Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T22:40:07.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Causes for discrepancies in ground effect analyses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

T. J. Barber ,
E. Leonardi  and
R. D. Archer
T. J. Barber
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Australia
E. Leonardi
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Australia
R. D. Archer
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although many researchers, from a number of industries, have studied the aerodynamics of ground effect conditions, published research remains inconclusive. Published results are frequently found to conflict and modeling procedures (in both computational and experimental situations) vary. In this paper, existing research is reviewed and the methods used in obtaining the results are compared. Possible causes for the discrepancies in the published work are outlined, including the inappropriate specifications of boundary conditions and the neglect of viscosity in some computational analyses. Computational and experimental analyses are then performed to determine if these identified areas do cause inconsistencies in results and to also determine accurate simulation procedures.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 106 , Issue 1066 , December 2002 , pp. 653 - 668
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2002 

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

1. Walker, G., Fougner, A., Younger, S. and Roberts, T. Aerodynamics of high-speed multihull Craft, 1997, Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST97), 21-23 July 1997, Sydney, Australia, pp 133–138.Google Scholar
2. Steinbach, D. and Jacob, K. Some aerodynamic aspects of wings nearground, Japan Soc Aero and Space Sci, 1991, 34, (104), pp 56–70.Google Scholar
3. Hooker, S. Twenty-first Century shipping at aircraft speeds, 1995, Workshop on 21st Century Flying Ships, University of New South Wales, 7-8 November 1995, pp 178–232.Google Scholar
4. Reid, E. A full-scale investigation of ground effect, 1928, NACA TR 265.Google Scholar
5. Raymond, A. Ground influence on aerofoils, 1921, NACA TN 67.Google Scholar
6. Pistolesi, E. Ground effect-theory and practice, 1937, NACA TM 828.Google Scholar
7. Reid, E. A Full-scale investigation of ground effect, 1928, NACA TR 265.Google Scholar
8. Katzoff, S. and Sweberg, H. Ground effect on downwash angles and wake location, 1942, NASA TR-738.Google Scholar
9. Carter, A. Effect of ground proximity on the aerodynamic characteristics of aspect ratio-1 airfoils with and without end plates, 1961, NASA TN D-970.Google Scholar
10. George, A. Aerodynamic effects of shape, camber, pitch and ground proximity on idealized ground vehicle bodies, J Fluids Eng, 1981, 103, pp 631–638.Google Scholar
11. Diuzet, M. The moving belt of the IAT long test section wind tunnel, 1985, Sixth Colloq on Industrial Aerodynamics, June 1985, Road vehicle aerodynamics, pp 159–167.Google Scholar
12. Fago, B., Lindner, H. and Mahrenholtz, O. The effect of ground simulation on the flow around vehicles in wind tunnel testing, J Wind Eng and Ind Aerodynamics, 1991, 38, pp 47–57.Google Scholar
13. Hucho, W. and Sorvan, G. Aerodynamics of road vehicles, Ann Rev Fluid Mech, 1993, 25, pp 485–537.Google Scholar
14. Sowdon, A. and Hori, T. An experimental technique for accurate simulation of the flowfield for wing in surface effect craft, Aeronaut J, June/July 1996, 100, (996), pp 215–222.Google Scholar
15. Hayashi, M. and Endo, E. Measurement of flowfields around an airfoil section with separation, Japan Soc Aero and Space Sci 21, 1998, 52, pp 69–75.Google Scholar
16. Bond, R., Morris, G. and Loth, J. Ground effect characteristics of a two-dimensional hypersonic configuration, J Aircr, 37, (3), pp 434–439.Google Scholar
17. Wieselsberger, C. Wing resistance near the ground, 1922, NACA TM 77.Google Scholar
18. Prandtl, L. and Tietjens, O. Fundamentals of Hydro- and Aeromechanics, 1934, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
19. Widnall, S. and Barrows, T. An analytical solution for two and three dimensional wings in ground effect, J Fluid Mech, 1970, 41 pp 769–792.Google Scholar
20. Kjda, T. and Miyai, Y. An alternative method for ground-effect aerofoils, Aeronaut Q, 1975, 27, pp 292–308.Google Scholar
21. Rozhdestvensky, K. Matched asymptotics in aerodynamics of WIG vehicles, 1992, Intersociety High Performance Marine Vehicle Conference and Exhibit, pp WS17–WS27.Google Scholar
22. Tuck, E. A nonlinear unsteady one-dimensional theory for wings in extreme ground effect, J Fluid Mech, 1980, 98, Pt I, pp 33–47.Google Scholar
23. Tuck, E. Nonlinear extreme ground effect on thin wings of arbitrary aspect ratio, J Fluid Mech, 1983, 136, pp 73–84.Google Scholar
24. Dragos, L. Numerical solution of the equation for a thin airfoil ground effect, AlAA J, 1990, 28, (12), pp 2132–2134.Google Scholar
25. Dragos, L. Subsonic flow past a thick wing-in-ground effect, lifting line theory, Acta Mechanica 82, 1990, pp 49–60.Google Scholar
26. Coulliette, C. and Plotkin, A. Aerofoil ground effect revisited, Aeronaut J, February 1996, 100, (992), pp 65–74.Google Scholar
27. Rozhdestvensky, K. Ekranoplans - Flying ships of the next century, 1995, Workshop on 21st Century Flying Ships, University of New South Wales, 7-8 November 1995, pp 47–70.Google Scholar
28. Rozhdestvensky, K. Matched asymptotics in aerodynamics of WIG vehicles, 1992, Intersociety High Performance Marine Vehicle Conference and Exhibit, pp WS17–WS27.Google Scholar
29. Rozhdestvensky, K. Ekranoplans - Flying ships of the next century, 1995, Workshop on 21st Century Flying Ships, University of New South Wales, 7-8 November 1995, pp 47–70.Google Scholar
30. Rozhdestvensky, K. and Kubo, S. 1996 A parametric analysis of a flying wing configuration in extreme ground effect, Ekranoplans and Very Fast Craft, University of New South Wales, 5-6 December 1996, pp 78–97.Google Scholar
31. Plotkin, A. and Kennell, C. Thickness-induced lift on a thin airfoil in ground effect, AlAA J, 1981, 19,(11), pp 1484–1486.Google Scholar
32. Tan, C. and Plotkin, A. Lifting line solution for a symmetrical thin wing-in-ground effect, AlAA J, 1986, 24, (7), pp 1193–1194.Google Scholar
33. Plotkin, A. and Dodbele, S. Slender wing-in-ground effect, AlAA J, 1988, 26, (4), pp 493–494.Google Scholar
34. Deese, J. and Agarwal, R. Euler calculation for flow over a wing-in-ground effect, 1986, AlAA Paper 86-1765.Google Scholar
35. Hashiguchi, M., Kawaguchi, K., Yamasaki, R. and Kuwahara, K. Computational study of the wake structure of a simplified ground-vehicle shape with base slant, 1989, SAE Paper 890597.Google Scholar
36. Nuhait, A. and Mook, D. Numerical simulation of wings in steady and unsteady ground effect, AlAA J Aircr, 1989, 26, (12), pp 1081–1089.Google Scholar
37. Kuhmstedt, T. and Milbradt, G. Aerodynamic design of wing-in-ground effect craft, 1995, Third International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST95), 23-27 September 1995, Lubeck-Trave-munde, Germany, pp 597–608.Google Scholar
38. Day, A. and Doctors, L. A study of the efficiency of the WIG concept, 1995, Workshop on 21st Century Flying Ships, University of New South Wales, December 1996, pp 1–22.Google Scholar
39. Gallington, R., Chaplin, H. and Krause, F. Recent advances in wing-in-ground effect vehicle technology, 1976, AlAA Paper 76-874.Google Scholar
40. Chun, H. and Park, I. Analysis of steady and unsteady performance for 3D airwing in vicinity of free surface, 1995, Workshop on 21st Century Flying Ships, University of New South Wales, December 1996, pp 23–46.Google Scholar
41. Chun, H., Park, I., Chung, K. and Shin, M. Computational and experimental studies on wings in ground effect and a WIG effect craft, 1996, Workshop on Ekranoplans and Very Fast Craft, University of New South Wales, 5-6 December 1996, pp 38–60.Google Scholar
42. Katz, J. Calculation of the aerodynamic forces on automotive lifting surfaces, J Fluids Eng, 1985, 107, pp 438–443.Google Scholar
43. Standingford, D. and Tuck, E. Optimal rectangular end plates, AlAA J Aircr, 1996, 33, (3), pp 623–625.Google Scholar
44. Tuck, E. and Standingford, D. Lifting surfaces in ground effect, 1996, Workshop Proceedings of Ekranoplans and Very Fast Craft, University of New South Wales, 5-6 December 1996. pp 230–243.Google Scholar
45. Nitta, K. Modeling of the unsteady aerodynamic forces including the ground effect, 1996, Japan Soc Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 39, (125), pp 309–328.Google Scholar
46. Hsiun, C. and Chen, C. Numerical investigation of the thickness and camber effects on aerodynamic characteristics for two-dimensional airfoils with ground effect in viscous flow, 1995, Japan Soc Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 38, (119), pp 77–90.Google Scholar
46. Hirata, N. Numerical study on the aerodynamic characteristics of a 3D power-augmented ram wing-in-ground effect, 1996, J Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 179, pp 31–39.Google Scholar
48. Nouzawa, T., Hiasa, K., Nakamura, T., Kawamoto, A. and Sato, H. Unsteady wake analysis of the aerodynamic drag of a notchback model with critical afterbody geometry, 1992, SAE Paper 920202.Google Scholar
49. Hashiguchi, M., Kawaguchi, K, Yamasaki, R. and Kuwahara, K. Computational study of the wake structure of a simplified ground-vehicle shape with base slant, 1989, SAE Paper 890597.Google Scholar
50. Yamada, A. and Ho, S. Computational analysis of flow around a simplified vehicle like body, 1993, IAA Paper 930293.Google Scholar
51. Han, T., Hammond, D. and Sagi, C. Optimization of bluff body for minimum drag in ground proximity, AlAA J Aircr, 1992, 30, (4), pp 882–889.Google Scholar
52. Steinbach, D. Comment on ‘Aerodynamic characteristics of a two-dimensional airfoil with ground effect', AIAA J Aircr, 1997, 34, (3), pp 455–456.Google Scholar
53. Morishita, E. and Tezuka, K. 1994 Ground effect calculation of two-dimensional airfoils, Japan Soc Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 36, (114), pp 270–280.Google Scholar
54. Mokry, M. Numerical simulation of aircraft trailing vortices interacting with ambient shear or ground, J Aircr, 2001, 38, (4), pp 636–643.Google Scholar
55. Zerihan, J. and Zhang, X. Aerodynamics of gurney flaps on a wing-in-ground effect, AIAA J, 2001, 39, (5), pp 772–780.Google Scholar
56. Huang, T. and Wong, K. Disturbance induced by a pressure distribution moving over a free surface, J Ship Research, 1970, 14, (3), pp 195–203.Google Scholar
57. Lamb, H. Hydrodynamics, 1932, Cambridge University Press, UK.Google Scholar
58. Mineck, R. and Carter, A. Effect of ground proximity on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of an aspect-ratio-1 wing with and without wing-tip blowing, 1974, NASA TM X-3048.Google Scholar
59. Tuck, E. A simple one-dimensional theory for air-supported vehicles over water, J Ship Research, 1984, 28, (4), pp 290–292.Google Scholar
60. Grundy, I. Airfoils moving in air close to a dynamic water surface, J Australian Math Soc, (Series B 27), 1986, 3, pp 327–345.Google Scholar
61. Wang, Q. Flow around an unsteady thin wing close to curved ground, J Fluid Mech, 1991, 226, pp 175–187.Google Scholar
62. Kataoka, K., Ando, J. and Nakatake, K. Free surface effects on characteristics of 2D wing, Trans of the West Japan Soc Naval Architects, 1991 83, pp 21–30.Google Scholar
63. Masuda, S. and Suzuki, K. Simulation of hydrodynamic effects of two-dimensional WIG moving near the free surface, J Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 1991, 170, pp 83–92.Google Scholar
64. Adler, C. and Coopersmith, R. An investigation using an aerodynamic panel code of a special case of a wing flying in close proximity to a water surface, 1995, AIAA Paper 95-1845.Google Scholar
65. Adler, C and Coopersmith, R. Development of a hydrodynamic free surface capability in a low-order aerodynamic panel method, 1995, AIAA Paper 95-1910.Google Scholar
66. Rozhdestvensky, K. Ekranoplans - Flying ships of the next century, 1995, Workshop on 21st Century Flying Ships, University of New South Wales, 7-8 November 1995, pp 47–70.Google Scholar
67. Standingford, D. and Tuck, E. Optimal rectangular end plates, AIAA J Aircr, 1996, 33, (3), pp 623–625.Google Scholar
68. Tuck, E. A simple one-dimensional theory for air-supported vehicles. over water, J Ship Research, 1984, 28, (4), pp 290–292.Google Scholar
69. Wieselsberger, C. Wing resistance near the ground, 1922, NACA TM 77.Google Scholar
70. Steinbach, D. Comment on ‘Aerodynamic characteristics of a two-dimensional airfoil with ground effect', AIAA J Aircr, 1997, 34, (3), pp 455–456.Google Scholar
71. Hsiun, C. and Chen, C. Aerodynamic characteristics of a two-dimensional airfoil with ground effect, AIAA J Aircr, 1996, 33, (2), pp 386–392.Google Scholar
72. Pinkerton, R. The variation with Reynolds number of pressure distribution over an airfoil surface, 1938, NACA Report No 613.Google Scholar
73. Roache, P. Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering, 1998, Hermosa Publishers, USA.Google Scholar
74. Hirata, N. and Kodama, Y. Flow computation for 3D wing-in-ground effect using multi-block technique, J Soc of Naval Architects of Japan, 1995, 177, pp 49–57.Google Scholar
75. Hall, S. Investigation of Two-Phase Backward Step Flow with Electrostatics, 2001, PhD thesis, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
76. Tuck, E. and Standingford, D. Lifting surfaces in ground effect, 1996 Workshop proceedings of Ekranoplans and Very Fast Craft, University of New South Wales, 5-6 December 1996, pp 230–243.Google Scholar
77. Tuck, E. A simple one-dimensional theory for air-supported vehicles over water, J Ship Research, 1984, 28, (4), pp 290–292.Google Scholar
78. Lungu, A. and Mori, K. Applications of composite grid method for free-surface flow computations by finite difference method, J Soc of Naval Architects of Japan, 1994, 175, pp 1–10.Google Scholar
79. Grundy, I. Airfoils moving in air close to a dynamic water surface, J Australian Math Soc, (Series B 27), 1986, 3. pp 327–345.Google Scholar
80. Green, S. Fluid Vortices, 1995, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
81. Steinbach, D. Comment on ‘Aerodynamic characteristics of a two-dimensional airfoil with ground effect', AIAA J of Aircr, 1997, 34, (3), pp 455–456.Google Scholar
82. Chun, H., PARK, I., Chung, K. and Shin, M. Computational and experimental studies on wings in ground effect and a WIG effect craft, 1996, Workshop proceedings of Ekranoplans and Very Fast Craft, University of New South Wales, 5-6 December 1996, pp 38–60.Google Scholar
83. Katzoff, S. and Sweberg, H. Ground effect on downwash angles and wake location, 1942, NASA TR-738.Google Scholar
84. Chun, H., Park, I., Chung, K. and Shin, M. Computational and experimental studies on wings in ground effect and a WIG effect craft, 1996, Workshop Proceedings of Ekranoplans and Very Fast Craft, University of New South Wales, 5-6 December 1996, pp 38–60.Google Scholar
85. Van Opstal, E. Website: ‘The Wig Page', http://www.io.tudelft.nl/~twaio/edwin/html30/index.htm. 1999.Google Scholar
86. Carter, A. Effect of ground proximity on the aerodynamic characteristics of aspect ratio-1 airfoils with and without end plates, 1961, NASA TN D-970.Google Scholar
87. Chun, H. and Park, I. Analysis of steady and unsteady performance for 3D airwing in vicinity of free surface, 1995, Workshop on 21st Century Flying Ships, University of New South Wales, December 1996, pp.23–46.Google Scholar
88. Tuck, E. and Standingford, D. Lifting surfaces in ground effect, 1996, Workshop Proceedings of Ekranoplans and Very Fast Craft, University of New South Wales, 5-6 December 1996. pp 230–243.Google Scholar
89. Rae, W. and Pope, A. Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing, 1984, Wiley, USA.Google Scholar
90. McCormick, B. Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics, 1979, Wiley, USA.Google Scholar