLocomotion.html Google Scholar
3. Dimitriadis, G., Gardiner, J., Tickle, P., Codd, J. and Nudds, R. Experimental and numerical study of the flight of geese, Aeronautical J, 2015, 119, (1217), pp 1–30.Google Scholar
4. Manzanera, R. and Smith, H. Flight in nature II: How animal flyers land, Aeronautical J, 2015, 119, (1213), pp 281–299.Google Scholar
5. Hundley, R. and Gritton, E. Future technology-driven revolutions in military operations, Document No. Tech. rep. DB-110-ARPA, 1994, RAND Corporation, DTIC Document.Google Scholar
6. McMichael, J. and Francis, M. Micro air vehicles-toward a new dimension in flight, DARPA Document, 1997.Google Scholar
7. Scott, S. and McFarland, C. Bird Feathers: A Guide to North American Species, 2010, Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, US.Google Scholar
8. Brücker, C. and Weidner, C. Separation control via self-adaptive hairy flaplet arrays, Proceedings of the ERCOFTAC International Symposium, Unsteady separation in fluid-structure interaction, June 2013, Mykonos, Greece, pp 17-21.Google Scholar
9. Johnston, J., Gopalarathnam, A. and Edward, J. Experimental investigation of bio-inspired high lift effectors on a 2-D airfoil, 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, number AIAA 2011-3791, 2011, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
10. Schatz, M., Bunge, U., Lübcke, H. and Thiele, F. Numerical study of separation control by movable flaps, Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Technologies, Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics (NNFM), vol 76, 2001, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 385–390.Google Scholar
11. Schluter, J. Lift enhancement at low Reynolds numbers using self-activated movable flaps, J Aircr 2010, 47, (1), pp 348–351.Google Scholar
12. Wang, C. and Schluter, J. Low Reynolds’ number application of feather inspired passive high lift device on finite wing, 31st AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 2013, AIAA-2013-2669, San Diego, California, US.Google Scholar
13. Allemand, G. and Altman, A. Post-stall performance improvement through bio-inspired passive covert feathers, 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2016, AIAA-2016-2042, San Diego, California, US.Google Scholar
14. Schatz, M., Knacke, T. and Thiele, F. Separation control by self-activated movable flaps, 42th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, 2004, AIAA-2004-1243, AIAA, Reno, Nevada, US.Google Scholar
15. Bechert, D., Bruse, M., Hage, W. and Meyer, R. Biological surfaces and their technological application – laboratory and flight experiments on drag reduction and separation control, 28th Fluid Dynamics Conference, 1997, Snowmass Village, Colorado, US.Google Scholar
16. Kernstine, K., Moore, C., Cutler, A. and Mittal, R. Initial characterization of self-activated movable flaps, ‘Pop-Up Feathers’, 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2008, Reno, Nevada, US.Google Scholar
17. Traub, L. and Jaybush, L. Experimental Investigation of Separation Control Using Upper-Surface Spoilers, J of Aircr 2010, 47, (2), pp 714–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. G-ograve, Bramesfeld, T. and Maughmer, M. Experimental investigation of self-actuating, upper-surface, high-lift-enhancing effectors, J of Aircr 2002, 39, (1), pp 120–124.Google Scholar
19. Bechert, D., Bruse, M., Hage, W. and Meyer, R. Fluid mechanics of biological surfaces and their technological application, Naturwissenschaften, 2000, 87, (4), pp 157–171.Google Scholar
20. Johnston, J. and Gopalarathnam, A. Investigation of a bio-inspired lift-enhancing effector on a 2D airfoil, Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2012, 7, (3) p 036003.Google Scholar
21. Wang, C. and Schlüter, J. Stall control with feathers: Self-activated flaps on finite wings at low Reynolds numbers Comptes Rendus MeÌĄcanique, 2012, 340, (1), pp 57–66.Google Scholar
22. Dharmadasa, V. Behavior of pop up feathers during flow separation, (2014).Google Scholar
23. Feuvrier, A., Mazellier, N. and Kourta, A. Self-adaptive control of a bluff body wake by means of porous flaps, Int J Engineering Systems Modelling and Simulation, 2013, 47, (5.1-3), pp 57–67.Google Scholar
24. Brücker, C. and Weidner, C. Influence of self-adaptive hairy flaps on the stall delay of an airfoil in ramp-up motion, J Fluids and Structures, 2014, 47, pp 31–40.Google Scholar
25. Arivoli, D. and Singh, I. Self-adaptive flaps on low aspect ratio wings at low Reynolds numbers, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2016, 59, pp 78–93.Google Scholar
26. Meyer, R., Hage, W., Bechert, D., Schatz, M., Knacke, T. and Thiele, F. Separation control by self-activated movable flaps AIAA J, 2007, 45, (1), pp 191–199.Google Scholar
27. Liu, T., Montefort, J. and Pantula, S. Effects of flexible fin on low-frequency oscillation in post-stalled flows, AIAA J, 2010, 48, (6), pp 1235–1247.Google Scholar
28. Montefort, J., Pohl, N., Liu, T., Gregory, J. and Crafton, J. Thin-wing vibration control using flexible fins, AIAA J, 2013, 51, (9), pp 2218–2230.Google Scholar
29. Favier, J., Dauptain, A., Basso, D. and Bottaro, A. Passive separation control using a self-adaptive hairy coating, J Fluid Mechanics, 2009, 627, pp 451–483.Google Scholar
30. Lentink, D., Jongerius, S. and Bradshaw, N. The scalable design of flapping micro-air vehicles inspired by insect flight, Flying Insects and Robots, 2009, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 185–205.Google Scholar
31. Mohamed, A., Massey, K., Watkins, S. and Clothier, R. The attitude control of fixed-wing MAVS in turbulent environments, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2014, 66, pp 37–48.Google Scholar
32. Smith, R. and Shyy, W. Computation of aerodynamic coefficients for a flexible membrane airfoil in turbulent flow: A comparison with classical theory, Physics of Fluids, 1996, 8, (12), pp 3346–3353.Google Scholar
33. Waldman, R., Song, A., Riskin, D., Swartz, S., Bruer, K. Aerodynamic behavior of compliant membranes as related to bat flight, 38th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, 2008, Seattle, Washington, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Rojratsirikul, P., Wang, Z. and Gursul, I. Effect of pre-strain and excess length on unsteady fluid-structure interactions of membrane airfoils, J Fluids and Structures, 2010, 26, (3), pp 359–376.Google Scholar
35. Galvao, R., Israeli, E., Song, A., Tian, X., Bishop, K., Swartz, S., Breuer, K. The aerodynamics of compliant membrane wings modeled on mammalian flight mechanics, AIAA Paper 2866, 2006.Google Scholar
36. Jaworski, J. and Gordnier, R. High-order simulations of low Reynolds number membrane airfoils under prescribed motion, J Fluids and Structures, 2012, 31, pp 49–66.Google Scholar
37. Pennycuick, C. The Membrane Wings of Bats and Pterosaurs, Theoretical Ecology Series 5, chapter 6, 2008, pp 135–160.Google Scholar
38. Song, A. and Breuer, K. Dynamics of a compliant membrane as related to mammalian flight, Proceedings of the 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, January 2007, Reno, Nevada, US, pp 8-11.Google Scholar
39. Albertani, R., Stanford, B., Hubner, J. and Ifju, P. Aerodynamic characterization and deformation measurements of a flexible wing micro air vehicle, Experimental Mechanics, 2007, 47, (4), pp 625–636.Google Scholar
40. Gallivan, P. and DeLaurier, J. An experimental study of flapping membrane wings, Canadian Aeronautics and Space J, 2007, 53, (2), pp 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. Shyy, W., Ifju, P. and Viieru, D. Membrane wing-based micro air vehicles, Applied Mechanics Reviews, 2005, 58, (4), pp 283–301.Google Scholar
42. Zhang, Z., Hubner, J., Timpe, A., Ukeiley, L., Abudaramv, Y. and Ifju, P. Effect of aspect ratio on flat-plate membrane airfoils, 50th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA Paper. Vol. 1084, 2012.Google Scholar
43. Abudaramv, Y. Wind Tunnel Testing of Load-Alleviating Membrane Wings, Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2009 Google Scholar
44. Ifju, P., Jenkins, D., Ettinger, S., Lian, Y., Shyy, W. and Waszak, M. Flexible-wing-based micro air vehicles, AIAA Paper. Vol. 705, 2001 pp 1–11.Google Scholar
45. Babcock, J., Albertani, R. and Abate, G. Experimental estimation of the rotary damping coefficients of a pliant wing, J Airc, 2012, 49, (2), pp 390–397.Google Scholar
46. Modern Machine and Tool Co. Oregon State University Balance OSU-001 Calibration Report, Modern Machine and Tool Documentation, 2012.Google Scholar
47. Osterberg, N. Experimental investigation of dynamic stall on pliant wings for micro air vehicles, 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2016, AIAA-2016-0146, San Diego, California, US.Google Scholar
48. Carpenter, T. and Albertani, R. Aerodynamic load estimation from virtual strain sensors for a pliant membrane wing, AIAA J, 53.8, (2015), pp 2069–2079.Google Scholar
49. Stanford, B. Fixed membrane wings for micro air vehicles: Experimental characterization, numerical modeling, and tailoring, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2008, 44, (4), pp 258–294.Google Scholar
50. Zhang, Z., Hopper, L., Wrist, A., Hubner, J. and Ukeiley, L. Nondimensional frequency scaling of aerodynamically-tensioned membranes, J Fluids and Structures, 2014, 48, pp 14–26.Google Scholar
51. Waldman, R. and Breuer, K. Shape, lift, and vibrations of highly compliant membrane wings, 43rd Fluid Dynamics Conference, 2013, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US, pp 1-20.Google Scholar
52. Song, A., Tian, X., Israeli, E., Galvao, R., Bishop, K., Swartz, S. and Breuer, K. Aeromechanics of membrane wings with implications for animal flight, AIAA J, 2008, 46, (8), pp 2096–2106.Google Scholar
53. Waszak, M., Jenkins, L. and Ifju, P. Stability and control properties of an aeroelastic fixed wing micro aerial vehicle, AIAA Paper 4005, 2001.Google Scholar
54. Rojratsirikul, P., Genc, M., Wang, Z. and Gursul, I. Flow-induced vibrations of low aspect ratio rectangular membrane wings, J Fluids and Structures, 2011, 27, (8), pp 1296–1309.Google Scholar
55. Ramsey, F. and Schafer, D. The Statistical Sleuth: A Course in Methods of Data Analysis, 2013, Cengage Learning, Boston, Massachusetts, US.Google Scholar
56. Montgomery, D. Design and Analysis of Experiments, 2013, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, US.Google Scholar