
系統識別號 
U00022507201114590000 
中文論文名稱

高升力翼剖面在大雨下之空氣動力分析 
英文論文名稱

Aerodynamic Investigation of HighLift Airfoil Under the Influence of Heavy Rain Effects 
校院名稱 
淡江大學 
系所名稱(中) 
航空太空工程學系碩士班 
系所名稱(英) 
Department of Aerospace Engineering 
學年度 
99 
學期 
2 
出版年 
100 
研究生中文姓名 
周季儒 
研究生英文姓名 
ChiJu Chou 
學號 
698430401 
學位類別 
碩士 
語文別 
英文 
口試日期 
20110624 
論文頁數 
90頁 
口試委員 
指導教授宛同 委員潘大知 委員牛仰堯

中文關鍵字 
高升力翼剖面
大雨
二相流
表面粗糙度
空氣動力學

英文關鍵字 
Highlift airfoil
heavy rain
two phase flow
surface roughness
aerodynamics

學科別分類 
學科別＞應用科學＞航空太空

中文摘要 
由於溫室效應的影響，極端惡劣天氣變得相當頻繁，例如低空風切、颱風、冰或雪。當飛機起飛降落時會不幸遭遇大雨，因此在飛機設計時須考慮這些天氣因素的影響，而大雨對飛機所造成的氣動力損失則是正在進行中的研究主題且需要長遠的進行研究，但是除了本研究團隊近幾年曾經針對大雨對機翼性能分析有過分析之外，近10年來不論是在實驗或是在數值計算方面已鮮少有相關的研究。本研究首先對回顧前人所做的因大雨效應而使得飛機性能減低的研究並使用數值方法做進一步的探討，並使用NACA 64210二維高升力翼剖面和現有的商用軟體FLUENT，大雨的模擬則是採用FLUENT內的二相流 (TwoPhase Flow)離散相的DPM模組(Discrete Phase Model)和改變表面粗糙度來完成並計算空氣動力特性的改變。
本研究首先進行乾淨翼剖面的驗證工作，並成功模擬出二維高升力翼剖面在大雨下的性能衰減，其衰減程度會隨著降雨量的增加而越大，而失速的情形也有提前發生的現象，研究發現升力係數減少、阻力係數增加的程度與Bezos 實驗結果相近。本研究所得到的量化資料能夠能對航空業上有所助益，長遠來說，可以使得飛機飛行的更安全。

英文摘要 
Global warming has led to extreme weather around the world frequently such as low level wind shear, typhoon, ice/snow etc. If aircraft takingoff and landing will unavoidably meet with the heavy rain, then aircraft designer must put these severe weather influences into considerations in the conceptual design phase. Aerodynamic influences due to heavy rain are still the ongoing research subject, and needs further investigation. But for the past decade there are neither experimental nor numerical researches about heavy rain except our research team conducted in recent years. In this thesis, we first review some research finding of heavy rain effects on the aerodynamic performance degradation. Secondly, commercial CFD package FLUENT and preprocessing tool Gambit is used as our main analysis tools, and the simulation of rain is accomplished by using TwoPhase Flow approach’s Discrete Phase Model (DPM) and surface roughness provided by FLUENT.
The results show that this research successfully simulates the aerodynamic investigation of highlift airfoil under the influence of heavy rain effects, the doubts or errors in the previous numerical and experimental works are also revealed. The degradation rate increases with the rain rate, and the premature stall phenomenon is also discovered. It is expected that the quantitative information gained in this thesis could be useful to the operational airline industry, and greater effort should put in this direction to further improve modern transport aircrafts safety.

論文目次 
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT I
TABLE OF CONTENTS IV
LIST OF FIGURES V
LIST OF TABLES IX
NOMENCLATURES XII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH BACKGROUND 6
2.1 FLOW PHYSICS OF HIGH LIFT AIRFOIL 6
2.2 PHYSICS AND INFLUENCES OF AN AIRFOIL IN RAIN 11
2.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF RAIN 18
CHAPTER 3 NUMERICAL MODELING 21
3.1 GRID GENERATION AND FLOW SOLVER 21
3.2 TURBULENCE MODELING 25
3.3 DISCRETE PHASE MODEL 29
3.4 WALL FUNCTIONS AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS 34
3.5 VERIFICATION 37
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 41
4.1 PRELIMINARY RESULTS 41
4.2 HIGHLIFT AIRFOIL UNDER THE HEAVY RAIN 58
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS 77
REFERENCES 79
List of Figures
Fig. 11 Examples of typical leading edge devices [2] 3
Fig. 12 Examples of typical trailing edge devices [2] 3
Fig. 13 Typical highlift airfoil and its effect on lift coefficient [3] 3
Fig. 21 Velocity distributions on an airfoil with and without a vortex,
showing the slat effect [10] 7
Fig. 22 Velocity distributions on an airfoil with and without a vortex,
simulating the circulation effect [10] 8
Fig. 2 3 Typical threeelement airfoil, showing dumping velocity effect
[10] 9
Fig. 24 Theoretical flow models for the various viscous regions
[11] 10
Fig. 25 Idealization of raindrops interacting with a flapped airfoil
[16] 14
Fig. 26 Observed film flow pattern above a flapped wing [16] 15
Fig. 27 Terminal velocity versus droplet diameter 20
Fig. 31 Far mesh of NACA 64210 highlift airfoil 22
Fig. 32 Medium mesh of NACA 64210 highlift airfoil 22
Fig. 33 Near mesh of NACA 64210 highlift airfoil 22
Fig. 34 The Yplus with NACA 64210 highlift airfoil 23
Fig 35 Physics of splashing, momentum, heat, and mass transfer for the
WallFilm 32
Fig. 36 Far mesh of NACA 64210 airfoil 37
Fig. 37 Near mesh of NACA 64210 airfoil 38
Fig. 38 Wall Yplus at angle of attack 0 degree 38
Fig. 39 Lift coefficients comparison between numerical results and
theory 39
Fig. 310 Drag coefficients comparison between numerical results and
theory 40
Fig. 41 Lift coefficients for 3 numerical results comparing to
experimental data 46
Fig. 42 Drag coefficients for 3 numerical result comparing to
experimental data 47
Fig. 43 Lift coefficients for airfoil numerical and experimental results
49
Fig. 44 Drag coefficients for airfoil numerical and experimental results
49
Fig.45 Lift degradation rate for airfoil at LWC=25 g/m3 for numerical and experimental results 51
Fig. 46 Lift degradation rate for airfoil at LWC=39 g/m3 for numerical
and experimental results 51
Fig.47 Drag degradation rate for airfoil at LWC=25 g/m3 for numerical
and experimental results 53
Fig.48 Drag degradation rate for airfoil at LWC=39 g/m3 for numerical
and experimental results 53
Fig 49 l/d degradation rate for airfoil at LWC=25 g/m3 for numerical and
experimental results 56
Fig 410 l/d degradation rate for airfoil at LWC=39 g/m3 for numerical and experimental results 56
Fig. 411 Local view of rain droplets diameter near airfoil 57
Fig. 412 Lift coefficients for highlift airfoil numerical result comparing
to experimental data 58
Fig. 413 Drag coefficients for high lift airfoil numerical result comparing
to experimental data 58
Fig. 414 Lift coefficients for highlift airfoil numerical and experimental
results 60
Fig. 415 Drag coefficients for highlift airfoil numerical and
experimental results 60
Fig.416 Lift degradation rate for highlift airfoil at LWC=29 g/m3 for
numerical and experimental results 62
Fig.417 Lift degradation rate for highlift airfoil at LWC=46 g/m3 for
numerical and experimental results 62
Fig. 418 CP distribution of slat for 2 rain rate cases and 2 flight attitudes
63
Fig. 419 CP distribution of main wing for 2 rain rate cases and 2 flight
attitudes 63
Fig. 420 CP distribution of vane for 2 rain rate cases and 2 flight
attitudes 63
Fig. 421 CP distribution of flap for 2 rain rate cases and 2 flight attitudes
64
Fig.422 Drag degradation rate for highlift airfoil at LWC=29 g/m3 for
numerical and experimental results 65
Fig.423 Drag degradation rate for highlift airfoil at LWC=46 g/m3 for
numerical and experimental results 66
Fig. 424 Cavity flow at slat and main wing 69
Fig. 425 Pressure and viscous drag degradation rate for slat at 2 rain rate
cases 70
Fig. 426 Pressure and viscous drag degradation rate for main wing at 2
rain rate cases 70
Fig. 427 Pressure and viscous drag degradation rate for vane at 2 rain
rate cases 70
Fig. 428 Pressure and viscous drag degradation rate for flap at 2 rain rate
cases 71
Fig. 429 l/d degradation rate for highlift airfoil at LWC=29 g/m3 for
numerical and experimental results 72
Fig. 430 l/d degradation rate for highlift airfoil at LWC=46 g/m3 for
numerical and experimental results 73
Fig. 431 Local view of rain droplets diameter near high lift airfoil 73
Fig. 432 Different relative static pressure contours with streamlines 74
Fig. 433 Different relative velocity magnitude contours with streamlines
75
List of Tables
Table 41 Value of Airfoil's KS and CS for 2 flight attitudes and 2 rain
cases 42
Table 42 Value of slat's KS and CS for 3 flight attitudes and 2 rain cases
42
Table 43 Value of main wing's KS and CS for 3 flight attitudes and 2 rain
cases 43
Table 44 Value of vane's KS and CS for 3 flight attitudes and 2 rain cases
44
Table 45 Value of flap's KS and CS for 3 flight attitudes and 2 rain cases
44
Table 46 Lift coefficients percentage for airfoil numerical result
comparing to experimental data 47
Table 47 Drag coefficients percentage for airfoil numerical result
comparing to experimental data 47
Table 48 Numerical results for airfoil of lift coefficients degradation
percentage for 2 rain rate cases 50
Table 49 Experimental results for airfoil of lift coefficients degradation
percentage for 2 rain rate cases 50
Table 410 Numerical results for airfoil of drag coefficients degradation
percentage for 2 rain rate cases 52
Table 411 Experimental results for airfoil of drag coefficients
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 52
Table 412 Numerical results for airfoil of pressure drag coefficients
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 54
Table 413 Numerical results for airfoil of viscous drag coefficients
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 54
Table 414 Numerical results for airfoil of lift to drag (l/d) degradation
percentage for 2 rain rate cases 55
Table 415 Experimental results for airfoil of lift to drag (l/d) degradation
percentage for 2 rain rate cases 55
Table 416 Lift coefficients percentage for high lift airfoil numerical
result comparing to experimental data 59
Table 417 Drag coefficients percentage for high lift airfoil numerical
result comparing to experimental data 59
Table 418 Numerical results for highlift airfoil of lift coefficients
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 61
Table 419 Experiment results for highlift airfoil of lift coefficients
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 61
Table 420 Numerical results for highlift airfoil of drag coefficients
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 64
Table 421 Experiment results for highlift airfoil of drag coefficients
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 65
Table 422 Numerical results for slat of pressure drag coefficients
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 66
Table 423 Numerical results for slat of viscous drag coefficients
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 67
Table 424 Numerical results for main wing of pressure drag coefficients
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 67
Table 425 Numerical results for main wing of viscous drag coefficients
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 67
Table 426 Numerical results for vane of pressure drag coefficients
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 68
Table 427 Numerical results for vane of viscous drag coefficients
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 68
Table 428 Numerical results for flap of pressure drag coefficients
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 68
Table 429 Numerical results for flap of viscous drag coefficients
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 69
Table 430 Numerical results for highlift airfoil of lift to drag (l/d)
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 71
Table 431 Experiment results for highlift airfoil of lift to drag (l/d)
degradation percentage for 2 rain rate cases 72

參考文獻 
References
[1] Page, F. H., “The Handley Page Wing,” The Aeronautical Journal, June 192l, pp. 263.
[2] Smith, A. M. O., “HighLift Aerodynamics,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1975, pp.501530.
[3] van Dam, C.P., “The Aerodynamic Design of MultiElement HighLift Systems for Transport Airplanes,” Program in Aerospace Sciences 38, 2002, pp.101–144.
[4] “FLUENT 6.3 User’s Guide”, Fluent Inc., September, 2006
[5] Rudolph, P. K. C., “Highlift Systems on Commercial Subsonic Airliners,” NASA CR 4746, September 1996.
[6] Abbot, Iran H., A. E. von Doenhoff, Stivers, L. S., “Summary of Airfoil Data,” NACA TR 824, 1945.
[7] Abbot, Iran H. and A. E. von Doenhoff, Theory of Wing Section: Including a Summary of Airfoil Data, Dover Publication, 1959.
[8] Cahill, J. F., “Summary of Section Data on TrailingEdge High Lift Devices,” NACA TR 938, 1949.
[9] Young A. D., “The Aerodynamic Characteristics of Flaps,” ARC R&M 2622, 1953.
[10] Smith, A. M. O., “Aerodynamics of HighLift Airfoil Systems. Fluid Dynamics of Aircraft Stalling,” AGARD CP 102, November. 1972.
[11] Bertin, J. J. and Cummings, M. R., Aerodynamics for Engineers, Fifth ed., Pearson PrenticeHall, New Jersey, 2002, pp. 309.
[12] Rhode, R. V., “Some Effects of Rainfall on Flight of Airplanes and on Instrument Indications,” NACA TN903, April 1941.
[13] Haines, P. A. and J. K. Luers, “Aerodynamic Penalties of Heavy Rain on a Landing Aircraft,” NASA CR156885, 1982.
[14] Dunham, R. E., Jr., “Potential Influences of Heavy Rain on General Aviation Airplane Performance,” AIAA862606, Sept. Oct. 1986.
[15] Bilanin, A.J., “Scaling Laws for Testing Airfoils under Heavy Rainfall,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 24, No.1, Jan. 1987, pp.3137.
[16] Bilanin, A.J., “Scaling Laws for Testing of High Lift Airfoils under Heavy Rainfall,” AIAA850257, Jan. 1985.
[17] Bezos, G. M., Dunham, R. E., Jr., Gentry, G., L., Jr., and Melson, W. E., Jr., “Wind Tunnel Aerodynamic Characteristics of a TransportType Airfoil in a Simulated Heavy Rain Environment,” NASA Technical Paper 3184, August 1992.
[18] Wan, T. and Pan, S. P., “Aerodynamic Efficiency Study under the Influence of Heavy Rain via TwoPhase Flow Approach,” Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS), Nice, France, September 1924, 2010.
[19] Valentine, James, R. and Rand, A. Decker, “A LagrangianEulerian Scheme for Flow Around and Airfoil in Rain,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1995, pp.639648.
[20] Markowitz, A. M., “Raindrop Size Distribution Expression,” Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 15, 1976, pp.10291031.
[21] Bardina, J. E., Huang, P. G., and Coakley, T. J., “Turbulence Modeling Validation, Testing, and Development,” NASA Technical Memorandum 1997.
[22] Cebeci, T. and Bradshaw, P., Momentum Transfer in Boundary Layers, Hemisphere. Publishing Corporation, New York. 1977.

論文使用權限 
同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用，於20130728公開。同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務，於20130728起公開。 


