Groun Effect On A Lift Generating Body (KOHFH) PDF

DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this thesis is my original work

and it has been written by me in its entirety.
I have duly acknowledged all the sources of
information which have been used in the thesis.
This thesis has also not been submitted for any

degree in any university previously.
___________________
Koh Fu Hai Alan
July 2013
I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express appreciation to the late Associate Professor
Luo Siao Chung and Professor Chew Yong Tian for their valuable guidance
as supervisors.
Many thanks also go to the staff of the NUS fluid mechanics laboratory and
workshop, especially to Mr James Ng for machining the small parts of the
model and Mr Looi Siew Wah for fixing the old computer for the load cell.
II
TABLES OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY .................................................................................................. VII
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................... VIII
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................... IX
LIST OF SYMBOLS..................................................................................... XII
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Mechanism of Ground Effect................................................................. 1
1.2 History .................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Literature Review .................................................................................. 7
1.3.1 Analytical Methods ......................................................................... 8
1.3.1.1 Flat Ground, Image Method, 3D .............................................. 8
1.3.1.2 Wavy Ground, Image Method, 3D ......................................... 13
1.3.2 Computational Methods ............................................................... 14
1.3.2.1 RANS, Moving Ground, 2D ................................................... 14
1.3.2.2 Vortex Lattice Method, 3D ..................................................... 15
1.3.3 Experimental Methods ................................................................. 18
1.3.3.1 Image Method, 3D ................................................................. 18
1.3.3.2 Flat Plate, 3D ........................................................................ 23
1.3.3.3 Flat Plate, 2D, Pressure Distribution...................................... 27
1.3.3.4 Moving Ground, 3D, Pressure Distribution ............................ 34
1.4 Objectives ........................................................................................... 38
1.5 Scope and Organisation of the Thesis ................................................ 39
2. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
2.1 Wind Tunnel ....................................................................................... 40
2.1.1 Velocity Profile in the y-z plane .................................................... 41
2.2 Flat Plate ............................................................................................ 42
2.3 Caution in Simulation of the Ground in Ground Effect Experiments .... 43
III
2.4 Definition for h/c .................................................................................. 47
2.5 Investigated range of and h/c........................................................... 47
2.6 Temperature, Dynamic Pressure and Reynolds Number .................... 47
2.7 Model .................................................................................................. 48
2.8 Measurement of lift ............................................................................. 50
2.9 Measurement of drag .......................................................................... 50
2.10 Measurement of pressure ................................................................. 52
2.11 Load Cell .......................................................................................... 52
2.12 Manometer ....................................................................................... 54
2.13 Challenges in Measurement ............................................................. 55
2.13.1 Drift in Load Cell Datum ............................................................. 55
2.13.2 Downstream Pressure Gradient ................................................. 55
2.13.3 Blockage Effects ........................................................................ 56
3. RESULTS
3.1. Pressure Distribution.......................................................................... 57
3.1.1 Reynolds number Effect on Aerodynamic Coefficients ................. 57
3.1.2 Aerodynamic Coefficients at Reynolds number of 200000 ........... 60
3.1.3 Pressure Distribution at = 0O and 2O ......................................... 67
3.1.4 Pressure Distribution at = 4O to 8O ............................................ 71
3.2. Lift and Drag ...................................................................................... 77
3.2.1 Datum 3D Lift and Drag ............................................................... 78
3.2.2 Lift and Drag coefficients from Pressure Distribution .................... 80
3.2.3 Effect of on Lift and Drag coefficients vs. h/c............................. 81
3.2.4 Effect of h/c on Lift and Drag coefficient vs. .............................. 84
3.3 Uncertainty ......................................................................................... 86
4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Effective camber ................................................................................. 92
IV
4.2 Effective angle of attack ...................................................................... 93
4.3 Behaviour of Air below the wing .......................................................... 94
4.4 Ground effect on circulation on a wing ................................................ 95
4.5 Drag .................................................................................................... 96
4.6 Changes in Lift and Drag for a 2D airfoil in Ground Effect ................... 97
4.6.1 Effects of a Flat Moving Ground on lift and drag ........................... 98
4.6.2 Effects of a Flat Stationary Ground on lift and drag ...................... 99
4.7 Changes in Lift and Drag for a Finite Wing in Ground Effect ............. 100
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Concluding Remarks......................................................................... 101
5.2 Recommendations ............................................................................ 102
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 104
APPENDICES
A Summary of WIG Vehicles ................................................................ 108
B Summary of Experimental data from NACA TN 67 ............................ 117
C Summary of Experimental Data from NASA TN D926 ....................... 125
D Summary of Experimental Data from Chawla, Edwards and Franke . 135
E Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed and Sharma ................ 138
F Summary of Experimental Data from Kwang, Ho and Hee ................ 142
G Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed .................................... 145
H Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed, Takasaki and Kohama149
I Summary of Pressure Distribution over NACA 4415 section at various

Reynolds number .............................................................................. 153
J Calculated Lift and Drag of finite NACA 4415 wing ........................... 165
K Load cell Characteristics ................................................................... 170
L Drawings of the Model ...................................................................... 192
M Downstream Pressure Profile............................................................ 196
N Y-Z Plane Velocity Profile ................................................................. 200
V
O Wind Speed and Effect of Tube Length............................................. 208
P Approximating the Leading Edge Pressure Reading from Pitot Reading

. ........................................................................................................ 209
Q Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Pressure ...................... 210
R Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Force ........................... 220
S Uncertainty in Force Measurements.................................................. 227
T Preparation of Wind Tunnel Test Section .......................................... 229
U Preparation of Model ......................................................................... 230
V Preparation of Other Equipment........................................................ 231
W Formulas ........................................................................................... 232
X Corrections to Data ........................................................................... 236
VI
SUMMARY
Ground effect is the increase of lift and reduction of drag, on a lift generating
body in flight at heights of one chord or less above the ground. This beneficial
effect has been harnessed for development of ground effect vehicles since in
the early 1900s. To date, large-scale commercial production of ground effect
vehicles has not taken place. The literatures consists of investigations
reporting ground effect with increased lift and reduced drag, but do not
discuss the mechanisms behind changes in lift and drag. Most ground effect
research was carried out with the image method or the flat plate method to
simulate the ground. Only one recent work used the moving belt method to
simulate the ground. Due to limited laboratory resources in this study, wind
tunnel experiments were carried out with a flat plate simulating the ground.
Pressure distributions, lift and drag forces were obtained from a finite wing of
NACA 4415 section with aspect ratio 2.51. The experiments were carried out
at positive angles of attack from 0O to 8O in ground effect. As the wing
approached the ground, suction reduced on the upper surface when in ground
effect than without ground effect and air was slowing down under the wing.
The resulting higher pressure developing under the wing was the main cause
of improved lift at all angles of attack as ground clearance decreased. Drag
reduction was mainly due to suppressed formation of wing tip vortices, which
reduced the induced drag component. The circulatory lift contribution
decreased slightly due possibly to smaller effective camber as streamlines
straightened out about the wing. However, without a moving belt facility for
ground simulation, the effect of the ground on circulation about the wing is still
debatable. Generally, ground effect over a flat plate, translated the CL- curve
upward and CD- curve downward.
VII
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Comparing estimated cl to Abbott and Doenhoff data for similar at
various Reynolds number ................................................................... 63
VIII
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Changes in WIG vehicles Gross Weight. ...................................... 4
Figure 1.2 Changes in WIG vehicles Cruising Speed. .................................... 5
Figure 1.3 Measured and calculated drag polar curves near the ground. ........ 9
Figure 1.4 Gradient of Lift coefficient vs. for a 2D flat plate airfoil in ground
effect..................................................................................................... 11
Figure 1.5 Variation of CL|=0 and CL/ with respect to h/b. ........................ 12
Figure 1.6 Variation of CL with CDi, induced drag. ......................................... 13
Figure 1.7 Span wise loading of a planar wing (aspect ratio 4) at 3 sweep
angles. .................................................................................................. 16
Figure 1.8 Effect of ground proximity on CL of rectangular wings.. ................ 17
Figure 1.9 Lift to DragINDUCED ratios for rectangular wing of maximum 4%

camber.................................................................................................. 17
Figure 1.10 CL vs. (varying h/c) for wing with USA 27 section. .................. 20
Figure 1.11 CD vs. (varying h/c) for wing with USA 27 section. .................. 20
Figure 1.12 L/D vs. h/c (varying ) for wing with USA 27 section. ................. 21
Figure 1.13 CL vs. (varying h/c) for wing with modified Glenn Martin 21
section. ................................................................................................. 22
Figure 1.14 CD vs. (varying h/c) for wing with modified Glenn Martin 21
section. ................................................................................................. 22
Figure 1.15 L/D vs. h/c (varying ) for wing with modified Glenn Martin 21
section. ................................................................................................. 23
Figure 1.16 CL vs. (varying h/c) for swept wing with NACA 4415 section. .. 24
Figure 1.17 CD vs. (varying h/c) for swept wing with NACA 4415 section. . 25
Figure 1.18 L/D vs. h/c (varying ) for swept wing with NACA 4415 section. 25
Figure 1.19 CL vs. (varying h/c) for wing with NACA 6409 section. ............ 26
Figure 1.20 CD vs. (varying h/c) for wing with NACA 6409 section............. 27
Figure 1.21 L/D vs. h/c (varying ) for wing with NACA 6409 section. .......... 27
Figure 1.22 cl vs. (varying h/c) for airfoil with NACA 0015 section. ............ 28
Figure 1.23 cd vs. (varying h/c) for airfoil with NACA 0015 section............. 29
IX
Figure 1.24 l/d vs. h/c (varying ) for airfoil with NACA 0015 section. ........... 29
Figure 1.25 Ram pressure on the lower surface at = 7.5O, at h/c 0.02 to
0.80. ..................................................................................................... 30
Figure 1.26 A small pocket of suction on the lower surface at = 0O, at h/c
0.015. ................................................................................................... 31
Figure 1.27 cl vs. h/c and cd vs. h/c for a airfoil with NACA 4415 section. ..... 32
Figure 1.28 Pressure distribution for a airfoil with NACA 4415 section.......... 34
Figure 1.29 cl vs. h/c and cd vs. h/c for a wing with NACA 4412 section. ...... 35
Figure 1.30 Pressure distribution for a wing with NACA 4412 section. .......... 37
Figure 2.1 Schematic of wind tunnel. ............................................................ 40
Figure 2.2 Vertical velocity profile obtained at 4 positions. ............................ 41
Figure 2.3 Horizontal velocity profile obtained at 1 position on each sidewall42
Figure 2.4 Desired velocity profile at the ground. .......................................... 43
Figure 2.5 Overall wing and straight wing tips............................................... 49
Figure 2.6 Streamwise pressure tap location along center line. .................... 49
Figure 2.7 Determining the drag of the supports. .......................................... 51
Figure 2.8 Checking load cell in the z direction for force. .............................. 53
Figure 2.9 Checking the load cell in the x direction for force. ........................ 53
Figure 2.10 Checking the load cell in y direction for torque. .......................... 54
Figure 3.1 Section cl vs. for NACA 4415 airfoil (in box).............................. 58
Figure 3.2 Section cd vs. cl for NACA 4415 airfoil (in box). ............................ 59
Figure 3.3 Pressure distribution curves at approximately the same but at

various Reynolds number. .................................................................... 62
Figure 3.4 3D Plots of cp vs. x/c vs. for the Lower (a) and Upper (b) Surface
of a NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section and Re = 200000. ............................. 64
Figure 3.7 CP (upper) vs. x/c at various h/c for = 0O. .................................. 69
Figure 3.8 CP (lower) vs. x/c at various h/c for = 0O. .................................. 70
X
Figure 3.9 CP (upper) vs. x/c at various h/c for = 2O. .................................. 70
Figure 3.10 CP (lower) vs. x/c at various h/c for = 2O. ................................ 71
Figure 3.11 CP (upper) vs. x/c at various h/c for = 4O. ................................ 73
Figure 3.17 Expected CL and CD vs. curve for AR 2.51 NACA 4415 wing
without ground effect............................................................................. 79
Figure 3.18 Expected L/D for AR 2.51 NACA 4415 wing without ground effect.
............................................................................................................. 80
Figure 3.19 cl vs. h/c and CL vs. h/c at various . ......................................... 82
Figure 3.20 cd vs. h/c and CD vs. h/c at various . ........................................ 83
Figure 3.21 cl vs. and CL vs. at various h/c.. ........................................... 84
Figure 3.22 Graphs of cd vs. and CD vs. at various h/c. .......................... 86
Figure 3.23 Percentage increase in CL compared to relative uncertainty in CL

vs. h/c ................................................................................................... 89
Figure 3.24 Percentage change in CD compared to relative uncertainty in CD

vs. h/c ................................................................................................... 89
Figure 3.25 Percentage increase in L/D compared to relative uncertainty in

L/D vs. h/c............................................................................................. 90
Figure 4.1 Circulation about an airfoil in ground effect over a moving belt. ... 99
Figure 4.2 Circulation about an airfoil in ground effect over a flat plate. ...... 100
XI
LIST OF SYMBOLS
English symbols
a0 Gradient of 2D incompressible lift coefficient vs angle of attack
acomp Gradient of 3D compressible lift coefficient vs angle of attack
AoA Angle of Attack (used only in figures)
AMF Model frontal area
ATS Cross sectional area of test section.
A,B,X General symbols for measured or calculated quantities
AR Aspect ratio
b wing span
c wing chord
cl 2D lift coefficient
cd 2D drag coefficient
CD 3D drag coefficient
CDi 3D induced drag coefficient
CL 3D lift coefficient
cp 2D pressure distribution
CP 3D pressure distribution
D 3D drag
L 3D lift
l/d 2D lift to drag ratio
L/D 3D lift to drag ratio
h height of wing above ground measured from trailing edge.
h/b ratio of height to span, used for highly swept wings.
h/c ratio of height to chord also referred to as ground clearance.
k Coverage factor
M Free stream Mach number
XII
n Parameter that determines the type of probability distribution
N Number of samples
U Free stream speed
x coordinate on axis parallel to the wings chord
x Tolerance
x/c chord wise station, normalised by c.
y coordinate on axis perpendicular to the wings chord
Greek symbols
Angle of Attack
f refers to the 3 trailing edge flap settings.
le refers to the leading edge flap setting.
F General symbol for measured force
ratio of h/c OR relative uncertainty only in uncertainty analysis.
t Blockage correction
Kinematic viscosity
standard deviation
XIII
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 MECHANISM OF GROUND EFFECT
In flight without ground effect, drag on a finite wing at subsonic speed arises
from three sources. Drag arises from skin friction, from pressure differences
about the wing and from induced drag. The finite span of a wing causes wing-
tip vortices to form, causing down wash behind and ahead of the wing. Down
wash deflects the oncoming air downward, reducing the local effective angle
of attack. The local resultant force tilts aft due to reduced effective angle of
attack. This resultant force contributes a rearward component to drag, which
is the induced drag. Improvements to lift also increase induced drag.
Ground effect is about increased lift with reduced drag, which a wing
experiences when flown within the height of a wing's chord above ground.
When a wing is flown within ground effect, the formation of wing-tip vortices is
suppressed as the wing gets close to the ground. Consequently, as the down
wash reduces, the oncoming flow deflects downward by a smaller extent.
Reduction of the local effective angle of attack is less and the local resultant
force contributes a smaller rearward component. The resulting local induced
drag component is reduced, which lowers the overall drag of the wing.
Concurrently, as the local effective angle of attack reduction is less across the
whole wing, the wing generates more lift. These two changes deliver a higher
lift to drag ratio, hence greater aerodynamic efficiency when flying in ground
effect.
Additional lift may also be generated via ram pressure at small clearances
from the ground. Above a certain angle of attack, the lower surface of the
wing and the ground form a 2D convergent passage with a small gap at the
1
trailing edge. This causes the moving air below the wing to slow down and
generate corresponding higher pressure. The passage under the wing can be
described as 2D since the variation across the span caused by down wash
has minimised.
Such wings are usually designed with a flatter lower surface to avoid creating
a 2D convergent and divergent passage between a wing's lower surface and
the ground. This avoids the throat area, which increases flow velocity but
reduces pressure. Such suction below the wing offsets the total suction found
above the wing and decreases the lift.
1.2 HISTORY
Wing in Ground (WIG) effect has been studied since the time of the Wright
brothers maiden flight. Ollila [1] mentioned that the Wright brothers were
gliding in ground effect about a foot off the ground. Another contemporary
aviation pioneer was Frenchman, C. Ader, who experimented unsuccessfully
with his Avion-3 winged launches around 1900.
Ollila [1] observed that early efforts to utilize ground effect were motivated by
development of vehicles for skimming across open country covered in snow,
marshes, swamps or open waters in North America, Scandinavia and Russia.
Unfortunately, the later success of large-cargo-plane developments reduced
interest in larger WIG vehicles. Interest in WIG vehicles revived again in
1970s, fuelled by the energy crisis. By 1980, the idea of harnessing ground
effect for transportation of military and civilian cargo captured the attention of
transport planners. In 2006, Rozhdestvenskys [2] review contained a detailed
section on potential military applications for WIG vehicles. A discussion on
2
classification and certification of WIG vehicles by various regulatory
authorities was also carried out.
Both reviews credit the Finnish engineer Toivo Kaario for developing the first
WIG vehicle. Toivo Kaario wanted to design a high-speed snow sledge and
this vehicle was the first successful attempt that deliberately used ground
effect to go faster. The vehicles ram wing enabled the vehicle to skim over
snow in the Finnish Lapland. The first design in 1935 carried a single crew at
12 knots using a 16-hp reciprocating engine. By 1962, Kaarios Aerosani
No.8 was ready and carried a crew of 2 at 43 knots. At about the same time,
an American doctor, Dr W.R. Bertelson wanted to visit homebound patients in
his rural area of practice. His efforts paid off when he successfully built his
ram wing, GEM-3 in 1963. GEM-3 carried 4 crewmembers at 70 knots using a
150-hp reciprocating engine.
A simple summary of selected WIG projects that resulted in at least a fully
developed experimental vehicle is presented in Figures 1 and 2. Missing
details of speed or weight were gleaned from Sinitsyn & Maskalik [3], Yun et.
al. [4], Advance Research Projects Agency (ARPA) Wingship Investigation
volume 1 and 3 [5]. The remaining details are in the appendix.
Gross Weight, Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) and All Up Weight are
sufficiently similar weight definitions. These were selected for comparison
against the year of development or design [Figure 1.1]. The weight can be
used as a reasonable indicator of the overall size of the WIG vehicle. A large
vehicle with a large cargo space is expectedly heavy. However, payload
fraction and fuel fraction are dependent on construction materials and these
3
fractions improve as material advances take place. Stronger and lighter
materials have the potential to decrease the empty weight fraction.
Cruising speed of the vehicle was also selected for comparison with its year
of development or design [Figure 1.2]. An increase of cruising speed can
approximately indicate that the WIG vehicles design is increasingly
aerodynamically efficient for the same engine thrust. A sustainable high
Continuous Cruising speed also indicates that the power plants selected for
WIG vehicles have been adapted sufficiently for continuous sea level
operation in a marine environment, hopefully faster than current large ocean
going vessels or at efficiencies similar to current large transport aircraft.
Weight changes over the years for

Fully Developed Vehicles & Concepts within the same development group
Weight [kg]
1.0E+06
CSSRC, China
MARIC, China
1.0E+05 Toivo Kaario, Finland
Dr A Lippisch, Germany
Hanno Fischer, Germany
1.0E+04 Techno Trans, Germany
Prof Syozo Kubo, Japan
CLST, Russia
Gen D Synitsin, Russia
1.0E+03 RE Alexeev, Russia
HoverWing 20 (IMO cert.)
WSH-500 (IMO cert.)
1.0E+02
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Figure 1.1 Changes in WIG vehicles Gross Weight. 1
4
Speed changes over the years for
Cruising Speed [km/h]
600
CSSRC, China
500
MARIC, China
Toivo Kaario, Finland
400 Dr A Lippisch, Germany
300 Techno Trans, Germany
CLST, Russia
200
RE Alexeev, Russia
100 HoverWing 20 (IMO cert.)
WSH-500 (IMO cert.)
0
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Figure 1.2 Changes in WIG vehicles Cruising Speed. 2
Generally, WIG technology to date is predominantly experimental and is only
beginning to demonstrate potential commercial viability in small passenger
ferries. Each successful group of WIG vehicles grew from a single crew to
small-crew vehicles, and to presently large WIG vehicle concepts. The data is
divided into groups of related designs. Across most designs, there are no
large and fast (approximately 500 km/h) passenger or cargo/payload WIG
vehicles in the production stage [Figures 1 and 2]. Only 3 Orlyonok vehicles
were in service with the Russian navy as reported by M. Halloran and S.
O'Meara [6]. Russias Spasatel for rescue work in open sea is probably the
largest (approximately 400 ton) vehicle that is close to production, but is likely
still incomplete [4].
An examination of the developments listed above also shows a fast shift from
small WIG craft to numerous conceptual large WIG vehicles. These claim to
improve maritime transport either by increased speed, by greater range or by
fuel efficiency. Clearly, other benefits of large WIG vehicles include improved
5
stability in rough weather since the WIG vehicles chord length being larger
than the variations in wave heights [5,6]. This translates to more consistent
height above ground and more consistent aerodynamic gains.
The two IMO registered designs however have reached the threshold of
commercial production. In May 2011, a 91% completed WSH-500 prototype
(47 passengers and 3 crewmembers) was granted certification by Lloyd's
Register with IMO number 9590436. This project hopes to find a potential
customer in the Greek ferry market [7]. A fully built Hoverwing 20 (20
passengers and 3 crewmembers) prototype has completed successful sea
trials and certification by Germanischer Lloyd's as a commercial WIG craft
Type A about the same time. This design of WIG vehicle has gained interest
in the Indonesian market [8].
The military potential of WIG vehicles has not gone unnoticed. In 1994, ARPA
Wingship investigation [5] discussed the feasibility of very large military WIG
vehicles. Volume 1 of [5], among other things, concluded that large WIG
vehicles are able to handle rough sea states better and automatic feedback in
stability and control are crucial for long duration flights. However, the overall
costs are similar to available heavy airlift transport. Volume 3 of [5] elaborated
on several technical hurdles. The high take-off power necessitates more
engines for takeoff than for cruising. This drives up the fuel fraction, reduces
the payload fraction and increases the drag. The main culprit is hump drag,
experienced when getting out of the water. High lift wing sections and plan
forms that can sustain high loading at low speed in ground effect may enable
WIG vehicles to avoid hump drag by getting out of contact with water at low
speed. This may subsequently reduce the high power take-off power
requirement.
6
The size of WIG vehicle which the military considers more useful than the
current technology, such as the C-5 galaxy transport plane, is about 10 times
heavier than Spasatel, reaching 5000 tons. There are also no intermediate
size WIG vehicles between the current large WIG vehicles and the 5000-ton
design, offering little confirmation of the feasibility of such large WIG designs.
Interestingly, Volume 3 of [5] does not consider aerodynamics or flight control
and stability as developmental areas, citing foreseeable maturity of CFD
codes to simulate ground effect and maturity in flight controls as found in X-31
experimental plane.
Halloran and OMeara [6] writing for the DSTO in 1999, noted that the
improved ift to drag ratio may be eroded by a necessary larger tail, larger
control forces and a strengthen hull against waves, which is heavier. They
also suggested that the first achievable benefit might be a WIG vehicle faster
than conventional sea vessels. Large WIG vehicle development is
sandwiched between perceived high developmental cost and uncertain
operational cost and performance.
1.3 LITERATURE REVIEW
As commercial development of WIG vehicles rests mainly on the improved lift
to drag ratio obtainable from flight in ground effect, the mechanisms behind
improved lift and reduced drag were investigated. Previous works have
attempted to describe ground effect analytically, computationally and
experimentally.
7
1.3.1 Analytical Methods
Analytical methods used to describe ground effect fall into two groups.
Initially, the wing was modeled as flying over a flat ground. Subsequently, as
WIG vehicles began to be considered as a possible maritime transport, the
effect of a wavy ground was incorporated into the analysis.
1.3.1.1 Flat Ground, Image Method, 3D
Wieselsberger [9] investigated ground effect in 1921, wanting a more
accurate determination of drag that airplanes experienced during their take-off
and landing phases. The span-wise lift distribution was considered elliptical. A
vortex band, composed of many elementary vortices, went out from the
trailing edge of this wing. The presence of this vortex band affected only the
vertical component of the on-coming air, giving the on-coming air a downward
velocity component. The induced downward velocity component at any span
wise station on the wing was the integral of the downward contribution by
each elementary vortex. The method of images was used to simulate the
ground, with one wing on each side of the ground.
A set of simple equations was developed to calculate the ground effect drag
polar curve using the drag polar curve in normal flight. These equations
demonstrated reduced local downward deflection of the on-coming air when a
wing is flown near the ground. After integrating the local effects, the wing
experienced less induced drag. The calculated drag polar in ground effect
compared favorably to the experimental data obtained near ground for a
monoplane model with fuselage and tail [Figure 1.3]. Measured and
calculated CL and CD in ground effect agreed till CL=1.2. The ratio of height-
above-ground to chord, h/c, was 1.2. The experiment was carried out at only
this height above the ground. There was no assessment of the suitability of
8
the method of images used to simulate the ground in the experiment. Apart
from less induced drag, changes in lift and drag caused by other sources
were not considered.
Figure 1.3 Measured and calculated drag polar curves near the ground. Drag polar for
unlimited space is included for comparison. Drag reduced when in ground effect.
Figure reproduced from [9] with highlights and labels added. 3
In 1970, Widnall and Barrows [10] proposed an analytical solution for a two-
dimensional and a three-dimensional wing in ground effect. Their solution was
confined to flat and thin airfoils, where the airfoil thickness was small
compared to the ratio of height to chord. In developing their two dimensional
analytical solution, they used a simplification stating that when an airfoil is
flown very close to the ground, the two-dimensional flow between the ground
and airfoil becomes effectively one-dimensional, a channel flow.
By casting the perturbations in appropriate powers of angle of attack, ,
height to chord ratio, =h/c and /, they proceeded to solve the ground effect
problem using the method of matched asymptotic expansions for the velocity
potential of the flow. The method of images was used to set up the ground in
9
two-dimensional flow. The flow surrounding the airfoil was divided into the
following 4 regions. A) The outer flow above the wing. B) The channel flow
below the wing. C) The flow around the leading edge. D) The flow around the
trailing edge. The velocity potential of each region was determined and
matched to the adjacent region at large distances from the wing, where the
disturbance caused by the wing is minimal.
The final velocity potential surrounding the wing was used to determine the
pressure distribution on both upper and lower surfaces of the wing. The
pressure distribution, based on velocity potential to the third order, was in
good agreement with the numerical linearised thin airfoil solution which used
the Glauert series with 6 terms and 19 down wash control points. As h/c
decreased, the agreement improved. As h/c increased, the analytical solution
gave slightly more lift. The channel flow region shrank while the leading and
trailing edge flow solutions almost overlapped, creating a slightly higher-
pressure region. The product of the gradient of lift vs. angle of attack and
height to chord ratio, cl/ was plotted against h/c. These curves show clear
increases in the gradient of the cl vs. curves as h/c reduced [Figure 1.4].
The cl curves agreed better with the numerical linearised thin airfoil solution
when higher-order terms are included in velocity potential. As this analysis is
2D, cl has replaced CL.
10
Figure 1.4 Gradient of Lift coefficient vs. for a 2D flat plate airfoil in ground effect.
Below the free stream limit, gradient of cl- is less than 2. These methods predict
steeper cl- curves as h/c reduces indicating cl gains in ground effect. Figure
reproduced from [10]. 4
In the analytical solution for 3D flow, the wings planform was confined to an
elliptical half with straight trailing edge. The CL/ vs. h/c curves show similar
result as in the 2D case. In regions away from the edges, the three
dimensional solution, to first order, gives a good lift prediction compared to
the numerical linearised thin airfoil solution. While this analytical solution
compared sufficiently well with a numerical solution, there was no comparison
with experimental results obtained via the method of images. Widnall and
Barrows [10] also did not assess the suitability of method of images in
simulating the ground.
In the quest for efficient supersonic flight, an aircrafts wing design typically
has a low aspect ratio and is highly swept to keep within the Mach cone.
Aircraft with such designs still transit the low speed regime during take-off and
landing, but do so at higher angles of attack to compensate for lower speed.
In 1979, Coe and Thomas [11] investigated theoretically and experimentally
11
the ground-induced effects on low-aspect ratio highly swept delta wing. The
highly swept wing was modeled by a planar vortex lattice representation and
the method of images was used to simulate the ground. The unified subsonic,
transonic, supersonic vortex lattice method was used to obtain their
theoretical results. Their results showed excellent agreement between
theoretical CL and experimental CL until a ground clearance of 30% of
wingspan (h/b>0.3) and at various angles of attack [Figure 1.5]. When h/b <
0.3, the theoretical and experimental data showed only similar overall trends.
Height above ground has been normalized against span instead of chord, as
this is a highly swept delta wing.
O O O
Figure 1.5 Variation of CL|=0 and CL/ with respect to h/b. WB; f = 20 /20 /20 ; le
O
= 30 . WB: model with wing body configuration. f refers to the 3 trailing edge flap
settings. le refers to the leading edge flap setting. CL increases as h/b reduces.
Figure reproduced from [11]. 5
In predicting the reduction of induced drag, for a given h/b, the theoretical
model showed greater reduction in induced drag than the experimental results
[Figure 1.6]. This was similarly observed for the total drag. The theoretical
12
model incorporated 100% leading edge suction to prevent flow separation,
while only 70% suction was present at the leading edge of the experimental
model. The planar representation of the fuselage also contributed to variation
between theoretical and experimental results.
Figure 1.6 Variation of CL with CDi, induced drag, determined for theoretical model.
O O O O
WB; f = 20 /20 / 20 ; le = 30 . Induced drag reduces as h/b reduces. Figure
1.3.1.2 Wavy Ground, Image Method, 3D
Theoretical models tend to consider that the clearance between the WIG
vehicle and the ground as constant, implying a flat ground. Wang [12] used
the method of matched asymptotic expansions to study a wing in very close
proximity to a curved or wavy ground instead. The flow surrounding the
aerofoil was divided into 4 regions, similar to Widnall and Barrows [8]. Velocity
13
potential was determined for each region and the solutions expanded to 3rd
order. However, improvements in L/D ratios were not examined. Comparisons
to Widnall and Barrows [8] are outside the scope of this present work.
1.3.2 Computational Methods
Computational methods used also fall into two main groups. The
computationally intensive Navier Stokes equations can be solved efficiently
for simplified cases such as 2D flow over an airfoil with todays computational
power. On the other hand, the simpler vortex lattice method is quick and still
equally effective in describing even the 3D flow over a wing.
1.3.2.1 RANS, Moving Ground, 2D
In 2007, Abramowski [13] used a commercial numerical software, Fluent to
investigate the viscous flow surrounding a 2D airfoil. This airfoil was a
combination of NACA 0015 on the upper surface and a Munk M15 on the
lower surface, resulting in an airfoil with a flat bottom. The free stream speed
was 30m/s with Reynolds number 2.1x106. Compressibility effects were
neglected, as Mach number was 0.1. The ground was set to move at the
same speed as the free stream flow. The 2D Reynolds Average Navier
Stokes (RANS) equations were used with the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence
model to describe the flow. The equations were applied over finite volumes
from a grid of unstructured quad elements. A second order up wind
discretisation of the SIMPLE algorithm was applied to couple velocity and
pressure. The coefficient of pressure plots of the airfoil showed increasing
suction over the upper surface, at approximately x/c = 0.3, as h/c decreased.
As minimum cp decreased, more lift was generated over the upper surface of
the airfoil. There was no discussion on drag experienced by this 2D airfoil in
ground effect.
14
1.3.2.2 Vortex Lattice Method, 3D
In 2003, Kornev and Matveev [14] used a commercial software AutoWing to
simulate the aerodynamic performance of a small WIG vehicle. AutoWings
code comprised many sub-models such as hydrodynamics of transition in
water, planing on a stepped surface, aerodynamics in the ground effect,
unsteady hydro-aerodynamics, wind wave effects and the simulation of
motion. The nonlinear vortex lattice method formed the core of the hydro-
aerodynamic sub-model.
Kornev and Matveev [14] began with a mathematical model describing the 3D
motion of the WIG vehicle with nonlinear equations. The wake surface and
wing surfaces were described by panel methods. The authors assessed that
panel methods were sufficiently robust to handle critical design problems and
subsequently, the Vortex Lattice Method (VLM) was selected as the trade off
between accuracy and computational effort.
Hydrodynamic and aerodynamic inputs were determined from the nonlinear
equations of motion and VLM, and fed into stability analysis. Stability analysis
identified a range of parameters and regimes for safe and unsafe handling.
For example, in a given range of height and WIG vehicle pitch, the stable and
unstable flight regimes were identified. The favorable range of center-of-
gravity positions relative to aerodynamic centre at altitude, to aerodynamic
centre in pitch, to height and to pitch was also determined. The WIG vehicles
gust response was also investigated. Lastly, thrust inputs when transiting from
hydroplaning to ground effect was presented. These results taken together
indicated a range of control inputs for safe handling. These inputs were built
on aerodynamic coefficient values derived from VLM applied to a WIG
15
vehicle. However, there was no comparison of AutoWings computational
output with experimental data.
In 2011, Suh, Jung and Ho [15] proved in limited fashion that CFD and
experimental data compared favourably. They applied the Vortex Lattice
Method to a thin wing flying close to the ground. The wings surface was
divided into panels with vortex rings were distributed over the panels. The
leading segment of each bound vortex was located on the quarter chord point
of each panel. The collocation points were located at third-quarter chord of
each panel. Freely moving vortex rings represented the wake. This numerical
approach produced results that compared well with other numerical and
experimental data. However, the simulation of ground was not specified. The
span wise lift loading for swept wings were computed and compared well with
Katzs [16] experimental results which was based on automotive lifting
surfaces [Figure 1.7].
Figure 1.7 Span wise loading of a planar wing (aspect ratio 4) at 3 sweep angles,
compared to experimental results from Katz [16]. At centre of wing, 2y/b = 0. Figure
16
The computed lift coefficient, at various aspect ratios was then compared with
Fink and Lastingers [17] experimental results and Maskews [18] numerical
results, from code VSAERO applied to a Glenn Martin 21% thick, non
symmetrical airfoil [Figure 1.8].
Figure 1.8 Effect of ground proximity on CL of rectangular wings, compared to

experimental results from Fink and Lastinger [17] and numerical results from Maskew
[18]. Figure reproduced from [15]. 8
Lift to induced drag ratios were compared with numerical results of Day and
Doctors [19] [Figure 1.9].
Figure 1.9 Lift to DragINDUCED ratios for rectangular wing of maximum 4% camber,
compared to numerical results from Day and Doctors [19]. Figure reproduced from
[15]. 9
17
Experimentally, a DHMTU wing was tested in a wind tunnel with a fixed flat
plate that simulated the ground. The wing moved in the vertical direction to
vary the ground clearance. As the ground clearance reduced, CL increased.
However, only lift coefficients from their own experimental work were
compared to their theoretical work. Their results indicated that lift determined
from CFD came close to experimental values within the confines of Suh et. al.
[15].
1.3.3 Experimental Methods
Experimental methods in this literature review fall into three groups, namely
the image method, the flat plate method, and the moving belt method. The
image method uses two models mirrored in the ground plane. The flat plate
method involves an elevated plate that sets up mostly free stream flow below
the wing or airfoil but with only a thin boundary layer. The moving belt is the
most faithful replication of flight in ground effect. The ground and the free
stream move together at free stream speed.
1.3.3.1 Image Method, 3D
In 1921, Raymond [20] noted that the proximity of the ground led to increased
lift coefficient, allowing planes to reduce their landing speeds. Two methods to
simulate the ground were studied. Initially, a flat plate was used but since the
plate was stationary with respect to the wing, the results were considered less
practical. The next ground simulation was the image method, consisting of 2
identical wings, one reflecting the other in the ground plane. The ground plane
was imaginary, composed of air, and taken to move at close to free stream
speed between the wings. The image method incurs no energy is loss to skin
friction as compared to the stationary flat plate method. Three wings with the
following airfoil sections were used, which are the Martin 2, RAF 15 Special,
and an approximate USA 27. Only data from Martin 2 and USA 27 airfoils
18
were examined in this work, as these airfoils were of similar thickness to the
NACA 4415. The tests were conducted at angles of attack from 4O to 16O
and at h/c from 0.25 to 2.0. At h/c 2.0, the airfoil was considered as tested
Outside of Ground Effect (OGE), and h/c was set to OGE. The flow was 3D
and the Reynolds number was approximately 64000.
From the USA 27 wing used in the image method, CL increased across the
tested range of angles of attack. The greatest CL increase was at small angles
of attack (4O to 8O) [Figure 1.10], and CL tapered off as angle of attack
increased. At high angles of attack (12O), CD decreased the most [Figure
1.11]. At h/c = 0.5, both the flat plate and image method gave similar
increases in CL curve, till high angles of attack, where likely trailing vortices
disturbed the plane of symmetrical airflow between the wings. However,
depending on the airfoil, each method gave a different CD curve, but reduced
drag was still observed h/c decreased. The CL values obtained from image
method and flat plate method generally increased consistently across the
whole range of tested angles of attack for the U.S.A. 27-section wing. The
Martin 2 wing also showed similar trends in CL and CD. However, since it was
tested at 8O to 16O, drag values at small were not available and at 16O, the
symmetrical flow was likely disturbed, causing much higher drag. The
remaining details are in the appendix.
19
CL vs alpha
USA 27 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various h/c
0.7
h/c
0.6
OGE
1.75
1.50
CL
0.5 1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.4
0.3
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
AoA [deg]
Figure 1.10 CL vs. (varying h/c) for wing with USA 27 section. Data reproduced from
[20]. OGE refers to h/c = . 10
CD vs alpha
0.06
h/c
0.05
OGE
1.75
0.04 1.50
CD
1.00
0.03 0.75
0.50
0.25
0.02
0.01
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
AoA [deg]
Figure 1.11 CD vs. (varying h/c) for wing with USA 27 section. Data reproduced
from [20]. OGE refers to h/c = . 11
20
L/D vs h/c
USA 27 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various AoA
22
20

18
AoA 4
AoA 8
AoA 12
L/D
16
OGE 4
OGE 8
OGE 12
14
12
10
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
h/c
Figure 1.12 L/D vs. h/c (varying ) for wing with USA 27 section. Data reproduced
from [20]. OGE refers to h/c = . 12
For both wings with Martin 2 and USA 27 sections, maximum L/D was
obtained at small angles of attack and near the ground [Figure 1.12]. No
pressure distributions were presented in NACA TN67. The flow between the
models of the image method was not checked to see if it was at free stream
velocity at the ground plane.
In 1961, Fink and Lastinger [17] tested thick highly cambered rectangular plan
form wings with various aspect ratios in ground effect. All wings had Glenn
Martin 21 airfoil section but with a modified bottom from x/c 0.3 onwards. The
chord was 30cm. Tests were conducted using the image method, with the
model at angles of attack from 8O to 12O and h/c from 0.042 to 1.0. The flow
was 3D and Reynolds number was 490000.
As this present work involves a wing of aspect ratio of 2.51, only the results
from aspect ratio 2 and 4 Glenn Martin 21 wings at positive angles of attack
were examined further. As the wings approached the ground, CL- slope
21
increased and CL values increased [Figure 1.13]. Especially near the ground,
CD reduced gradually to almost the minimum possible CD, indicating that the
induced drag contribution has reduced [Figure 1.14]. CD reduced the most at
high angle of attacks. The CL curves from aspect ratio 2, at various h/c,
rotated about = 0O, CL = 0.55 on the CL vs. plot. This observation follows
the analytical models in section 1.3.1.1 but contrasts clearly with Raymond
[20], where there was no sign of the gradient of CL vs. curves increasing
when using the image method.
CL vs AoA
Glenn Martin 21 Modified | Image Method | AR2 | 3D | Re 490000 | Various h/c
1.6
1.4
1.2 OGE
1.0 1.000
0.8 0.835
0.660
CL
0.6
0.500
0.4 0.340
0.2 0.170
0.0 0.080
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 -0.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.4
AoA [deg]
Figure 1.13 CL vs. (varying h/c) for wing with modified Glenn Martin 21 section.
Data reproduced from [17]. 13
CD vs AoA
h/c
0.18
0.16
OGE
0.14
1.000
0.12 0.835
0.660
CD
0.10
0.500
0.08 0.340
0.06 0.170
0.080
0.04
0.02
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
AoA [deg]
Figure 1.14 CD vs. (varying h/c) for wing with modified Glenn Martin 21 section.
22
L/D vs h/c
Glenn Martin 21 Modified | Image method | AR2 | 3D | Re 490000 | Various AoA
22
20

18
0
16 2
4
L/D
14
6
12 8
10
10
6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
h/c
Figure 1.15 L/D vs. h/c (varying ) for wing with modified Glenn Martin 21 section.
For a wing with a Glenn Martin 21 modified section, maximum L/D was also
obtained at small angles of attack and near the ground [Figure 1.15]. While
the image method was selected to avoid the boundary layer build up on a flat
plate, flow between models of the image method was not checked to see if it
was at free stream velocity at the ground plane. The mechanism by which
CL and CD changed was also not examined. No pressure distribution readings
were presented in NASA TN D926.
1.3.3.2 Flat Plate, 3D
In 1990 , Chawla, Edwards and Franke [21] tested a wing of aspect ratio 2.33
with NACA 4415 airfoil section. The wings leading edge was swept
backwards 17.3O and the trailing edge was straight. A flat plate simulated the
ground. The flow was 3D and Reynolds number was approximately 400000,
assuming an ambient temperature of 25OC.
From the test data with endplates and mid plates mounted on the airfoil,
estimated data for a clean airfoil was obtained by reducing the data from
endplates and mid plate by the ratio of coefficients between clean airfoil to
23
airfoil with endplates and mid plate. It was shown that as h/c decreased, CL
increases [Figure 1.16] while CD increased gradually [Figure 1.17]. The
maximum L/D was found at = 0O with at h/c 0.5 [Figure 18], with little
change in L/D as h/c reduced. Pressure distributions obtained showed the
complete upper surface seeing more suction, while the lower surface seeing
increased pressure as the ground approached. This occurred for all tests
made.
Their finding on drag is directly opposite of the two previous works (Raymond
[20], Fink and Lastinger [21], in section 1.3.3.1), where CD reduced.
CL vs AoA (Adapted Data)

NACA 4415 | Flat plate method | AR2.33 | Re 402000 | Various h/c
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70 h/c
0.60 2.35
1.00
CL
0.50
0.50
0.40 0.25
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
AoA [deg]
Figure 1.16 CL vs. (varying h/c) for swept wing with NACA 4415 section. Data
24
CD vs AoA (Adapted Data)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35 h/c
0.30 2.35
1.00
CD
0.25
0.50
0.20 0.25
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
AoA [deg]
Figure 1.17 CD vs. (varying h/c) for swept wing with NACA 4415 section. Data
L/D vs h/c (Adapted Data)

NACA 4415 | Flat Plate method | AR2.33 (sweep 17.54 deg) | Re 402000 | 0-25 deg
7.0
6.0
0
5.0 5
10
15
4.0 20
25
3.0
2.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
h/c
Figure 1.18 L/D vs. h/c (varying ) for swept wing with NACA 4415 section. Data
A possible reason for the increased drag is that the flow is made almost 2D by
the end and mid plates. The induced drag is already reduced to a minimum
and ram pressure build up below the wing increases the drag. However, these
drag changes were not examined further.
In 2008, Kwang, Ho and Hee [22] investigated a wing with NACA 6409
section of various aspect ratios. The flow was 3D and at Reynolds number
25
340000. The airfoil was tested at angles of attack from 0O to 8O in 2O steps
and h/c from 0.025 to 0.300. A flat plate simulated the ground. Only the data
from aspect ratio 2 wing without end plates was analyzed further in this work.
At all tested angles of attack, CL increased gradually and the CL curves
generally translated upwards with almost the same slope [Figure 1.19] as h/c
decreased. The CD values reduced at all tested angles of attack, the largest
reduction at 8O, indicating that the induced drag component is vanishing
[Figure 1.20]. These observations are similar with previous works cited,
except Chawla et. al. The mechanism by which CL and CD changed was also
not examined in detail.
CL vs AoA
NACA 6409 | Flat plate method | AR2 | Re 340000 | Various h/c
0.90
0.80 h/c
0.70 0.300
0.250
0.60 0.200
CL
0.150
0.50 0.100
0.050
0.40
0.025
0.30
0.20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]
Figure 1.19 CL vs. (varying h/c) for wing with NACA 6409 section. Data reproduced
from [24]. 19
26
CD vs AoA
0.08
0.07 h/c
0.06 0.300
0.250
0.05 0.200
CD
0.150
0.04 0.100
0.050
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.01
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]
Figure 1.20 CD vs. (varying h/c) for wing with NACA 6409 section. Data reproduced
from [24]. 20
L/D vs h/c
NACA 6409 Flat Plate method | AR2 | AoA 0 to 8 deg | Re 340000 | Various AoA
30

25
0
2
L/D
20 4
6
8
15
10
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
h/c
Figure 1.21 L/D vs. h/c (varying ) for wing with NACA 6409 section. Data reproduced
from [24]. 21
The maximum L/D was obtained at low ground clearance and small angles of
attack [Figure 1.21], similar to previous works except Chawla [21]. Kwang and
co-workers also carried out smoke trace visualization that showed the wing tip
vortices could not form fully when near the ground.
1.3.3.3 Flat Plate, 2D, Pressure Distribution
In 2004, Ahmed and Sharma [23] investigated a symmetrical airfoil, NACA
0015 at Reynolds number 240000. The flow was 2D as the airfoil spanned the
tunnel walls. This implied L/D improvements were mainly from increased cl
and no possible contribution from reduced induced drag. This airfoil was
27
tested at angles of attack from 0O to 10O in 2.5O steps. Ground clearance
varied from 0.083 to 0.8. A flat plate simulated the ground.
At these tested angles of attack, cl improved as h/c is reduced. The
improvement in cl was largest below h/c 0.2 [Figure 1.22]. At zero , cl
increased 20 times as h/c reduced to 0.083. At other angles of attack, cl
improved by 50% to 90%. As h/c reduced, the cl slope translated upwards.
While cd decreased across the tested range of angles of attack [Figure 1.23],
the greatest drop in cd occured at 10O, the overall trend being surprisingly
similar to [20] NACA TN 67 and [17] NASA TN D 926, since this was 2D flow.
The maximum l/d occurred at = 7.5O at h/c 0.05, in contrast to the smaller
in previous works, noting that this work is 2D and that this airfoil has no
camber [Figure 1.24].
cl vs alpha
NACA 0015 | Flat plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | Various h/c
1.400
1.200 h/c
0.80
1.000
0.70
0.60
0.800
0.50
cl
0.40
0.600
0.30
0.20
0.400
0.10
0.200
0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
AoA [deg]
Figure 1.22 cl vs. (varying h/c) for airfoil with NACA 0015 section. Data reproduced
from [23]. 22
h/c
28
cd vs alpha
0.024
0.022
0.020 0.80
0.70
0.018 0.60
0.50
cd
0.016
0.40
0.014 0.30
0.20
0.012 0.10
0.010
0.008
0 2 4 6 8 10
AoA [deg]
Figure 1.23 cd vs. (varying h/c) for airfoil with NACA 0015 section. Data reproduced
from [23]. 23
l/d vs h/c
NACA 0015 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | Various AoA
80
70
60 0.0
50 2.5
l/d
40 5.0
30 7.5
20 10.0
10
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
h/c
Figure 1.24 l/d vs. h/c (varying ) for airfoil with NACA 0015 section. Data reproduced
from [23]. 24
From pressure distributions in [23], the lower surface generally experienced
ram pressure once above moderate angles of attack (about 7.5O) and this
pressure increased when closer to the ground [Figure 1.25]. At small and
low ground clearances, a small pocket of suction was found at the narrowest
point in the passage under the airfoil [Figure 1.26]. Also at small angles of
attack, without ground effect, the pressure distributions on the lower surface
become similar to the upper surface pressure distribution, since the airfoil is
29
symmetrical [Figure 1.26]. At all angles of attack, the shape of the upper
surface pressure distribution did not change [Figures 25 and 26]. Ground
effect caused only a small gain in upper surface suction near the leading edge
[Compare maximum suction on upper surfaces in Figure 25 and 26].
Ahmed and Sharma [23] gave the following explanation for the pocket of
suction under the airfoil. In a certain range of angle of attack, the wing and the
flat ground set up a 2D passage under the airfoil that converges then
diverges. The flow accelerates and a pocket of suction is set up below the
wing.
As the airfoil approached the ground, Ahmed and Sharma [23] suggested the
leading edge stagnation point shifted towards the lower surface and the
resulting higher pressure below the airfoil moved more air around the leading
edge to the upper surface. However these were not explained further.
cp vs x/c
NACA 0015 | Flat plate | 2D | Re 240000 | AoA 7.5deg | Various h/c
x/c
-2.0
-1.5 h/c
lower 0.02
-1.0 upper 0.02
lower 0.05
upper 0.05
cp
-0.5
lower 0.25
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 upper 0.25
0.0 lower 0.80
upper 0.80
0.5
1.0
O
Figure 1.25 Ram pressure on the lower surface at = 7.5 , at h/c 0.02 to 0.80, cp is
positive over the complete lower surface. Upper surface pressure distribution almost
collapses into a single curve. Airfoil with NACA 0015 section. Data reproduced from
[23]. 25
30
cp vs x/c
NACA 0015 | Flat plate | 2D | Re 240000 | AoA 0.0deg | Various h/c
x/c
-1.5
h/c
-1.0 lower 0.085
upper 0.085
-0.5 lower 0.150
upper 0.150
cp
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 lower 0.250
0.0 upper 0.250
lower 0.850
0.5 upper 0.850
1.0
O
Figure 1.26 A small pocket of suction on the lower surface at = 0 , at h/c 0.015. At
h/c 0.80, upper and lower surface pressure distribution are similar. Airfoil with NACA
0015 section. Data reproduced from [23]. 26
In 2012, Luo and Chen [24] also investigated the pressure distributions about
a wing, with NACA 0015 section. Their experiments were also conducted in
ground effect, confirming the observations made by Ahmed and Sharma [23].
The flow was 2D at Reynolds number 1.872x105.
Luo and Chens [24] work showed more clearly that the leading edge
stagnation point moved onto the lower surface as the angle of attack
increased. The pressure distributions at various h/c and at angle of attack
12O, showed that the forward stagnation point was at x/c 0.05. The existence
of a convergent divergent passage was seen in the pressure distribution on
the flat plate. A pocket of suction occurred where the gap was narrowest,
caused by small angles of attack. There was no vortex attached to the ground
plate since no other stagnation points were detected. The upper surface
pressure distributions were shown to be mainly dependent on angle of attack
and h/c reduction caused only small gains in suction. However, the
mechanism by which cl and cd changed was not examined in detail.
31
In 2005, Ahmed [25] also conducted experiments on a NACA 4415 airfoil in
ground effect using a flat plate for ground simulation. This work was
conducted at Reynolds number 2.4x105 and flow was 2D since the airfoil
spanned wall to wall within the wind tunnel.
In general, there was a watershed angle of attack = 2.5O, above which cl
values increased with decreasing h/c. The watershed h/c where ground effect
became clearer was below h/c 0.7. Both cl and cd values increased as angle
of attack increased and h/c decreased [Figure 1.27].
cl vs h/c
NACA 4415 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | AoA 0 to 10 deg
1.800
1.600
h/c
1.400
0.0
1.200 2.5
cl
5.0
1.000 7.5
10.0
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
h/c
(a) cl vs. h/c
cd vs h/c
0.040
0.035
h/c
0.030 0
2.5
cd
0.025 5.0
7.5
0.020 10
0.015
0.010
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
h/c
(b) cd vs. h/c
Figure 1.27 cl vs. h/c and cd vs. h/c for a airfoil with NACA 4415 section. Data
32
Below = 2.5O, both lower and upper surfaces saw reduced pressure when
the ground approached, resulting in little change in cl. Pressure could reduce
since a convergentdivergent passage was formed below the wing at 3O
and less. However, above 5O, the approaching ground caused pressure to
rise on the lower surface and increased suction over the upper surface,
generating clear increases in cl.
There was no induced drag in this experiment and cd values remained
relatively constant as h/c decreased till 0.2. Once below h/c = 0.2, cd clearly
increased. To gain a favorable l/d, angles of attack must be greater than 2.5O
and h/c below 0.7 for a 2D wing over a flat plate ground.
The cp results were presented for = 0O to 10O in steps of 2. 5O. On the upper
surface, from x/c = 0 to 0.5, suction always increased uniformly at all angles
of attack as ground clearance decreased. On the rearward half of the upper
surface, there was little change in pressure profile. On the lower surface, as
h/c decreased, pressure decreased for = 2.5O and below. However,
pressure increased as h/c decreased for = 5O and above [Figure 1.28].
From the experimental works review to this point, when approaching a ground
simulated by the flat plate method, the largest increase in CL took place at
smaller angles of attack, and the largest reduction in CD took place at larger
angles of attack (section 1.3.3.1 and 1.3.3.2). The CL- curves generally
translate upwards while CD- shifts downwards. For a 3D flow, small angles
of attack with low h/c give maximum L/D ratios. 2D flow investigations (section
1.3.3.3) also report increases in cl, but is not conclusive about cd. Results
obtained with the image method of ground simulation generally increased the
33
slope of CL- curves (section 1.3.3.1). Analytical methods using the image
method also give steeper cl- curves (section 1.3.1.1).
O
(a) Pressure distribution for = 2.5
O
(b) Pressure distribution for = 7.5
Figure 1.28 Pressure distribution for a airfoil with NACA 4415 section. Figures taken
from [25]. 28
1.3.3.4 Moving Ground, 3D, Pressure Distribution
In 2007, Ahmed, Takasaki and Kohama [26] experimentally investigated a
finite wing of NACA 4412 section with end plates, operating in ground effect
over a moving belt. The end plates extended forward and rearward of the
wing and also till almost touching the moving belt. This gave the wing
effectively a 2D flow over a moving ground. The Reynolds number was
3.0x105 and the 2D flow was intentional. Since the flow was effectively 2D, the
lift and drag coefficients obtained would be denoted by cl and cd instead of CL
and CD. Similarly, pressure coefficient would be denoted by cp.
34
From the cl values obtained, there seemed be a watershed ground clearance,
h/c = 0.6, below which ground effect became clearer and a watershed angle
of attack = 6O, above which cl increased when h/c decreased [Figure 1.29].
cl vs h/c
NACA 4412 | Moving ground method | AR4 (end plates) | Re 300000 | AoA 0 to 10
deg
1.600 h/c
1.400
0
1.200
2
1.000 4
cl
0.800 6
0.600 8
10
0.400
0.200
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
h/c
(a) cl vs. h/c
cd vs h/c
NACA 4412 | Moving ground method | AR4 (end plates) | Re 300000 | AoA 0 to 10
deg
0.025 h/c
0.020 0
2
0.015
4
cd
6
0.010
8
0.005 10
0.000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
h/c
(b) cd vs. h/c
Figure 1.29 cl vs. h/c and cd vs. h/c for a wing with NACA 4412 section. Data
From 0O to 6O, at each , as h/c decreased, there was loss in suction over the
upper surface, which was not fully compensated by rise in pressure on the
lower surface. However, as increased from 0O to 6O, the increasing lower
35
surface pressure rise eventually equally compensated the loss in suction on
the upper surface by = 6O.
Above = 6O, decreasing h/c gives overall increased lift at each angle of
attack. The loss of suction on the upper surface was more than compensated
by pressure rise on the lower surface, giving overall increase of lift. Noting
that this flow is almost 2D due to the end plates, and that airfoil sections are
different, this loss in suction over the upper surface contrasted with
Abramowski [13], whose simulation showed increased suction on the upper
surface of a wing in ground effect over a moving ground.
The cd increased for all angles of attack as h/c decrease. As there was
effectively no induced drag in this experiment, drag increases came mainly
from the combination of skin friction drag and increased pressure under the
wing. There was no favourable l/d gain from ground effect as drag increased
with h/c. The lift increases shown were insufficient for this wing to obtain a
favourable l/d gain when operating in effectively 2D flow.
The cp results were presented for = 0O, 4O, 8O and 10O. On the upper
surface, as h/c decreased, suction decreased. On the lower surface, as h/c
decreased, pressure increased and also by larger amounts as increased
from 0O to 10O. Eventually, the extent of pressure increase on the lower
surface compensated the reducing suction of the upper surface. The pressure
profile is determined mainly by and to a smaller extent, h/c [Figure 1.30].
36
O O
(a) Pressure distribution for = 4 (b) Pressure distribution for = 8
O
(c) Pressure distribution for = 10
Figure 1.30 Pressure distribution for a wing with NACA 4412 section. Figures taken
from [26]. 30
In terms of experimental methods in the above recent works, the flat plate
method and the moving belt method produced clearly different changes in
cp,UPPER over the upper surface, while h/c decreased. A moving ground caused
less suction over the upper surface, while a fixed ground caused more
suction. On the lower surface, a moving ground and a fixed ground caused
cp,LOWER to rise. As the airfoils are different, and pressure arises from several
sources, it is not a straight forward to deduce the flow physics. However, the
consistent mechanism that causes greater lift in both moving ground and
stationary ground experiment is the increase in lower surface pressure.
37
Since the above cp plots vary smoothly from x/c = 0.0 to 1.0, for small angles
of attack without leveling off, there is no flow separation over the upper
surface for the range of angles of attack examined.
The upper surface is exposed to free air. The absence of an additional solid
boundary nearby leaves a flow structure similar to that in the free air case.
The main changes are reduction or increase in suction on the upper surface,
seen from pressure distributions of the upper surface from Ahmed and
Sharma [23], Luo and Chen [24], Ahmed [25] and Ahmed, Takasaki and
Kohama [26]. On the lower surface, the final lift contribution is the combined
effect of the forward stagnation point movement, the build up of ram pressure
as the ground approached and the changes in circulation. This makes it
impossible to determine the contribution of each factor from the cp plots. The
geometry change from converging-diverging passage to converging passage
alone does not determine the lower surfaces lift contribution.
As a fuller explanation of the mechanism behind the flow surrounding a wing
flying in ground effect is lacking, it is reasonable to identify the causes of lift
and drag changes in ground effect and study how the type of ground
simulation affects the flow around a wing. Though previous works used finite
wings, the pressure distribution changes and ground effect were not
explained together.
1.4 OBJECTIVES
This work aims to suggest a more comprehensive explanation for the
changes in lift and drag when a finite wing with NACA 4415 section operates
in ground effect, taking into account the effect of ground simulation.
38
To that end, an experiment, with a finite span wing of NACA 4415 airfoil
section was flown in ground effect to demonstrate the above. A flat plate
simulated the ground, due to laboratory resource constraints.
It can be determined, from the obtained experimental data, possible causes
for change in lift and drag of a finite span wing of NACA 4415 airfoil section
when in ground effect, and at various angles of attack with the other
parameters, such as Reynolds number, being kept approximately constant.
1.5 SCOPE AND ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS
Chapter 2 describes the experimental methods used to obtain pressure
distributions, lift and drag of a finite aspect ratio NACA 4415 wing in ground
effect. In particular, the ground is simulated by a flat plate. The experiments
will be conducted at only positive angle of attacks in the linear region of the
NACA 4415 section aerodynamic data. The selected positive linear range of
angles of attack is from 0O to 8O. In chapter 3, the experimental results are
compared to existing data to demonstrate the validity of the experimental
setup. The results would focus on the changes caused by ground effect. In
chapter 4, the discussion examines possible underlying mechanisms behind
the ground effect and suggests possible explanations for the increase in lift
and drag in ground effect, taking into account the type of ground simulation
used. Lastly, chapter 5 gives the concluding remarks and some
recommendations for improving the conduct of the experiment.
39
2. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
2.1 WIND TUNNEL
The wind tunnel used in this set of experiments was of a no-return suction
type design (EMF0511, located at Fluid Mechanics Laboratory at ground level
of NUS workshop 2). The suction fan was located at the exhaust end and was
mounted directly to a DC motor. Adjusting the frequency used in the process
of conversion of AC to DC current controls this DC motors operating speed.
This fan is simply mounted and there is no recorded attempt at balancing the
fan to reduce vibrations. The motor and fan part of the wind tunnel is relatively
heavy and rests on dampers to isolate the motor and fan from the ground.
However, prolonged usage has reduced the damping effectiveness of the
dampers. Some vibrations are transmitted to the test section when the wind
tunnel is in operation.
Figure 2.1 Schematic of wind tunnel. 31
40
The down stream suction fan section expands over a distance of 12m,
starting from a 1.0m by 0.6m rectangle (width by height) and blending
gradually to a circle of diameter 2m before the motor and fan section. The test
section is 2.0m long with a constant rectangular cross section of 1.0m width
by 0.6m height. The contraction section begins at 2.4m by 1.46m at the
intake, reducing smoothly to 1.0m by 0.6m in 3.5m [Figure 2.1].
2.1.1 Velocity Profile in the y-z plane
The velocity profile in the y-z plane was obtained by moving a pitot static tube
across the tunnel to measure wind speed. The velocity profile shows a
relatively uniform flow in the free stream region [Figure 2.2 and 2.3].
Considering the condition of the wind tunnel, a maximum speed of about
20m/s was used in this set of experiments. Further details are in the appendix
for velocity profile.
Vertical Velocity Profile
60
50
Distance from Floor [cm]
40
Position S-CL
Position P-CL
30
Position S-WT
Position P-WT
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
U velocity [m/s]
Figure 2.2 Vertical velocity profile obtained at 4 positions. 2 near the tunnel centre line
(CL) and 2 at the wing tips (WT). S-starboard, P-port side. 32
41
Horizontal Velocity Profile
100
90
Distance from PS wall [cm]

80
70
60
location SB
50
location PS
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
U velocity [m/s]
Figure 2.3 Horizontal velocity profile obtained at 1 position on each sidewall. SB-
starboard, PS-port side. 33
2.2 FLAT PLATE
The flat plate was a large sheet of Perspex with holes cut for the wings
support. The leading and trailing edges for the plate were chamfered with the
slanted sides facing away from the model. A better alternative for the flat
plates edge is an elliptical edge with the major axis aligned to the flow
direction. This reduces the possibility of separated flow at the leading edge of
the flat plate, as the streamlines are able to more smoothly pass over and
under the leading edge. The board extended one chord length ahead and
behind the wing, following the set up in Ahmed [25]s work. This ground board
can be tilted away from the model to account for the displacement caused by
the boundary layer. However, since the boundary layer build up is thin by the
end of the model, the flat plate was left at horizontal. The main contention with
the flat plate method is that the adjacent layer of fluid on the plate is not
drawn away with the plate, compared to the moving belt method.
42
2.3 CAUTION IN SIMULATION OF THE GROUND IN GROUND EFFECT
EXPERIMENTS
In studying ground effect, the ideal experimental set up has a ground that
moves at the same velocity as the free stream, as in natural flight conditions
[Figure 2.4]. To this end, the moving belt method provides the most faithful
replication of this situation. However, this solution is technically complex and
a few other simpler solutions have been sought instead.
Figure 2.4 Desired velocity profile at the ground. 34
An initial simple idea is the image method. It was inspired by potential flow
where a solid boundary can be represented by a mirror image. This approach
is practically simple, except that a second model is required and both models
need to be re-positioned identically at every change in ground clearance and
angle of attack. However, as the ground clearance decreases, the flow
between the model resembles flow into a converging passage. Since the wind
tunnel air also flows around the models, the flow between the models does
not always resemble uniform flow at the free stream speed at the centre line
dividing both models. This limits the validity of the results as ground clearance
decreases.
Another more complicated approach relies on suction to remove the boundary
layer buildup. Suction removes the lower speed flow of the boundary layer
leaving only the uniform free stream flow. Equally complicated is blowing
43
additional air to speed up the flow near the ground to achieve uniform flow.
The practical difficulties are obtaining correctly applied suction or blowing and
the complexity of the vacuum or blowing system. Once again, the final
velocity profile at the ground may not faithfully replicate natural flow
conditions. The extraction of energy by suction or addition by blowing alters
the total energy content of the flow and possibly changes the flow structures
around the wing or airfoil.
Another simpler method is the use of a flat plate or elevated ground. A thin
board is placed underneath the model, parallel to the free stream flow. This
plate starts a suitable distance ahead of the model such that the flow is
uniform before reaching the model and the final boundary layer build up at the
end of the model still remains small. The plate ends at a suitable distance aft
of the model such that the flow returns to uniform velocity profile, not affected
by the end of the plate. This method is technically simpler than the image
method, suction or blowing. It does give uniform flow almost to the plate
surface since the boundary layer is thin, almost replicating the desired flow
condition. However when, ground clearance decreases to a small gap, this
thin boundary layer does affect the aerodynamic behaviour of the airfoil. The
constraint that the flat plate method poses on the streamlines between the
model and plate is not the same as that by the moving belt method.
A typical moving belt system consists of suction before the moving belt.
Suction removes the thin boundary layer that has built up. Other methods
have been used by Fago et. al. [32]. The belt is set to move at free stream
speed. Consequently, the velocity profile is uniform till the belt surface. The
belts speed is matched to the free stream speed, for example, using a motor
with fine speed control taking with inputs from a pitot static tube connected to
44
an electronic pressure transducer. Other issues are maintaining the belt flat
with suction while running the belt at high speed over the rollers.
Fago et. al. [32] have noted the controversy in discussions about ground
simulation methods. The above mentioned ground simulation methods have
been used by various works which have reported good agreement between
experimental and on road tests, although there are some exceptions. Fago et.
al. [32] highly recommend the moving ground method but noted the
technically complexity attending it. They reported that the next best method is
the elevated ground, which produced similar drag results to the moving
ground down to a height of 25 mm above ground, in their experimental set up.
Lift results varied between the methods from 5 to 45 mm above ground.
Therefore, clearly the effects from the type of ground simulation are present in
the flow when ground clearance reduce, especially so when the lift forces
arise from circulation about the airfoil and ram pressure below the airfoil.
In studying ground effect via computational efforts, Barber at. al. [33] used a
commercial solver CFX4 to determine the flow field around a 2D NACA 4412
airfoil in ground effect. The Continuity and Navier Stokes equations were
closed with the RNG k- turbulence model. The Van Leer higher order
scheme was used for discretisation. They implemented four different ground
conditions under the airfoil. A) The image method, which is the same as the
experimental one mentioned earlier. B) The "slip" condition, where zero shear
stress and zero normal velocity were enforced on the ground plane. This
condition gives an almost consistent velocity profile at the ground plane but
this speed may not be the free stream speed. C) The stationary ground as in
the experimental elevated ground. D) Lastly, the moving ground at free
stream speed.
45
The cl values obtained from all four simulations with different grounds were
very similar till h/c 0.2. From h/c 0.2 to 0.05, the stationary ground cl tapered
off and decreased. The other ground conditions gave cl values that increased
by similar amounts. Overall, all cl values were greater than the free air case.
The drag values were about 50 times smaller than lift and the difference in cd
from each ground simulation would greatly affect the subsequent l/d ratio.
From h/c 1.0 to 0.2, cd decreased gradually as the ground approached. Lower
than h/c 0.2, only the stationary ground cd continued to decrease. The cd from
other ground simulations increased relatively quickly back to almost the same
value at h/c 1.0. Therefore in a 2D simulation, the stationary ground already
gives clearly different cl and cd values.
Since these comparisons were made with 2D simulations, these changes in cl
and cd are more due to ram pressure under the wing and not a reduction in
induced drag. There was neither inference into the actual flow conditions
under the airfoil nor an explanation how well these calculations reflect the
actual flow under the airfoil.
Before moving further, it is useful to note that an agreement between methods
has not been achieved. The technically simpler elevated ground compares
well with the more complex moving ground for drag until the ground clearance
reduces till h/c 0.25. Concurrently, the simulated stationary ground -
equivalent to the elevated ground, compares well to the simulated moving
ground in lift until the ground clearance reduces till h/c 0.25. Therefore, when
h/c is smaller than 0.25, a further experimental look into the flow surrounding
a wing in ground effect over a stationary elevated ground is recommended.
46
2.4 DEFINITION FOR H/C
Ground clearance has been defined by most researchers as the height of the
trailing edge above the ground. The ratio of h/c is then ground clearance to
chord. This definition has been used on works discussing wings or airfoils with
straight trailing edges.
2.5 INVESTIGATED RANGE OF AND H/C
The prior works reviewed in section 1.3 have shown beneficial ground effect
taking place clearly in the positive range of angles of attack. The linear portion
of this range of positive angles of attack was selected to simplify the analysis.
In the linear portion, conversion of 2D aerodynamic data to 3D aerodynamic
data is possible. In this present work, the selected linear range of positive
angles of attack is from 0O to 8O. The investigated range of h/c is from 0.05 to
1.0.
2.6 TEMPERATURE, DYNAMIC PRESSURE AND REYNOLDS NUMBER
This set of experiments was conducted in a workshop environment with no
temperature control. The density of air was determined from the ambient
temperature and the equation of a curve fitted to the air density values found
in Munson, Young and Okiishi [35]. Kinematic viscosity was determined in a
similar way. Ambient temperature was determined from a simple wall
mounted thermometer.
The dynamic pressure used at each experimental run varied with
temperature. In order to maintain a narrow range of Reynolds number, an
expected difference in water column height (on a manometer) was calculated
and the tunnel speed was adjusted till the pitot and static manometer tubes
47
gave a very close reading to the expected difference in water column height.
The dynamic pressure was then determined from the pressure difference
represented by the actual difference in height of water column.
The Reynolds number range in these experiments was between 202000 to
210000. The main limitation was the wind tunnel safe operating speed, which
was about 20m/s. The Reynolds number Re in this work is defined as:
U c
Re =

where U is the free stream velocity, c is the chord of the wing and is the
fluid kinematic viscosity.
2.7 MODEL
The wing studied in this present work has the NACA 4415 section with chord
of 0.175m and finite span of 0.44m [Figure 2.5(a)]. This gave a range of
Reynolds number between 202000 to 210000, with the free stream speed at
about 20m/s and ambient temperature of about 30OC. The plan form area was
fixed at S = 0.077m2 (0.175m by 0.440m). The wing was straight with taper
ratio one. The wing was constructed from light softwood. The middle section
came in two halves, top and bottom. There are wing tip attachments
accommodating winglets of a few different cant angles. In this present work,
only straight wing tip attachments were used [Figure 2.5(b)]. This airfoil has
been studied extensively and allows efficient comparisons of the results.
48
a) Complete wing with straight wing tips.
b) Right and Left straight wing tips.
Figure 2.5 Overall wing and straight wing tips. 35
A pair of supports below the wing rigidly connected the wing to the load cell
for force and torque measurements. Pressure taps ran along the centre line at
intervals of 0.1 from x/c 0 to 0.8 on both upper and lower surfaces [Figure
2.6]. Rubber tubings connected the pressure taps to an external bank of
manometers.
Figure 2.6 Streamwise pressure tap location along centerline. 36
49
The finite span enabled an investigation into the 3D effects of flow around a
wing in ground effect while the pressure taps gave insight into changes in
circulation and the effects of ram pressure on the wing.
2.8 MEASUREMENT OF LIFT
The Lift on the wing was measured in two methods, with the load cell and
calculated from the pressure distribution. The load cell method gave the 3D-
lift coefficient while the pressure distribution method gave the 2D-lift
coefficient. The model and its supports were mounted only onto the load cell.
The z-axis of the load cell was aligned perpendicular to the free stream flow.
The load cell then measured directly this component of the aerodynamic
resultant force as the lift on the wing. The lift was then read directly from the
load cells z-direction output. From the pressure taps along the centre line of
the wing, the pressure distribution vs. x curve was obtained. The area
enclosed within the pressure distribution vs. x plot was the lift force.
The coefficient of lift was determined from both lift measurements methods
and normalised against dynamic pressure and reference area. Both these
coefficients were then compared against the 3D CL derived from Abbott and
Doenhoff [27]s 2D data. Abbott and Doenhoff [27]s 2D data at Reynolds
number 3x106 was adjusted for a lower Reynolds number range of about
200000 and the finite span of the wing in this present work.
2.9 MEASUREMENT OF DRAG
The drag on the wing was also measured by the same two methods, similar to
lift. The load cell method gave the 3D-drag coefficient. The x-axis of the load
cell was aligned parallel to the free stream flow. However, the drag measured
50
in the x-direction included the drag experienced by the supports below the
wing. The drag contributed by the supports should ideally be determined with
the wing mounted close to the supports but not touching the supports. This
maintains the interference effect between the wing and supports. However,
owing to the complexity of the additional fixtures that must be hidden inside
the original supports, the drag of the supports were determined by measuring
the drag experienced by only the supports in the free stream flow.
The drag of the supports was determined with the ground board at various
heights [Figure 2.7]. The drag of the support was found to be very consistent
and independent of the ground board height.
Figure 2.7 Determining the drag of the supports. 37
The drag on the wing was then determined by removing the drag of the
supports and applying buoyancy correction. This buoyancy correction is due
to stream wise pressure differences about the wing and not density difference
in the vertical direction. Hence the drag of the wing cannot be determined with
certainty in view of the interference between the wing and the support.
51
Drag was also determined from the pressure distribution. The area enclosed
within the pressure distribution vs. y plot was the 2D drag that does not factor
in skin friction drag. Despite the difference between drag from pressure
measurements and force measurements, both were converted into drag
coefficients and compared against the 3D CD derived from Abbott and
Doenhoff [27]. The 3D CD was derived with the same considerations as CL.
2.10 MEASUREMENT OF PRESSURE
Pressure readings also provided a way to detect changes in circulation about
a wing. This allowed one to differentiate the lift contribution made by
circulation and lift from ram pressure below the wing. They were also an
alternative source of lift and drag data. Static pressure readings were
obtained from the pressure taps along the wings centre line. The pressure
distribution on the wing is the difference between these wing static pressure
readings and the free stream static pressure. The pressure values are
calculated from the height of the liquid in the columns of the manometer.
2.11 LOAD CELL
A Gamma model load cell from ATI Industrial Automation was used to
measure force and torque readings. The load cells force outputs in x and z
directions were checked individually, against applied masses and found to
give a relatively consistent gradient value close to 1. The masses were placed
directly on the load cell in the z-direction check [Figure 2.8].
52
Figure 2.8 Checking load cell in the z direction for force. 38
In the x-direction check, the load cell was mounted on a stiff platform, which
was placed on its side to suspend the load cell on its side. Masses were hung
on the load cell via a holder, which was the first mass [Figure 2.9].
Figure 2.9 Checking the load cell in the x direction for force. 39
TorqueY (pitching) readings were checked by loading masses onto an end
of a beam, which was mounted on the load cell. [Figure 2.10]
53
Figure 2.10 Checking the load cell in y direction for torque. 40
In the z direction, the measured force was on the average 101.25% of the
applied force. In the x direction the measured force was on the average
102.56% of the applied force. Since the measured forces in the z and x
directions were close the corresponding applied forces, no further correction
was carried out on the measured forces. Of the three force readings, only
readings in the z and x direction were taken for further calculation. Torque
readings were recorded to monitor that the amounts of roll, yaw and pitch the
model experienced were acceptable. None of the torque readings were used
for further calculation.
2.12 MANOMETER
An inclined manometer of 40 tubes was used to measure pressure readings
from the pressure taps. As the model was regularly taken out of the wind
tunnel for adjusting the angle of attack, a more efficient method was sought to
54
disconnect the 38 tubes from the pressure taps. Phasing the tube location
with the tube number on the manometer was a tedious task. Tubes from the
model were connected to a multi-tube quick-disconnect joint then to the
manometer. Since the two halves of the quick-disconnect joint could only be
aligned in a fixed manner, phasing was maintained.
2.13 CHALLENGES IN MEASUREMENT
2.13.1 Drift in Load Cell Datum
The load cell used had no clear temperature compensation capability.
Readings were taken over a short duration to reduce the effect of a drifting
datum. A typical cycle of measurement consisted of taking a baseline reading,
a test reading where the wind tunnel was running and a second baseline
reading, all carried out over the shortest practical duration. Greater
differences in baseline readings were found when the measurement cycle
was long and that contributed to the difficulty in determining the baseline for
the measurement. Fortunately, the drift in baseline could be considered linear
with time between baseline readings, especially when the time difference is
small. The final baseline used was a value between both baseline readings.
Eventually, each reading was taken over 2 minutes or 7500 samples
according to the load cells data acquisition program. Further details on the
checks carried out on the load cell and its specification are in the appendix.
2.13.2 Downstream Pressure Gradient
As this wind tunnel test section had a constant rectangular cross section from
start to end, a boundary layer gradually built up on each wall, reducing the
free stream cross sectional area. The free stream flow sped up to maintain
continuity. The pressure gradient was determined by measuring the static
55
pressure along the wall. This pressure gradient was used with buoyancy
correction, according to the method in Barlow, Rae and Pope [34]. Further
details are in appendix for downstream pressure profile and appendix for
corrections.
2.13.3 Blockage Effects
Maskells methods found in [34], make adjustments to the CD values of the
model tested. However, much difficulty surrounded measuring the actual CD
value of the model. An approximate blockage correction method equation
10.22 of [34] was used instead,
1 AMF
t =
4 ATS
where t is the blockage correction, AMF is the models frontal area and ATS is
the test section cross sectional area.
This blockage correction method accounted for a small flow speed increase
due to the part of the flow being blocked by the model and its supports. The
flow speeds up around the model and its supports to maintain continuity in the
wind tunnel. As a result, the free stream speed that the model experienced
has increased. The blockage correction was the percentage increase applied
to the free stream speed, causing a corresponding increase in the free stream
dynamic pressure.
56
3. RESULTS
3.1. PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
Due to the limitation of the wind tunnel, the free stream speed was about
20m/s, giving the experimental data a Reynolds number range of 202000 to
210000. The published pressure distributions about a NACA 4415 airfoil at
Reynolds number between 200000 to 3x106 were then compared to
determine a suitable datum pressure distribution at Reynolds number 200000.
This datum was used to establish the validity of the pressure distribution data
obtained at h/c 1.0 at Reynolds number 200000 at angles of attack 0O, 4O and
8O.
To distinguish between 3D coefficients and 2D coefficients, uppercase letters,
CL, CD and CP indicate 3D coefficients and lowercase letters cl, cd and cp
represent the 2D coefficients.
3.1.1 Reynolds number Effect on Aerodynamic Coefficients
Data for the NACA 4415 airfoil section was available from Abbott and
Doenhoff [27] at Reynolds number 3.0x106, 6.0x106 and 9.0x106. These were
obtained at a maximum Mach number of 0.17, which would reduce the cl-
gradient by only 1.46% when accounting for compressibility. Effectively, this
data described incompressible 2D flow. The cl vs. curves, obtained at these
3 Reynolds number, coincided for 20O 0O. Once > 0O, the cl curves
fanned out very gradually till = 8O [Figure 3.1]. Since the differences
between the cl curves were very small, it is reasonable to infer that cl was
independent of Reynolds number over the linear section for each curve for
Reynolds number from 3.0x106 to 9.0x106. The corresponding pressure
57
distributions were also inferred as independent of Reynolds number in the
same range.
Figure 3.1 Section cl vs. for NACA 4415 airfoil (in box). Figure reproduced from [27].
41
However, the 2D drag polar (cd vs. cl) curves from Abbott and Doenhoff [27]
showed that the flow at each Reynolds number produced its own, though
similar, drag polar even while cl values did not differ much across these
58
Reynolds numbers [Figure 3.2]. As Reynolds number decreased, each drag
polar shifted higher (more drag). As the present work was carried out at
approximately Reynolds number 2.02x105 to 2.10x105, so pressure
distributions, cl and cd values need to be extrapolated to the smaller Reynolds
number as a datum for comparison.
Figure 3.2 Section cd vs. cl for NACA 4415 airfoil (in box). Figure reproduced from
[27]. 42
The coefficients obtained in Abbott and Doenhoff [27] were from 3-ft width by
7.5-ft height wind tunnel.
59
3.1.2 Aerodynamic Coefficients at Reynolds number of 200000
From Abbott and Doenhoff [27], cl was independent of Reynolds number,
implying that the pressure distribution about the airfoil varied little as Reynolds
number decreased from 9.0x106 to 3.0 x106. Once the pressure distribution
about the NACA 4415 airfoil can be determined to be similar from Reynolds
number 3.0x106 down to 200000, the 2D coefficients from Abbott and
Doenhoff [27], can be used at Reynolds number 200000 for conversion to 3D
coefficients. Since the investigated range of angles of attack is 0O to 8O, the
pressure distributions at 0O, 4O and 8O and between Reynolds number
200000 to 3.0x106 were selected for comparison.
Three works studying the NACA 4415 airfoil section at lower Reynolds
number ranging from 3.5x105 to 1.0x106 were used to determine the validity of
extrapolating Abbott and Doenhoffs [27] cl values to Reynolds number
2.0x105 in the present work. These works were used to show that the 2D
pressure distributions about NACA 4415 airfoil were similar at various
Reynolds numbers at similar angles of attack [Figure 3.3]. The area enclosed
was the 2D lift coefficient and it was sufficiently similar [Table 1]. Coefficient of
Drag was not estimated from these pressure distributions, as the skin friction
components were absent.
From NACA TR 832 [28], the pressure distributions were obtained at Mach
number 0.3 and Reynolds number 1.0x106. The flow was still considered
incompressible and was 2D. At = 0O, the cl (from area enclosed) based on
pressure distribution was estimated (by Trapezium rule) to be 0.4219.
Compared to cl values from Abbott and Doenhoff [27], there were some
differences, which were considered acceptable, since the main difference in
experimental setups was the height above the airfoils [Table 1]. NACA TR
60
832 [28] reported a test section height to chord ratio of 7 while Abbott and
Doenhoff [27] used a ratio of 3.25. Data from NACA TR 832 [28] was
analysed the same way for = 4O and = 8O.
NASA TM X-2225 [29] presented the pressure distributions for NACA 4415
section wing at three Reynolds numbers, approximately 3.5x105, 5.25x105
and 9.0x105. The flow in this present work was 3D with a maximum Mach
number of 0.2. The wing was mounted on a fuselage and measurements
were taken near the fuselage. For = 0O, the pressure distribution curves
enclosed areas of 0.341 to 0.358 as Reynolds number increased from
3.5x105 to 9.0x105. The cl values are 10.2% to 14.6% lower, respectively than
Abbott and Doenhoffs [27] cl = 0.400. Similar analysis was done for = 4O
and = 8O. The lower cl values indicate that small 3D effects were present,
but overall the flow at that part of the wing is sufficiently 2D.
Pressure distributions from NACA TR 832 [28] and NASA TM X-2225 [29] at
similar and varying Reynolds number were plotted together. These plots at
three different angles of attack showed that at each similar the pressure
distributions were not dependent on Reynolds number [Figure 3.3].
Experimentally pressure distributions from this present work were also
included for comparison.
61
cp vs x/c
NACA 4415 | approx. AoA 0 deg | Various Re
x/c
-2.5
Re no.
-2.0
L 1,000,000
-1.5 U 1,000,000
L 895,013
-1.0 U 895,013
cp
L 537,388
-0.5 U 537,388
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 L 345,444
0.0 U 345,444
EXPT 200,000
0.5
1.0
O
(a) = 0
cp vs x/c
x/c
-2.5
Re no.
-2.0
L 1,000,000
-1.5 U 1,000,000
L 894,945
-1.0 U 894,945
cp
L 538,191
-0.5 U 538,191
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 L 345,073
0.0 U 345,073
EXPT 200,000
0.5
1.0
O
(b) = 4
cp vs x/c
x/c
-2.5
Re no.
-2.0 L 1,000,000
U 1,000,000
-1.5 L 895,148
U 895,148
-1.0 L 892,558
cp
U 892,558
-0.5 L 537,965
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 U 537,965
0.0 U 342,560
U 342,560
0.5 EXPT 200,000
1.0
O
(c) = 8
Figure 3.3 Pressure distribution curves at approximately the same but at various
Reynolds number. Data reproduced from NACA TR 832 [28] and NASA TM X-2225
[29]. L-lower surface, U-upper surface. EXPT 200,000-Pressure distributions from this
present work. 43
62
Table 3.1 Comparing estimated cl to Abbott and Doenhoff[27]s data for similar at
various Reynolds number.
Reference Reynolds cl cl cl
number
Abbott & Doenhoff 9000000 0.00 0.400 4.00 0.850 8.00 1.200
Abbott & Doenhoff 6000000 0.00 0.400 4.00 0.850 8.00 1.200
Abbott & Doenhoff 3000000 0.00 0.400 4.00 0.850 8.00 1.175
NACA TR 832 1000000 0.00 0.422 4.00 0.793 8.00 1.097
NASA TM X-2225 890000 0.16 0.359 4.51 0.743 7.76 0.985
8.81 1.056
NASA TM X-2225 540000 0.06 0.352 4.17 0.719 8.31 1.060
NASA TM X-2225 350000 0.02 0.342 4.10 0.714 8.19 1.070
Efstratios [30] studied the pressure distribution over the NACA 4415 airfoil
over a large range of angles of attack and Reynolds number [Figure 3.4, 3.5,
3.6]. Efstratios [30] also showed suction on the upper surface, with the suction
peak moving to the leading edge as angle of attack increased from 0O to 8O.
On the lower surface, the positive pressure region started at the trailing edge
and extended to cover the whole lower surface as the angle of attack
increased. As Reynolds number decreased from 6.0x105 to 2.0x105, the
shape of pressure distribution curves showed only small variations. The
pressure distributions from this third work agree sufficiently well with the
above two. As the diagrams were in presented in 3D perspective, values
could not be read off without incurring obvious errors.
63
Figure 3.4 3D Plots of cp vs. x/c vs. for the Lower (a) and Upper (b) Surface of a
NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section and Re = 200000. Figure reproduced from Efstratios
[30]. 44
64
[30]. 45
65
[30]. 46
From the comparison of the three works above, at the same angle of attack,
as Reynolds number decreased, the pressure distribution curves were still
similar in shape. A large region of suction existed on the upper surface,
stretching from the leading edge to 0.8 < x/c < 0.9, with the peak suction
66
found between 0.0 < x/c < 0.3. Suction on the upper surface contributed
majority of the lift.
On the lower surface, a positive pressure peak existed from leading edge to
x/c = 0.2. Moving from the leading edge to the trailing edge, the pressure
peak reduced relatively quickly to suction when angles of attack were small or
reduced to lower pressure when angles of attack were larger. At higher
angles of attack, lower surface pressure contributed some lift. The cl values
obtained from pressure distributions were also close to the values from Abbott
and Doenhoff [27] as Reynolds number decreased from 3.0x106 to 3.5x105.
The similarity of the pressure distributions shape is a reasonable basis to
suggest that there would be small changes in cl values as Reynolds number
decreases from 3.0x106 to 3.5x105. The pressure distributions determined in
this section will form the datum for comparing the experimentally obtained
pressure data in section 3.1.3 and 3.1.4.
In addition, since the flow structure was actually similar, using the 2D
coefficient values from Abbott and Doenhoff [27] as a basis to determine the
3D coefficients values at about Reynolds number 200000 is reasonable. This
was done in section 3.2.1.
3.1.3 Pressure Distribution at = 0O and 2O
At = 0O the wings lower surface and the stationary flat plate formed a
converging diverging passage. The pressure distribution obtained at = 0O
and h/c 1.0 compared only partially well with Figure 43 = 0O in section 3.1.2.
Only the shape of the CP,UPPER and the pocket of suction below the wing
67
matched in Figure 43 = 0O. The experimental set up used to obtain the data
in Figure 43 were designed for 2D flow over narrow-span airfoils with large
distances from the wind tunnel ceiling and floor that allow a more natural
expansion of streamlines about the airfoil. The test section height to chord
ratios were 3.25 to 10.5. The corresponding h/c value was effectively infinite
and no ground effect was present or wall effect was present. In this present
work, the test section height to chord ratio was 3.43. This allowed the upper
surface pressure distribution to match that in Figure 43 = 0O.
In this work, the lower surface was at a height of one chord from the ground
and the effect of the convergent-divergent passage caused the flow to speed
up along the entire lower surface, indicated by the pocket of suction covering
a large part of the lower surface. Since the ground was close by, the
streamlines under the airfoil could not expand as naturally as in the case with
no ground effect. The suction peak that would have developed near x/c 0.1
was absent.
This pressure distribution obtained at = 0O and h/c 1.0 compared better with
Ahmed [25]. Ahmed [25] reported a pressure distribution with a suction peak
with CP = 1.0 on the upper surface at about x/c 0.3 and a very similar pocket
of suction spanning about half of the lower surface of the wing at = 0O and
h/c 0.8. The higher suction peak in this work cannot be accounted for. Since
the pressure distribution at = 0O and h/c 1.0 compare sufficiently well to the
literature, the changes caused by reduction in h/c proceed from a valid
starting point.
68
On the upper surface, a suction peak was found at x/c 0.2. Pressure gradually
rose again, moving towards the trailing edge. As h/c reduced, the shape of
the CP,UPPER curve remained generally the same but the peak suction
occurring at x/c 0.2 gradually reduced and pressure increased from x/c 0.8
onwards [Figure 3.7]. The reducing suction peak indicated that circulation
reduced with reduction in h/c. Since the passage under the wing is
convergent-divergent, flow speed reduced when moving towards the trailing
edge, as seen in the higher pressure at x/c 0.8 [Figure 3.8]. For the upper
surface and lower surface flows to form the wake smoothly, the flow in the
upper surface also slowed down from x/c 0.8 onwards.
CP upper AoA 0 deg
x/c
-1.1
-1.0
h/c
-0.9
1.00
-0.8 0.80
-0.7 0.60
0.40
-0.6
0.30
-0.5 0.20
-0.4 0.10
0.05
-0.3
-0.2
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
-0.1
O
Figure 3.7 CP (upper) vs. x/c at various h/c for = 0 . 47
On the lower surface, apart from positive higher pressure from x/c 0.0 to 0.1,
the remainder of the lower surface experienced suction till near the trailing
edge [Figure 3.8]. As h/c reduced, the suction pocket reduced but pressure
remained negative, indicating faster flow still existed due to the converging-
diverging passage. Pressure became positive only after x/c 0.8.
69
CP lower AoA 0 deg
x/c
-0.4
h/c
-0.3
1.00
0.80
-0.2 0.60
0.40
0.30
-0.1 0.20
0.10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05
0.0
0.1
O
Figure 3.8 CP (lower) vs. x/c at various h/c for = 0 . 48
At = 2O the wings lower surface and the stationary flat plate below formed a
more gradual converging diverging passage under the wing. On the upper
surface, the pressure distribution is similar to that at = 0O, however the
suction peak is higher than that in = 0O. As h/c reduces, the shape of the CP,
UPPER curve remained generally the same but with gradual increase in
pressure [Figure 3.9].
CP upper AoA 2 deg
x/c
-1.2
-1.1
h/c
-1.0
1.00
-0.9
0.80
-0.8
0.60
-0.7 0.40
-0.6 0.30
-0.5 0.20
0.10
-0.4
0.05
-0.3
-0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
-0.1
O
On the lower surface, apart from positive higher pressure between x/c 0.0 to
0.1, the remainder of the lower surface experienced suction till near the
trailing edge [Figure 3.10]. As h/c reduced, the suction pocket reduced till
70
pressure becomes positive over the whole lower surface. This pocket of
suction reduced gradually till h/c 0.4. Lower than h/c 0.4, the suction pocket
quickly disappears by h/c 0.05 [Figure 3.10].
CP lower AoA 2 deg
x/c
-0.200
h/c
-0.100 1.00
0.80
0.60
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.40
0.000
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.100 0.05
0.200
O
3.1.4 Pressure Distribution at = 4O to 8O
At = 4O, the wings lower surface and the stationary flat plate formed a
gradual converging passage. The pressure distribution obtained at = 4O and
h/c 1.0 compared only partially well with Figure 43 = 4O, section 3.1.2. Only
the shape of the CP,UPPER generally matched Figure 43 = 4O. On the lower
surface, the data in Figure 43 = 4O showed positive pressure, while the
lower surface in this present work saw slight suction from x/c 0.2 to the trailing
edge. As mentioned in section 3.1.3, in terms of test section height to chord
ratios, the experimental set ups used to obtain data in Figure 43 were similar
to this present work. This caused the upper surface pressure distribution to
retain a very similar shape but with overall higher pressure. Pressure
increased since the 3D effects of finite wing span were present. Lift reduced
across the span of the wing due to down wash. The local pressure distribution
along the centre line enclosed a smaller area and the upper surface
experienced less suction.
71
The lower surface was at a height of one chord from the ground and the effect
of the gradually converging passage caused the flow to speed up gradually
along the entire lower surface. As mentioned in section 3.1.3, the streamlines
under the airfoil did not expand as naturally as in the case with no ground
effect. The suction peak that would have developed near x/c 0.1 was also
absent.
This obtained pressure distribution did not compare well with Ahmed [25] who
reported positive pressure distribution spanning most of the lower surface of
the wing at h/c 0.8 for = 2.5O. Ahmeds [25] set up is 2D while the flow in
this present work is 3D. At similar h/c, the flow under the airfoil in Ahmeds
[25] set up can only exit under the trailing edge, while the flow under the wing
in this present work is free to move towards the wing tips. This caused faster
flow under the wing than in Ahmeds [25] set up, resulting in slightly negative
pressure.
After accounting for the differences in pressure distribution at = 4O and h/c
1.0 and the literature, the changes caused by reduction in h/c were examined.
On the upper surface, positive pressure is present at the leading edge and
quickly dropped to a suction peak at about x/c 0.2 before gradually rising
again near the trailing edge. This suction peak is higher than that in = 2O.
As h/c reduced, the shape of the CP,UPPER curve remained generally the same
but with gradual increase in pressure [Figure 3.11].
72
CP upper AoA 4 deg
x/c
-1.4
-1.3
-1.2 h/c
-1.1 1.00
-1.0
0.80
-0.9
0.60
-0.8
0.40
-0.7
0.30
-0.6
0.20
-0.5
-0.4 0.10
-0.3 0.05
-0.2
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.0
O
On the lower surface, positive higher pressure is present from x/c 0.0 to 0.2
and the remainder of the lower surface experienced suction till near the
trailing edge at h/c 1.0 [Figure 3.12]. As h/c reduced, the suction pocket
became a higher-pressure patch over the whole lower surface. As h/c
reduced, positive pressure increased rather uniformly over the complete lower
surface, indicating that flow clearly has slowed down under the wing [Figure
3.12]. The increase in pressure became clearer at h/c 0.4 and lower.
CP lower AoA 4 deg
x/c
-0.100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 h/c
0.000
1.00
0.80
0.100 0.60
0.40
0.30
0.200 0.20
0.10
0.05
0.300
0.400
O
At = 6O the wing lower surface and the stationary flat plate still formed a
converging passage. On the upper surface, the upper surface pressure
73
distribution is similar to that at = 4O. The suction peak is higher than that in
= 4O. As h/c reduced, the shape of the CP,UPPER curve remained generally
the same but with gradual increase in pressure [Figure 3.13].
CP upper AoA 6 deg
x/c
-1.6
-1.5
-1.4 h/c
-1.3
-1.2 1.00
-1.1 0.80
-1.0 0.60
-0.9
0.40
-0.8
-0.7 0.30
-0.6 0.20
-0.5 0.10
-0.4 0.05
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.0
O
On the lower surface, positive higher pressure is present from x/c 0.0 to the
trailing edge at h/c 1.0 [Figure 3.14]. As h/c reduced, positive pressure
increases slightly more over the aft lower surface, indicating that the flow has
slowed down under the wing [Figure 3.14].
CP lower AoA 6 deg
x/c
-0.100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 h/c
0.000
1.00
0.80
0.100 0.60
0.40
0.30
0.200 0.20
0.10
0.05
0.300
0.400
O
At = 8O the wing lower surface and the stationary flat plate form a
converging passage. The pressure distribution obtained at = 8O and at h/c
74
1.0 compared only partially well with Figure 43 = 8O, section 3.1.2. Only the
shape of the upper surface experimental pressure distribution generally
matched Figure 43 = 8O. On the lower surface, the data in Figure 43 = 8O
showed positive pressure on the entire lower surface, while positive pressure
was found only on the forward half of the lower surface in this present work.
The similarity of test section height to chord ratios in the experimental set ups
used to obtain data in Figure 43 and also in this present work accounted for
the upper surface pressure distribution retaining a very similar shape, as just
in section 3.1.3. At = 8O, the overall pressure on the upper surface is higher
than that at = 4O. At greater angles of attack, the 3D effects of a finite wing
span caused more down wash. There was less lift across the span of the wing
due to a stronger down wash. The local pressure distribution along the centre
line enclosed an even smaller area and the upper surface experienced lesser
suction.
The lower surface was at a height of one chord from the ground but this angle
set up a faster converging passage causing the flow to speed up near the
trailing edge. The constraint on the streamlines under the airfoil against
natural expansion still existed compared with the case of no ground effect.
However, with the wing tilting upwards at = 8O, there is a little more room for
streamline expansion and the pressure distribution on the forward half of the
lower surface match that in the literature as seen in Figure 43 = 8O. On the
rearward half of the lower surface, streamlines were still constrained to give a
faster flow.
This obtained pressure distribution compared sufficiently well with Ahmed [25]
at h/c 0.8 for 7.5O, except the obtained pressure peak on the upper surface in
75
this experiment is too low. Ahmeds [25] data is from an orientation closer to a
fixed ground, which gave a higher suction peak on the upper surface, and at a
slightly smaller angle of attack, which offset the higher suction peak a by a
small amount. Ahmeds [25] work, being 2D, would have no down wash to
reduce the lift and decrease the corresponding suction peak on the upper
surface.
As the differences in pressure distribution at = 8O and h/c 1.0 and the
literature were adequately explained, the changes caused by reduction in h/c
were examined.
On the upper surface, the upper surface pressure distribution is similar to that
at = 6O. The suction peak is higher than that at = 6O. As h/c reduced, the
shape of the CP curve remains generally the same but with gradual increase
in pressure [Figure 3.15].
CP upper AoA 8 deg
x/c
-1.6
-1.5
-1.4
-1.3
-1.2 1.00
-1.1 0.80
-1.0 0.60
-0.9
0.40
-0.8
-0.7 0.30
-0.6 0.20
-0.5 0.10
-0.4 0.05
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.0
O
On the lower surface, positive higher pressure is present from x/c 0.0 till the
trailing edge at h/c 1.0 [Figure 3.16]. As h/c reduced, the positive pressure
increased over the whole lower surface, with the largest increases near the
76
trailing edge, indicating that the flow has clearly slowed down under the wing
before the trailing edge [Figure 3.16].
CP lower AoA 8 deg
x/c
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.000
h/c
0.100 1.00
0.80
0.200 0.60
0.40
0.30
0.300 0.20
0.10
0.400 0.05
0.500
O
From the pressure plots in section 3.1.3 and 3.1.4, the faults observed
remained as h/c decreased, indicating that they do not vary with h/c. Looking
at only the changes caused by angle of attack and h/c, the following were
observed. As angle of attack increased, lift increased by increasing suction
over the upper surface and increasing pressure on the lower surface. As h/c
reduced, circulatory lift reduced slightly, but the increase in pressure on the
lower surface over-compensates, giving increased lift. The pressure increases
over the lower surface became clearer at h/c 0.4 and below.
3.2. LIFT AND DRAG
Since this experimental set up was limited to Reynolds number 200000, the
2D lift and drag coefficients were extrapolated from Reynolds number 3x106
to 200000 and converted to 3D drag coefficients before useful comparisons
were made.
77
3.2.1 Datum 3D Lift and Drag
Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 reasoned that Abbott and Doenhoffs [27] 2D data for
NACA 4415 airfoil at Reynolds number 3.0x106, can be extrapolated to
Reynolds number 2.0x105, since the pressure distribution about the airfoil was
shown to be similar throughout this range of Reynolds number.
The expected 3D aerodynamic coefficients for the NACA 4415 section wing in
this work was derived using the approach in Andersons work [31]. First, the
linear region of cl vs. curve was identified and its slope, a0, obtained. This
slope was converted to 3D CL- slope, acomp, using the low aspect ratio finite
wing formula in Andersons [31] equation 2.18b.
a0
acomp =
1 M + [a0 (AR )] + a0 (AR )
2 2

where M was the free stream Mach number and AR was the aspect ratio.
With Mach number and aspect ratio specified, the CL- slope is half that of cl-
. As Mach number was required, the speed of sound was determined at the
average ambient temperature of the workshop environment, 30OC, where the
wind tunnel operated. The flow speed was set at 20m/s, following the average
speed of the wind tunnel.
There was no formula for converting the stall region to 3D values so the
shape of the 2D curve was retained and scaled down by 54% so that it would
join the linear region of the lift CL- slope smoothly. The original data came in
2O intervals. A polynomial curve was fitted so that interpolation could be used
to get CL values at 1O intervals if needed. Based on Andersons [31] figure
2.23, the zero-lift remains the same, independent of aspect ratio. The
following CL vs. curve was obtained [Figure 3.17].
78
Wing CL & CD vs AoA
1.0
0.8 y = 0.0518x + 0.2072
0.6
CL
0.4 CD
est. CL
0.2 est. CD
Linear (CL)
0.0
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-0.2
-0.4
AoA [Deg]
Figure 3.17 Expected CL and CD vs. curve for AR = 2.51 for NACA 4415 wing
without ground effect. 57
Since Abbott and Doenhoffs [27] 2D drag data was valid at Reynolds number
200000, this data was converted to 3D drag data by adding induced drag. The
induced drag contribution from down wash due to wing tip vortices was added
to the 2D drag polar. The induced drag contribution, CDi, was calculated by
Andersons [31] equation 2.30.
C L2
C Di =
eAR
The span efficiency factor, e, was determined to be 0.9755 from Anderson
[31]. The lift coefficient was determined from the CL vs. curve in Figure 57.
The induced drag at each angle of attack from 0O to 8O was calculated and
compared to the 2D drag at the same angle of attack. The percentage
increases were in the range of 74% to 448%, the amount being proportional
to angle of attack. As the induced drag portion is large compared to the 2D-
drag contribution, it can be reasonable to not further analyze or adjust the 2D-
drag contribution to a slightly higher value before adding induced drag. Lower
Reynolds number flows gave slightly larger 2D drag [Figure 3.2]. The
remaining details are found in appendix for expected CL and CD. This
approach established the expected aerodynamic characteristics of the 3D
79
finite wing used in this present work. The expected L/D ratios are shown in
the figure below [Figure 3.18].
CL / CD vs AoA out of Ground Effect
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0 Lift/Drag
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-5.0
-10.0
-15.0
-20.0
AoA [Deg]
Figure 3.18 Expected L/D for AR = 2.51 NACA 4415 wing without ground effect. 58
3.2.2 Lift and Drag coefficients from Pressure Distribution
While pressure measurements gave only 2D coefficients since only pressure
at the mid-span was recorded, these were examined together with coefficients
from force measurements to demonstrate that both measurements are
indicating the same phenomena. Overall, the force measurements produce a
more consistent set of coefficient values, with gradual changes.
The pressure-based cd from this did not include skin friction drag. As there is
no separation of flow about the model, the skin friction component is small
and was considered constant in all cases. This does not interfere with effect
ground effect on the wing. It is also affected by the goodness of fit of the
curve that passes through the pressure values when pressure was plotted
against the y-coordinate. The calculated cl and cd values were determined
from area enclosed when pressure was plotted against x and y respectively at
each angle of attack and h/c.
80
Polynomial curves were passed through the pressure values and the area
enclosed was determined by integration with respect to x to obtain cl. The
trapezium rule was used to determine area enclosed with respect to y to
obtain cd. The y coordinates corresponding to each x coordinate on the airfoil
section profile was obtained by iteration.
During the conduct of experiments, certain partially obstructed pressure taps
were found. However, the pressure readings obtained from them responded
with changing h/c. In view of long re-setup time, the experiments continued.
The affected readings showed similar changes as their neighbours and an
average reading from the neighbors replaced them. In the absence of
separated flow, the pressure field about a wing is continuous. With pressure
taps close to each other and taking an average reading incurred only a small
error. Furthermore, the overall shape of the pressure distribution at h/c 1.0
agreed with the other works used to establish the datum pressure distribution
in section 3.1.2. Since only the shape of the pressure distribution and its
changes in shape with varying h/c is sought, the above approach was
deemed suitable to estimate cl and cd based on the pressure distribution.
Since the upper and lower surface pressure must be equal at the trailing
edge, the area enclosed after x/c 0.8 on the pressure vs. x plot is a triangle.
This triangles contribution to the area enclosed by the pressure curves was
small. From the cl calculation perspective, the value of trailing edge pressure
does not matter. For calculating cd, the pressure was arbitrarily defined as the
average of the upper and lower surfaces pressures at x/c 0.8 for simplicity.
3.2.3 Effect of on Lift and Drag coefficients vs. h/c
Lift coefficient
81
At h/c 0.4 and below, both 2D and 3D lift coefficients showed clear increases,
especially for = 4O, 6O and 8O [Figure 3.19]. From the force measurements,
CL at = 0O and 2O showed smaller steady increases, as the ground
approached. From pressure measurement at same angles of attack, cl
showed larger increases.
cl vs h/c
NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack
0.90
0.80
AoA
0.70 0
2
cl
0.60 4
6
0.50 8
0.40
0.30
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
h/c
(a) cl vs. h/c
CL vs h/c
1.00
0.90
AoA
0.80
0
0.70 2
CL
4
0.60 6
8
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
h/c
(b) CL vs. h/c
Figure 3.19 cl vs. h/c and CL vs. h/c at various for the test model. 59
Drag coefficient
At h/c 0.2 and below, the decrease in drag coefficients became clearer, for
= 4O, 6O and 8O [Figure 3.20]. At = 6O and 8O, the drag force measurements
shown were almost consistent till h/c 0.1 and below, indicating that while
induced drag reduced, ram pressure on the lower surface contributed a force
82
with a small component to drag. By h/c 0.1, it is likely that induced drag is
close to minimum and the reduction is more than the ram pressures
contribution to drag, resulting in an overall drop in drag.
At = 4O, drag force reduction is gradual as h/c reduced, which likely
indicated that induced drag reduced and there is less drag contribution from
ram pressure. At other smaller angles of attack, the pressure-based cd does
not indicate drag reduction. The force-based CD shows drag reduction except
at = 0O.
cd vs h/c
0.12
0.11
AoA
0.10
0
0.09 2
cd
4
0.08 6
8
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
h/c
(a) cd vs. h/c
CD vs h/c
0.09
0.08
0.07 AoA
0
0.06
2
CD
0.05 4
6
0.04
8
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
h/c
(b) CD vs. h/c
Figure 3.20 cd vs. h/c and CD vs. h/c at various for the test model. 60
83
3.2.4 Effect of h/c on Lift and Drag coefficient vs.
Lift coefficient
Both groups of lift coefficient vs. angle of attack curves [Figure 3.21] showed
similar gradients, at approximately 0.05 per degree, which is closed to the
calculated expected gradient [Figure 3.17] in section 3.2.1. There was a clear
offset of about 0.2 in all the cl values, which could be due to the assumed
span wise lift distribution on a finite span wing. The effect of h/c decreasing, is
a clear but slight translation of the lift coefficient-angle of attack curves
upwards, indicating a gain in lift.
cl vs AoA
NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx. 200000 | at various h/c
0.90
h/c
0.80 1.00
0.80
0.70 0.60
0.40
0.60
cl
0.30
0.50 0.20
0.10
0.40 0.05
0.30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]
(a) cl vs.
CL vs AoA
1.00
h/c
0.90
1.00
0.80
0.80
0.70 0.60
0.60 y = 0.0518x + 0.2072 0.40
CL
0.30
0.50
0.20
0.40 0.10
0.05
0.30
OGE
0.20
0.10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]
(b) CL vs.
Figure 3.21 cl vs. and CL vs. at various h/c. (CL values without ground effect
indicated by h/c = OGE.) 61
84
Drag coefficient
Both groups of drag coefficient-angle of attack curves [Figure 3.22] followed
only the shape of the expected drag polar curve [Figure 3.17] in section 3.2.1.
There were clear differences between the drag coefficients from pressure,
force and calculation. The drag coefficient derived from pressure was based
on the pressure distribution along the wings centre line. At this location, drag
was the highest. On moving to the wing tips, the drag reduced to zero. The
coefficient of drag, cd, based on these pressure distributions was always
greater than the overall drag. The coefficient of drag, CD, derived from force
measurements was closer to the calculated CD. Overall drag across the whole
wing was measured for force measurements. The small additional drag could
be contributed by the difficulty in determining the drag contribution of the
supports. Even with the differences, the effect of h/c reduction is a clear drop
in drag. There was a slight translation of the drag coefficient-angle of attack
curves downwards, indicating a reduction in drag.
85
cd vs AoA
0.12
h/c
0.11
1.00
0.10 0.80
0.60
0.09
0.40
cd
0.08 0.30
0.20
0.07 0.10
0.05
0.06
0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]
(a) cd vs.
CD vs AoA
0.09
h/c
0.08
1.00
0.07 0.80
0.60
0.06
0.40
CD
0.05 0.30
0.20
0.04
0.10
0.03 0.05
OGE
0.02
0.01
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]
(b) CD vs.
Figure 3.22 Graphs of cd vs. and CD vs. at various h/c. (CD values without ground
effect indicated by h/c = OGE.) 62
3.3 UNCERTAINTY
Only uncertainties in force measurements were determined as force
measurements were used to obtain the lift and drag values. The percentage
changes in CL and in CD were compared to the relative uncertainty in the CL
and CD values across the tested range of angles of attack, 0O to 8O and
ground clearances, h/c 0.05 to 1.0. This comparison showed how significant
were the gains in lift and reductions in drag forces in ground effect.
The definition of standard uncertainty and the law of propagation of
uncertainty was taken from the Evaluation of Measurement data Guide to
86
the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) [36]. This document
was updated from the International Organisation of Standardisation (ISO)
Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement.
The standard uncertainty in the force readings was determined from the
standard deviation using the following formula.

F =
N
where F represented the measured force, was the standard deviation and
N was the number of samples. For measurements involving lengths such as
height of water in a manometer column or span of the wing, only the
tolerances of the instruments were available. When the tolerances were not
available, the tolerance was defined as half the smallest division on the scale
used.
The rectangular probability distribution means all readings within the interval
were probable while the triangular probability distribution concentrated the
probabilities of the measured values at the mean. The standard uncertainties
for the tolerances were calculated from the following formula.
x
=
n
where X is the measured length, x is the tolerance, n = 3 for the rectangular
distribution and n = 6 for the triangular distribution. The n value was set to 3 to
reflect a more conservative, larger amount of uncertainty in the final outcome.
The following simplified laws of propagation of uncertainties were used for
independent quantities. For addition and subtraction, = , the absolute
uncertainties were added.
87
= 2 + 2
For multiplication and division, = or = B , the relative uncertainties
were added.
2 2

= +

For terms raised to powers, = m ,
mA
=
A
where m is the power
The expanded uncertainty was obtained from the final absolute standard
uncertainty by the following,
Expanded uncertainty of X = k
where k is the coverage factor. The coverage factor is taken as 2 for a
significance level of 95%.
The percentage changes in CL were plotted with the relative uncertainties in
CL, for reducing h/c [Figure 3.23]. At h/c < 0.3, the percentage increase in CL
at all tested angles of attack exceeded the relative uncertainty in CL.
Therefore the increase in CL did not arise from randomness.
88
% Increase in CL (points) and Relative Uncertainty (lines) vs h/c
16%
14%
12% AoA
10% 0
Percentage
8% 2
4
6%
6
4% 8
2% Relative Uncertainty in CL
0%
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
-2%
-4%
h/c
Figure 3.23 Percentage increase in CL compared to relative uncertainty in CL vs. h/c.

63
Percentage changes in CD were plotted with the relative uncertainties in CD,
for reducing h/c [Figure 3.24]. For 2O 6O and h/c 0.3, the percentage
drag reductions exceeded the relative uncertainty of CD. Measured drag
values were small and the data obtained at = 0o was not smooth as h/c
decreased. Experimental were present but these were not repeated for
improved data. Subsequent L/D ratios were also affected.
% Increase in CD (points) and Relative Uncertainty (lines) vs h/c

20%
15%
10% AoA
5% 0
Percentage
2
0% 4
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
-5% 6
8
-10% Relative Uncertainty in CD
-15%
-20%
-25%
h/c
Figure 3.24 Percentage change in CD compared to relative uncertainty in CD vs. h/c.

64
89
Percentage changes in L/D were plotted with the relative uncertainty of L/D
for reducing h/c [Figure 3.25]. Only below h/c 0.5 did the percentage increase
in L/D exceed the relative uncertainty in L/D.
% Increase in L/D (points) and Relative Uncertainty (lines) vs h/c

40%
35%
30% AoA
25% 0
Percentage
20% 2
4
15%
6
10% 8
5% Relative Uncertainty in L/D
0%
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
-5%
-10%
h/c
Figure 3.25 Percentage increase in L/D compared to relative uncertainty in L/D vs.
h/c. 65
90
4. DISCUSSION
Lift on a wing depends on circulation distributed over its span. Circulation in
turn depends on the shape, camber, angle of attack, chord length, free stream
speed, and span-wise location. In this discussion, attention is focused on the
effect of h/c on camber and angle of attack. The other variables, shape, chord
length, free stream speed, and span were considered constant.
In the 2D cases examined in the literature review, the lack of wing tip vortices
means the angle of attack was not affected by reducing down wash. The only
factor that could have changed with decreasing ground clearance was the
effective camber. The camber of an airfoil causes air to take a curved path
around the airfoil. However, when the air is unable to follow this curved path,
the effectiveness of camber is reduced.
In the 3D cases in this present work, sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 showed
observable reduction in drag [Figures 60, 62] with decreasing h/c, except in a
few h/c and configurations possibly due to experimental errors. This showed
that induced drag has reduced and concurrently the effective angle of attack
should have increased to the geometric angle of attack. The effective angle of
attack is the local angle of attack that the on-coming air makes with the chord
line of the airfoil, after factoring the effect of down wash. Another factor that
could have changed with decreasing ground clearance is also the effective
camber, which will be explained in section 4.1.
The presence of the ground is closely related to two additional effects. A
pocket of higher pressure develops from air slowing down below the wing as
seen in increasing pressure on the lower surface (sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4).
91
The ground may increase or reduce circulation as the wing approaches the
ground. Each factor is examined in further detail in the following sections.
4.1 EFFECTIVE CAMBER
In section 1.3.3.4, for 2D cases, Ahmed et. al. [26] showed that a moving
ground caused circulatory lift to reduce, inferred from the small decrease in
suction on the upper surface [Figure 1.30]. In section 1.3.3.3, a stationary
ground caused more circulation, inferred from increasing suction on the upper
surface [Figure 1.28].
Wind tunnel testing experience on 2D models spanning the tunnel also points
out that the stationary walls of a wind tunnel restrain the natural expansion of
streamlines about a model [34]. The constrained wind tunnel streamlines
impart more curvature or impart more camber to the model. However, in
ground effect studies, the effect of the ground on the camber is deliberately
encountered.
In the 2D moving ground case, as the wing approached the moving belt, the
moving belt is increasingly drawing away air below the wing. Streamlines
could be less constrained and less curved about the airfoil, resulting in less
effective camber, hence less circulation. The 2D stationary ground case saw
air slowing down below the wing. The streamlines were constrained to curve
even more around the wing, especially air following the upper surface. Likely
this increased the effective camber hence circulation.
In this present 3D work, pressure distribution was used to infer changes in
circulation. Circulation over the wing was observed to decrease as inferred
92
from the reducing suction over the upper surface as the ground approached
at all angles of attack tested [Figures 47, 49, 51, 53, 55 in section 3.1.3 and
3.1.4]. Ahmed [26] also reported reducing suction on the upper surface for a
NACA 4412 airfoil over a moving belt experiment. Similar to this 3D
experiment over a fixed ground, the flow under the finite NACA 4412 wing
was not fully constrained under the wing since the moving belt drew air down
stream.
In this present work, air that slowed down under the wing moved out under
the trailing edge and concurrently towards the wing tips. Ram pressure that
built up under a wing in ground effect could have a similar effect as the
pressure under a wing without ground effect, in causing span wise flow
outwards to the wing tips. While ram pressure can build up, there is no
constraint to keep the slower air only within the space under the finite span
wing. Consequently, there is no constraint on the expansion of streamlines,
especially sideways, compared to the 2D case. In the stream wise vertical
plane, streamlines are less curved so the wing experienced less effective
camber and circulation reduced instead. Therefore, it is possible that the
reducing effective camber is the main driver for less circulation.
4.2 EFFECTIVE ANGLE OF ATTACK
Looking at the 3D flow around the wing, as the ground approached, the
wingtip vortices were constrained. The smaller vortices caused less down
wash ahead and behind the wing. Based on Prandtls lifting line theory, a
reduction in down wash causes smaller changes in circulation along the wing
span. This reduction in down wash or reduced d/dy begins at the mid span,
and spreads to the wing tips. The flow becomes more 2D. In the limit when
93
approaching the ground, wingtip vortices vanish all together. The whole wing
experiences 2D flow. The effective angle of attack is now the same along the
span but since down wash vanishes, the effective angle of attack has
increased to the same angle as the geometric angle of attack.
So as h/c reduced, the effective angle of attack should increase to the
geometric angle of attack, and greater lift from circulation should result. In this
present work, there is no indication of increased circulation [Figures 47, 49,
51, 53, 55 in section 3.1.3 and 3.1.4]. It is possible that while the effective
angle of attack increased, other effects are competing or the change in
effective angle of attack has only a small effect on the pressure distribution.
When the effective angle of attack increased to the geometric angle of attack,
the resultant aerodynamic force rotated through only a small angle and
increased the lift force by only a small amount.
4.3 BEHAVIOUR OF AIR BELOW THE WING
In section 3.1.3 and 3.1.4, the higher-pressure pocket of air existed under the
wing at all tested angles of attack as the ground is approached [Figures 48,
50, 52, 54, 56]. Geometrically, at 3O, a convergent passage is set up
below the wing. Air slowed down when funneled through the narrow gap
between the trailing edge and the ground, leading to the pressure rise. Below
= 3O, air still slowed down, causing a smaller pressure rise [Figures 48 and
50].
Circulation also leads to pressure build up below the wing. However, from the
upper surface pressure distributions at all tested angles of attack, circulation
94
reduced with decreasing h/c. So pressure increases on the lower surface do
not arise from increases in circulation.
In the literature reviewed and this present work, this higher-pressure region
always developed when circulation increased or decreased or when the
ground was stationary (section 1.3.3.3, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4) or moving (section
1.3.3.4). This indicated that the combination of convergent geometry with
reducing h/c was the main cause for air to slow down under the wing,
resulting in higher pressure.
4.4 GROUND EFFECT ON CIRCULATION ON A WING
As circulation is key to generating lift, various forms of circulation
enhancements have been investigated such as the circulation control wing
mentioned in Bertin [37] where a well adjusted pressured jet of air was made
to follow the round trailing edge of a wing. As long as air is made to follow the
curvature of the wing, circulation improves. These improvements come with
introducing more energy into the existing flow.
In this present work from sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4, the trailing edge was the
closest to the ground and saw slower than free stream flow under the wing
since CP near the trailing edge was positive. On the upper surface, the flow
near the trailing edge was closer to free stream conditions since CP was close
to zero. Since a real viscous fluid was used, the trailing edge stagnation point
still stayed on the trailing edge within the wake region of slower flow. The
possibility of a layer of slower, higher pressure air below the trailing edge
tending to push the trailing edge stagnation point upstream along the upper
surface to induce circulation to increase is not possible.
95
On the lower surface, the pocket of higher-pressure air peaked at the forward
stagnation point and reduced towards the trailing edge. This pocket of higher-
pressure air existed when air slowed down under the wing. For lift generation,
circulation draws air against the free stream from under the wing. Without
additional energy inputs, it is not likely that this higher pressure pocket of air
would re-organize itself to move against the free stream to assist circulation
by providing flow from below the wing to above it, moving round the leading
edge. Since this pocket of higher-pressure air does not directly affect the
trailing edge stagnation point, it is unlikely to cause changes in circulation.
Considering a rotating cylinder in free stream flow, which generates its own lift
by imparting circulation to the fluid surrounding it, lift can also be generated by
externally causing air to circulate around the cylinder without the cylinder
rotating. However, in the case of the wing in ground effect, the slowed air
contributed directly to higher pressure below the wing and was unable to
affect circulation.
4.5 DRAG
In this 3D work, as h/c reduced, drag generally reduced [Figure 60 and 62].
When deriving the datum 3D drag polar in section 3.2.1, induced drag was the
largest component. In ground effect, a decrease in drag was then due to the
reduction of induced drag. When the wing was very close to the ground,
pressure measurements showed drag dipping then rising again, while force
measurements showed a gradual reduction in drag for a 3D wing. However,
cd derived from pressure depended on the fitted polynomial curve to
determine area under the curve and had no skin friction contribution.
96
Therefore fluctuations in cd were expected. Any increased pressure on the
lower face of the airfoil when air was slowing down between the wing and the
stationary ground increased drag but this was small compared to reduction of
induced drag in a 3D wing.
Looking at CD from force measurements, buoyancy and drag of supports were
treated as constants in measured drag, thus their removal did not affect the
observation of reducing drag as h/c reduced.
Since there was no increase in circulation, no more additional drag resulted
from more circulatory lift. Close to the ground, the flow is becoming 2D with
some 3D effects remaining. Since drag decreased, any increased drag from
pressure under the wing must be small compared to reduced induced drag.
Thus the mechanism behind changes in drag was primarily reducing induced
drag.
4.6 CHANGES IN LIFT AND DRAG FOR A 2D AIRFOIL IN GROUND EFFECT
Based on the Kutta condition, circulation is set up around the airfoil to keep
the rear stagnation point at the trailing edge and the strength of circulation
adjusts so that the Kutta condition is maintained. On a wing immersed in real
fluid at a small positive angle of attack, viscosity generates a region of slower
fluid adjacent to the wing surface (the boundary layer) and so establishing the
Kutta condition at the trailing edge. This causes circulation to adjust and
results in lift. Due to the sharp trailing edge, air from the lower surface does
not accelerate round the trailing edge to the upper surface. Likewise, air from
the upper surface does not go round the trailing edge to the lower surface. Air
from the upper and lower surfaces can only join to from the wake, leaving the
97
airfoil together. The rear stagnation point must remain or is maintained on the
trailing edge.
Ahmed et. al. [25, 26] did not distinguish lift caused by circulation and lift
caused by ram pressure below the airfoil when discussing the effects of
reducing h/c on lift. In both the moving and fixed ground cases, changes in
suction on the upper surface were not explained based on circulation about
the airfoil. The further movement of the stagnation point downstream along
the lower surface and air diverting to the upper surface were used to account
for the changes in lift, but these were also not explained based on circulation
about the airfoils tested. Ram pressure below the airfoil was noted to increase
lift with h/c reduction. However, the 2D pressure distributions in Ahmed et. al.
[25, 26] provided insight into the flow over the middle portion of a finite wing.
These 2D pressure distributions would be interpreted in terms of changes in
circulation and used to explain the flow over the middle of the wing for this
present 3D case.
4.6.1 Effect of a Flat Moving Ground on lift and drag
In 2D flow over a moving ground, the effective angle of attack is the same as
the geometrical case since there was no down wash. As the wing approached
the moving ground, air slowed down and is also increasingly drawn
downstream out from under the wing by the moving ground. This reduced the
restraint on streamline expansion under the wing, resulting in less curvature
of streamlines about the wing, reducing the effective camber of the airfoil. The
resulting circulation that can develop about the wing is less than that without
ground effect. This reduced circulation is shown in reduced suction on the
upper surface. Consequently, the leading edge stagnation point moved
around and up the nose of the airfoil. While the lift contribution from circulation
98
reduced, it was compensated by increased ram pressure below the wing. The
increased ram pressure also caused more drag [Figure 4.1].
Figure 4.1 Circulation about an airfoil in ground effect over a moving belt. 66
4.6.2 Effects of a Flat Stationary Ground on lift and drag
In 2D flow over a fixed ground, the effective angle of attack is the same as the
geometrical case since down wash is absent When ground clearance
narrowed, the flow under the wing slowed down, seen in higher cp values on
the lower surface. Air under the wing is not drawn downstream by the ground
but instead is squeezed through the narrow gap between the trailing edge and
ground. The streamlines are then constrained under the wing, increasing their
curvature and the effective camber of the airfoil. The slower air also
developed a higher-pressure region under the wing .The overall increase in
circulation from more effective camber resulted in more suction on the upper
surface and downward movement of the forward stagnation point. While lift
improved with increased suction on the upper surface, higher pressure on the
lower surface also contributed to lift. Drag also increased due to higher
pressure under the wing [Figure 4.2].
99
Figure 4.2 Circulation about an airfoil in ground effect over a flat plate. 67
4.7 CHANGES IN LIFT AND DRAG FOR A FINITE WING IN GROUND EFFECT
The previous explanations for 2D flow about a wing in ground effect
discussed only the effects of the effective camber, since the other variables
were constant. Building on the explanations for 2D flow in section 4.6.1 and
4.6.2, this present work proposes the following explanation for the 3D flow
when a finite wing operates in ground effect over a stationary flat plate. As the
ground approaches, the effective angle of attack increases due to reducing
down wash from impeded formation of wing tip vortices. Air also slows down
under the wing, causing higher pressure. This air moves out under the trailing
edge and is also free to move towards the wing tips. Since this air is not fully
constrained to flow under the trailing edge, this reduces the restraint on the
expansion of streamlines under the wing. There is less curvature of
streamlines (in the stream wise vertical plane), reducing the effective camber
of the airfoil. Based on the experimental results discussed in section 4.1,
where circulation was shown to have decreased, reducing effective camber
has a greater effect on reducing circulation than increasing effective the angle
of attack has on increasing circulation. The final effect is less circulatory lift.
However due to the higher pressure under the wing, the overall lift increases.
Drag reduces due to a smaller induced drag component. Overall, the lift to
drag ratio improves.
100
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 CONCLUDING REMARKS
For a 3D wing tested at a constant angle of attack over a stationary flat plate,
circulatory lift reduced as h/c was reduced, most likely due to reducing
effective camber. Streamlines close to the wing were still free to expand,
reducing the effective camber of the wing. At the same time, as the wing
approached the ground, air slowed down under the wing, developing a pocket
of higher-pressure air. The loss of lift from reduced circulation was more than
compensated by lift from higher-pressure air below the wing.
The experimental data showed overall conclusive lift increases, especially
when below h/c 0.3 for angles of attack 0O to 8O. The effect of h/c reduction
was a translation of the CL- curve upwards. The increase in lift came mainly
from higher pressure below the wing.
Drag reduced at all angles of attack when h/c reduced, primarily due to
reduction of induced drag. Pressure build-up under the wing contributed only
toward a small amount of drag. Overall, the experimental data showed drag
decreasing and a translation of the CD- curve downwards as h/c reduced.
The larger percentage gains in L/D ratios came from the wing at = 2O to 6O
and h/c below 0.3. This set of experimental data showed that = 4O gave the
largest percentage L/D gains.
The presence of the ground near the wing did not directly increase circulation
about the wing. Since a moving belt was not used to simulate the ground, the
flat plates ground effect on the streamlines did not represent the actual flow.
101
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that future experiments be carried out in a wind tunnel with
a moving belt facility, which would replicate actual flow conditions faithfully.
Care must be taken to immerse the model in the region of flow unaffected by
the tunnel walls. The belt needs to be sufficiently wide to accommodate a
reasonably sized model. The model should be supported from the aft half of
the upper surface (x/c 0.5 to 1.0) preferably by a single strut or sting mounted.
A single attachment point reduces the challenge of constructing two identical
struts to reduce generation of forces acting sideways. The strut should be
streamlined to reduce its contribution to measured drag and to improve the
sensitivity of drag measurement.
To improve the drag measurement, the strut must fulfill several functions. It
must support the model and allow for changes in angle of attack. The strut
must not rotate, so that the struts drag contribution is kept consistent. The
support must hide all tubes running to pressure taps and be sufficiently rigid
to transfer the lift and drag forces to the load cell faithfully. The strut must also
hold another secondary support, completely shielded, that holds the model
unattached to the main strut. This facilitates measurement of only the drag
contribution of the support, while keeping the flow conditions at its ends
consistent with the model mounted close by, even at the same angles of
attack. The strut, when extended into the tunnel behind the model, reduces
complicating the flow over the model should leakage into the tunnel be a
problem.
102
The hinge mechanism for adjusting the angle of attack should be securely
bolted at each pivot point once the desired angle is obtained. This ensures
that any force is transferred fully through the effectively stiff non-rotating
joints. Since the model of a wing is slender, pivot points are best positioned
outside the model and covered by the strut to improve access and ease of
adjustment.
The model and support needs to be as small as possible to reduce mass and
inertia, which affects the force and moment readings by the load cell.
Consequently, the load cell usually sits just outside and above the wind
tunnel. In this position, the load cell should also be placed on a more massive
support that damps out vibrations from external sources such as the wind
tunnel fan motor.
The pressure taps concentrated at the fore half (x/c 0.0 to 0.5) of the upper
and lower surface would more readily pick up the movement of the stagnation
point and the movement of the suction pocket on the upper surface. This
indicates how ground effect affects circulatory lift contribution.
While alternating between pressure only measurements and force only
measurements, a more efficient way to connect and disconnect multiple thin
tubes, while maintaining tube phasing is ideal in saving wind tunnel running
time. This connect would look similar to a multi-pin electrical connector that
connects in only one way.
103
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. R.G. Ollila, Historical Review of WIG Vehicles, Journal of Hydronautics,
Vol.14, No.3, pp 6576, 1980.
2. K.V. Rozhdestvensky, Wing in Ground Effect Vehicles, Progress in
Aerospace Sciences, Vol.42, pp 211283, 2006.
3. D.N. Sinitsyn and A.I. Maskalik, The First Commercial Ekranoplan
Amphistar and Prospects for the Development of Passenger
Ekranoplans, NATO Research and Technology Organisation, Meeting
Proceedings 15-24, 1998.
4. L. Yun, A. Bliault, J. Doo, WIG craft and Ekranoplan Ground Effect Craft
Technology, Chapter 2, pp 38, 43, 47, 60, 64-65, 66, 68, 79, 82, 84, 92,
Springer, 2010.
5. ARPA, Wingship Investigation Volume 1 Final Report, and Wingship
Investigation Volume 3 Technology Roadmap, 1994.
6. M. Halloran and S. O'Meara, Wing in Ground Effect Craft Review, DSTO-
GD-0201, 1999.
7. Wingship Technology Corp., WSH-500 (Hoverwing 50).
https://sites.google.com/site/hoverwingwigcraft/curriculum-vitae 04/17/
(accessed Apr 17, 2012)
8. Fischer Flugmechanik, Hoverwing 20,
https://sites.google.com/site/hoverwingwigcraft/conferences, (accessed
Apr 18, 2012)
9. C. Wieselsberger, Wing Resistance Near the Ground, NACA-TM-77,
1922.
10. S.E. Widnall and T.M. Barrows, An Analytic Solution for Two- and Three-
Dimensional Wings in Ground Effect, Journal of Fluid Mechanics Vol.41,
Part 4, pp 769792, 1970.
104
11. P.L. Coe and J.L. Thomas, Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of
Ground-Induced Effects for a Low-Aspect Ratio Highly Swept Arrow-Wing
Configuration, NASA TP 1508, 1979.
12. Q.X. Wang, Flow Around Unsteady Thin Wing to Curved Ground, Journal
of Fluid Mechanics, Vol.226, pp 175187, 1991.
13. T. Abramowski, Numerical Investigation of Airfoil in Ground Proximity,
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Vol.45 pp 425436, 2007.
14. N. Kornev and K. Matveev, Complex Numerical Modeling of Dynamics
and Crashes of Wing-In-Ground Vehicles, 41st Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibition, AIAA 2003600, 2003.
15. S.B. Suh, K.H. Jung, H.C. Ho, Numerical and Experimental Studies on
Wing In Ground Effect, International Journal of Ocean Systems
Engineering, Vol.1, no.2, pp 110119, 2011.
16. J. Katz, Calculation of the Aerodynamic Force on Automotive Lifting
Surface, ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol.107, pp 438443,
1985.
17. M.P. Fink and J.L. Lastinger, Aerodynamic Characteristics of Low Aspect
Ratio Wings in Close Proximity to the Ground, NASA TN D926, 1961.
18. B. Maskew, Program VSAERO, A Computer Program for Calculating the
Nonlinear Aerodynamic Characteristics of Arbitrary Configurations, NASA
CR 166476, 1982.
19. A.H. Day, and L.J. Doctors, A Study of the Efficiency of the Wing-In-
Ground-Effect Concept, Proceedings of Workshop on 21st Century Flying
Ships 1-22, 1995.
20. A.E. Raymond, Ground Influence on Airfoils, NACA TN 67, 1921.
21. M.D. Chawla, L.C. Edwards and M.E. Franke, Wind Tunnel Investigation
of Wing-in-Ground Effects, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.27, No.4, 1990.
105
22. H.J. Kwang, H.C. Ho and J.K. Hee, Experimental Investigation of Wing In
Ground Effect with a NACA 6409 Section, Journal of Marine Science and
Technology, Vol.13, pp 317327, 2008.
23. M.R. Ahmed and S.D. Sharma, An Investigation on the Aerodynamics of a
Symmetrical Airfoil in Ground Effect, Experimental Thermal and Fluid
Science, Vol.29, pp 633647, 2004.
24. S.C. Luo and Y.S. Chen, Ground effect on a Flow Past a Wing with a
NACA 0015 Cross Section, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science,
Vol.40, pp 1828, 2012.
25. M.R. Ahmed, Aerodynamics of a Cambered Airfoil in Ground Effect,
International Journal of Fluid Mechanics Research, Vol.32, No.2, pp 157
183, 2005.
26. MR Ahmed, T. Takasaki, Y. Kohama, Aerodynamics of a NACA 4412
Airfoil in Ground Effect, AIAA Journal, Vol.45, No.1, pp 3747, 2007.
27. I.H. Abbott, A.E.V. Doenhoff, Theory of Wing Sections, Dover, 1959,
Appendix IV, pp 490, 491.
28. D.J. Graham, G.E. Nitzberg and R.N. Olson, A Systematic Investigation of
Pressure Distributions at High Speeds over Five Representative NACA
Low-Drag and Conventional Airfoil Sections, NACA TR 832, 1945.
29. A.W. Carter, Pressure Distributions on a Wing having NACA 4415 Airfoil
Sections with Trailing Edge Flaps set at 0O and 40O, NASA TM X 2225,
1971.
30. S. Efstratios, The Aerodynamic Performance of the NACA 4415 Airfoil
Section at Low Reynolds Numbers, MSc(Research), Department of
Aerospace Engineering, University of Glasgow, 1988.
31. J.D. Anderson, Aircraft Performance and Design, Chapter 2 pp 81, 87,
109, 110, McGraw Hill, International Edition 1999.
106
32. B. Fago, H Lindner and O. Mahrenholtz, The Effect of Ground Simulation
on the Flow Around Vehicles in Wind Tunnel Testing, Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.38, pp 4757, 1991.
33. T.J. Barber, E. Leonardi, and R.D. Archer, Causes for Discrepancies in
Ground Effect Analyses, The Aeronautical Journal, pp 653667, 2002.
34. J.B. Barlow, W.H. Rae and A. Pope, Low Speed Wind Tunnel Testing,
Chapter 9 pp 350353, Chapter 10 pp 374, 3rd Edition Wiley Interscience,
1999.
35. B.R Munson, D.F. Young, T.H. Okiishi, Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics,
Appendix B Physical Properties of Fluids, pp 831, 833, 4th edition, 2002
Wiley.
36. Evaluation of Measurement data Guide to the expression of Uncertainty
in Measurement (GUM), JCGM 100:2008, GUM 1995 with minor
corrections, http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/gum.html
(accessed Jul 4, 2013).
37. J.J Bertin, Aerodynamics for Engineers, Chapter 13, pp 513, 4th Edition,
Prentice hall, 2002.
107
Appendix A. Summary of WIG Vehicles
Country of
Main Designer Main Designer /
SN Partnering Designer / Manufacturer Year
or Manufacturer
Manufacturer
1 China CSSRC, China 1996 reported
2 China China 1996 reported
3 China Ship 1996 reported
4 China Scientific 1996 reported
5 China Research 1996 reported
6 China Centre 1996 reported
7 China MARIC, China 1980
8 China MARIC Qiu Sin shipyard 1997
9 China MARIC Qiu Sin shipyard 1997
10 England Ronald Bourn HFL seaglide 1976
11 EU SEABUS-HYDAER (HYDrodynamics/AERodynamics) 1997
12 Finland Toivo Kaario, Finland 1935
13 Finland Toivo Kaario 1962
14 France J Bertin Company 1969
15 France J Bertin Company 1973
16 Germany Dr A Lippisch, Germany 1970
17 Germany Dr A Lippisch, Germany Collins Radio Company 1963
18 Germany Dr Alexander Lippisch RheinFlugzeugBau RFB 1970
19 Germany Dr Alexander Lippisch RheinFlugzeugBau RFB 1980
20 Germany Gunter Jorg 1976
21 Germany Hanno Fischer, Germany FischerFlugmechanik 1988
22 Germany Hanno Fischer FischerFlugmechanik 1990
23 Germany Hanno Fischer design Airfoil development GmbH 2000
26 Germany Techno Trans, Germany 1995
27 Germany Techno Trans 2006 onwards
28 Japan Tottori University canard WISE project 2005
32 Japan Prof Syozo Kubo, Japan Tottori University 1988
33 Japan Prof Syozo Kubo Tottori University 1988
34 Japan Prof Syozo Kubo H Akimoto 2001
35 Japan Kawasaki Corp 1963
36 Korea Govt project 2005
37 Korea WingShip Technology Corp Hanno Fischer is Technical advisor. 2011
38 Russia (Soviet) B Blinov Moscow Aviation Institute 1965
39 Russia (Soviet) Bartini Taganrog Aviation Construction Complex
40 Russia (Soviet) CLST, Russia 1973
41 Russia (Soviet) Central Laboratary of 1973
42 Russia (Soviet) Rescue Techniques 1973
43 Russia (Soviet) Gen D Synitsin Marine Passenger Ekranoplans 1993
47 Russia (Soviet) Gen D Synitsin, Russia Technology & Transport 1995
108
Country of
Main Designer Main Designer /
SN Partnering Designer / Manufacturer Year
or Manufacturer
Manufacturer
48 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1970s
49 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev, Russia Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1970s
50 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1961
63 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1970s
65 Sweden I Troeng 1938
66 Switzerland H Weiland 1964
67 USA Boeing Company 1965
68 USA Research Affiliates 1965
69 USA Research Affiliates 1965
70 USA Water Research Company 1974
71 USA DE Calkins University of California 1975
72 USA Lockheed Georgia 1977
73 USA Douglas Aircraft 1977
74 USA Northrop Aircraft 1993
75 USA Boeing Company Phantom Works 2002
76 USA Aerocon 1990
77 USA Dr WR Bertelson 1963
109
Fully Developed /
SN Experimental / Production phase Motivation
Concept Only
1 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger Transport

4 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger Transport (Total 9 developed models)
7 Fully Developed Experimental Amphibious WIG
10 Fully Developed Experimental Multi roles in civilian and military
11 Concept Only
12 Fully Developed Experimental High speed snow sledge
13 Fully Developed Experimental High speed snow sledge improved
14 Concept Only High load, high speed transocean transport
17 Fully Developed Experimental
18 Fully Developed Experimental Improvement from X-112
19 Fully Developed Experimental Improvement from X-113, 4 times larger
20 Fully Developed Experimental Travel across water and only calm water
21 Fully Developed Experimental Maritime sports vehicle
22 Fully Developed Experimental Maritime sports vehicle
23 Fully Developed Experimental Maritime sports vehicle or passenger
24 Concept Only Passenger
25 Fully Developed IMO certification before Production. Passenger (most likely but still unconfirmed)
26 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger (aims to build a 80 pax vehicle)
27 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger (aims to build a 80 pax vehicle)
28 Concept Only Passenger Transport
31 Concept Only Passenger Transport (2 crew vehicle)
32 Fully Developed
33 Fully Developed
34 Fully Developed Passenger Transport
35 Stopped. No Reason. Experimental
36 Concept Only Cargo Transport
37 Fully Developed IMO certification before Production. Passenger Transport
39 Fully Developed Experimental Use GE to provide contact free take off and landing
40 Fully Developed Experimental Water borne rescue at sea
47 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger Transport. Dynamic Air cushion ship.
110
Fully Developed /
SN Experimental / Production phase Motivation
Concept Only

49 Fully Developed Possibly in commercial phase. Passenger Transport. Dynamic Air cushion ship.
50 Fully Developed Experimental Supposed military use
59 Fully Developed Production limited. Supposed military use
60 Fully Developed Experimental Missile carrier
63 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger Transport. Dynamic Air cushion ship.
64 Partially Developed. Concept needs proving. Water borne rescue at sea
65 Stopped. Unstable. Experimental Travel across water
68 Concept Only Long range Naval missions
69 Concept Only Short range Naval missions
73 Concept Only High load, high speed transocean military transport
76 Concept Only Deemed unfeasible in 1994. High load, high speed transocean military transport
77 Fully Developed Experimental Cross rural countryside efficiently to visit patients
111
Crew /
SN Vehicle Designation Some Ground Effect Specifics Weight / Mass
Payload
1 XTW-1 950 kg
2 XTW-1S 1700 kg
3 XTW-2 Ram wing 3600 kg
4 XTW-3 Ram wing 4000 kg
5 XTW-4 Ram wing 20 6000 kg
6 XTW-5 25000 kg
7 AWIG-750 Power augmented ram 745 kg
8 Swan-I or AWIG-751 Power augmented ram 8.1 tons
9 Swan-II or AWIG-751G Power augmented ram No weight mentioned
10 SEABEE Ram wing 3 502 kg
11 Sea Bus project 500 tons
12 No specific name given Ram wing 1
13 Aerosani No.8 Ram wing 2 500 kg
14 Cygne 10 Flying wing 1000 tons
15 Cygne 14 Flying wing 1400 tons
16 Aerofoil boat Ram wing 300 tons
17 X-112 Ram wing 1 330 kg
18 X-113 Ram wing 1 345 kg
19 X-114 Ram wing 6 1850 kg
20 TAB VII-5 Tandem flying wing 740 kg
21 AirFish FF1/FF2 Ram wing 2 No weight mentioned
22 AirFish-3 Ram wing 4 2.5 times of FF1/FF2
23 FlightShip-8 (FS-8 or Airfish-8) 8 2325 kg
24 FlightShip-40 40 pax/5 tons
25 HoverWing 20 (IMO cert.) Ram wing and air cushion 9500 kg
26 Hoverwing 2VT / hydrowing vt-01 2 812 kg
27 Hydrowing-06 2.3 tons
28 WISES60 Wing with canard 60 23 tons
31 WISES2 Wing with canard 2 400 kg
32 mu sky-1 1 295 kg
33 mu sky-2 Flying wing 2 No weight mentioned
34 "8 seater flying wing" Flying wing 2.5 ton
35 KAG-3 Flying wing 2 590 kg
36 No name Korean Govt Project 300 tons
37 WSH-500 (IMO cert.) Ram wing 17.132 tons
38 Blinov Flying wing Flying wing 550 tons No weight mentioned
39 VVA-14 52 tons
40 ESKA-1 Ram wing 2 450 kg
41 An-2E Ram wing 12 7000 kg
42 CLST 2-seat ekranoplan Ram wing 2 1460 kg
43 MPE-100 80-100 tons
44 MPE-200 180-210 tons
45 MPE-300 300-350 tons
46 MPE-400 Power augmented ram 450 400 tons
47 Aquaglide-5 Power augmented ram and air cushion. 2720 kg
112
Crew /
SN Vehicle Designation Some Ground Effect Specifics Weight / Mass
Payload
48 Vikhr-2 Dynamic air cushion 250 No weight mentioned

49 Raketa-2 Power augmented ram and air cushion. 90 31 tons
50 SM-1 Tandem flying wing 2.83 tons
51 SM-2P Power augmented ram 3.20 tons
52 SM-3 Ram wing 3.4 tons
53 SM-4 Power augmented ram 4.8 tons
54 SM2-P7 Power augmented ram 6.3 tons
58 KM Power augmented ram 550 tons
59 Orlyonok 120 tons
60 Loon / Lun 400 tons
61 SM-9 1.75 ton
62 SM-10 2.2 tons
63 Volga-2 Power augmented ram and air cushion. 2.7 tons
64 Spasatel 400 tons
65 Aeroboat Flying wing 1 600 kg
66 Weiland Large Craft Tandem flying wing 3000 909091 kg
67 low boy Flying wing 125 tons
68 RAM-1 Flying wing and air cushion vehicle 22000 kg
69 RAM-2 Flying wing and air cushion vehicle 4990 kg
70 WSEV-C Ram wing 1000 tons
71 Hybrid airship Flying wing 1000 tons
72 WIG transport Power augmented ram 700 tons
73 DAW-S Power augmented ram 910 tons
74 Northrop Wingship 1.6M 725 tons
75 Pelican No weight mentioned
76 Dash 1.6 5000 tons
77 GEM-3 Ram wing 4 1140 kg
113
Next Next
SN Speed Powerplant and Propulsion Reference
Reference Reference
1 100-130 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky Yun L

4 144 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky Yun L
5 150 km/h cruise 2 x PWC PT6A-15AG Rozhdestvensky Yun L
7 130 km/h 2x30 hpThruster DT-30, 6000rpm Rozhdestvensky
8 130 km/h 2x275 kW + 210 kW Ducted propellors Rozhdestvensky
9 No speed mentioned Rozhdestvensky
10 <100 knots 130 hp Turbo fan Ollila
11 120 knots Rozhdestvensky van Beek
12 12 knots cruise 16 hp Piston propellor Ollila
13 43 knots max 50 hp Piston propellor Ollila
14 200 knots 8x15000 hp Turbo prop Ollila
15 260 knots 8x25000 hp Turbo ducted fan Ollila
16 300 knots 6x50000 hp Turbo prop Ollila
17 68 knots cruise 25 hp Piston propellor Ollila Yun L
18 76 knot max 40 hp Piston propellor Ollila
19 70 knots cruise 200 hp Turbo fan ducted Ollila
20 54 knots 70 hp Piston propellor Ollila
21 100 km/h cruise Propellors Rozhdestvensky Yun L
22 120 km/h cruise Propellors Rozhdestvensky Yun L
23 160 km/h cruise 330 kW Propellors Rozhdestvensky
24 225 km/h cruise 1000 kW Propellors Rozhdestvensky
25 140 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky
26 120 km/h cruise 90 kW Piston propellor Rozhdestvensky
27 125 km/h cruise 210kW Rozhdestvensky
28 170 knots 2x1380 kW Turbo prop Akimoto
29 130 knots 2x1520 kW Turbo prop Akimoto
30 140 knots cruise 2x3046 kW Turbo prop Akimoto
31 166 km/h Akimoto
32 82 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky
33 no internet data Rozhdestvensky
34 150 km/h 2x183.874 kW Piston propellor Rozhdestvensky
35 21-32 knots cruise 80 hp Out board motor Ollila
36 250 km/h Rozhdestvensky
37 175 km/h 2x1400 hp Turbo prop Wingship Technology Corp webpages
38 215 knots 6xTurbo prop Ollila
39 760 km/h 2xD-30M turbo fan Rozhdestvensky RTO-015-24 RTO-015-25
40 60 knots cruise 30 hp Piston propellor Ollila RTO-015-24 RTO-015-25
41 190 km/h cruise (AN-2) 1000 hp Piston propellor Ollila RTO-015-24 RTO-015-25
42 no speed info 210 hp Piston propellor Ollila RTO-015-24 RTO-015-25
44 400-430 km/h Rozhdestvensky
114
Next Next
SN Speed Powerplant and Propulsion Reference
Reference Reference
48 No internet data Rozhdestvensky

49 180 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky Yun L Filippone
52 160 km/h cruise Yun L
53 200 km/h cruise 10x98100 N Turbo fan Rozhdestvensky Yun L
58 430 km/h cruise 8x98100 N (takeoff) + 2x98100 N (cruise) Rozhdestvensky Yun L
59 350-400 km/h 2x98100 N + 156960 N static thrust Rozhdestvensky Yun L Filippone
60 450 km/h 8x127530 N static thrust turbo fan Rozhdestvensky Yun L Filippone
61 120 km/h Yun L
62 120 km/h
63 120 km/h cruise Turbo fan ducted Rozhdestvensky
65 no speed info 60 hp Piston propellor Ollila
66 no speed info Turbo prop. Power uncertain. Ollila
67 160 knots 4xTurbo fan Ollila
68 86 knots cruise 2000 hp Turbo fan Ollila
69 250 knots max 3000 lb Turbo jet Ollila
70 215 knots 180000 hp Turbo fan ducted Ollila
71 150 knots 2x35000 hp Turbo fan ducted Ollila
72 262 knots 4x95600 lb Turbo fan Ollila
73 no speed data Rozhdestvensky
74 no speed data Rozhdestvensky
75 240 knots (Wiki) Rozhdestvensky
76 400 knots Rozhdestvensky
77 70 knots cruise 150 hp Piston propellor Ollila
key
Data uncertain even after search on internet.
Data unavailable
Rozhdestvensky K. V. Rozhdestvensky, Wing in Ground Effect Vehicles, Progress in Aerospace
Sciences, Vol 42, (2006) pp. 211 - 283
Ollila R. G. Ollila, Historical Review of WIG Vehicles, Journal of Hydronautics, Vol. 14, No.3,
(1980) pp. 65 - 76
Akimoto Akimoto, H., Kubo, S. and Kanehira, M. (2010) Wing in surface effect ship with canard
configuration, Int. J. Aerodynamics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.317.
Yun L Yun L., Bliault A., Doo J., WIG Craft & Ekranoplan Ground Effect Craft Technology Ch 2
(2010)
RTO-015-24 NATO RTO Meeting Proceedings-015-24 The first commercial ekranoplan Amphistar
and prospects for the development of passenger ekranoplans (1998)
RTO-015-25 NATO RTO Meeting Proceedings-015-25 A view of the present state of research in aero
and hydrodynamics of ekranoplans (1999)
Filippone A. Filippone, M. S. Selig Low-Aspect-Ratio Wings for Wing-Ships, AIAA (1998)
van Beek C.M. van Beek, B. Oskam and G. Fantacci, Progress Report on Aerodynamic Analysis
of a Surface Piercing Hydrofoil-Controlled Wing-In-Ground Effect SEABUS
Configuration, NLR-TP-98510 (1998)
115
Weight changes over the years for

1.0E+06
CSSRC, China
MARIC, China
1.0E+05
Take Off Weight [kg]
Techno Trans, Germany
1.0E+04
CLST, Russia
1.0E+03
RE Alexeev, Russia
WSH-500 (IMO cert.)
1.0E+02
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Speed changes over the years for

600
CSSRC, China
MARIC, China
500
Cruising peed [km/h]
400
Techno Trans, Germany
300
CLST, Russia
200
RE Alexeev, Russia
100
WSH-500 (IMO cert.)
0
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
116
Appendix B. Summary of Experimental data from NACA TN 67
A.E Raymond, Ground influence on aerofoils, NACA TN 67, 1921

Expt Martin 2 3D Speed 13.4112m/s Chord 0.0762m Re 63871 AR 6
AoA [deg] CL CD L/D h/c Ground Simulation
8 0.5397 0.0435 12.40 (h/c=) NA
0.5397 0.0435 12.40 2 no ground effect
0.5397 0.0435 12.40 0.25 no ground effect
8 0.5444 0.0424 12.85 2.00 image method
8 0.5485 0.0418 13.13 1.75 image method
8 0.5500 0.0409 13.45 1.50 image method
8 0.5500 0.0400 13.75 1.25 image method
8 0.5515 0.0388 14.20 1.00 image method
8 0.5574 0.0376 14.80 0.75 image method
8 0.5735 0.0353 16.25 0.50 image method
8 0.6074 0.0315 19.30 0.25 image method
12 0.6588 0.0624 10.57 (h/c=) NA
0.6588 0.0624 10.57 2 no ground effect
0.6588 0.0624 10.57 0.25 no ground effect
12 0.6603 0.0606 10.90 2.00 image method
12 0.6603 0.0588 11.23 1.75 image method
12 0.6603 0.0565 11.69 1.50 image method
12 0.6618 0.0559 11.84 1.25 image method
12 0.6632 0.0535 12.39 1.00 image method
12 0.6676 0.0518 12.90 0.75 image method
12 0.6750 0.0488 13.83 0.50 image method
12 0.6971 0.0447 15.59 0.25 image method
16 0.7500 0.0871 8.61 (h/c=) NA
0.7500 0.0871 8.61 2 no ground effect
0.7500 0.0871 8.61 0.25 no ground effect
16 0.7329 0.0806 9.09 2.00 image method
16 0.7329 0.0794 9.23 1.75 image method
16 0.7329 0.0788 9.30 1.50 image method
16 0.7338 0.0782 9.38 1.25 image method
16 0.7353 0.0771 9.54 1.00 image method
16 0.7412 0.0747 9.92 0.75 image method
16 0.7500 0.0712 10.54 0.50 image method
16 0.7972 0.0871 9.16 0.25 image method
L/D vs h/c
Martin 2 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various AoA
20
18
AoA 8
16 AoA 12
AoA 16
14
No Ground Effect 8
12 No Ground Effect 12
No Ground Effect 16
10
8
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
h/c
117

CL vs h/c
0.8
0.7 AoA 8
AoA 12
AoA 16
No Ground Effect 8
No Ground Effect 12
0.6
No Ground Effect 16
0.5
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
h/c
CD vs h/c
0.09
0.08
0.07 AoA 8
AoA 12
AoA 16
0.06
No Ground Effect 8
No Ground Effect 12
0.05
No Ground Effect 16
0.04
0.03
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
h/c
118

CL vs alpha
Martin 2 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various h/c
0.8
No Ground Effect
0.7 2.00
1.50
CL
1.00
0.75
0.6 0.50
0.25
0.5
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
AoA [deg]
CD vs alpha
Martin 2 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various h/c
0.09
0.08
No Ground Effect
0.07 2.00
1.50
CD
0.06 1.00
0.75
0.05 0.50
0.25
0.04
0.03
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
AoA [deg]
119

Expt USA 27 3D Speed 13.4112m/s Chord 0.0762m Re 63870.84 AR6
4 0.3500 0.0241 14.51 (h/c=) NA
0.3500 0.0241 14.51 1.75 no ground effect
0.3500 0.0241 14.51 0.25 no ground effect
4 0.3544 0.0229 15.45 1.75 image method
4 0.3559 0.0226 15.71 1.50 image method
4 0.3588 0.0224 16.05 1.25 image method
4 0.3632 0.0221 16.47 1.00 image method
4 0.3721 0.0215 17.33 0.75 image method
4 0.3853 0.0206 18.71 0.50 image method
4 0.4176 0.0194 21.52 0.25 image method
8 0.4956 0.0394 12.57 (h/c=) NA
0.4956 0.0394 12.57 1.75 no ground effect
0.4956 0.0394 12.57 0.25 no ground effect
8 0.5029 0.0371 13.57 1.75 image method
8 0.5059 0.0365 13.87 1.50 image method
8 0.5088 0.0359 14.18 1.25 image method
8 0.5132 0.0350 14.66 1.00 image method
8 0.5191 0.0335 15.48 0.75 image method
8 0.5353 0.0324 16.55 0.50 image method
8 0.5750 0.0294 19.55 0.25 image method
12 0.6294 0.0588 10.70 (h/c=) NA
0.6294 0.0588 10.70 1.75 no ground effect
0.6294 0.0588 10.70 0.25 no ground effect
12 0.6412 0.0550 11.66 1.75 image method
12 0.6426 0.0535 12.01 1.50 image method
12 0.6471 0.0521 12.43 1.25 image method
12 0.6500 0.0506 12.85 1.00 image method
12 0.6544 0.0482 13.57 0.75 image method
12 0.6632 0.0459 14.46 0.50 image method
12 0.6794 0.0429 15.82 0.25 image method
L/D vs h/c
22
20
AoA 4
18 AoA 8
AoA 12
16
No Ground Effect 4
14 No Ground Effect 8
No Ground Effect 12
12
10
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
h/c
120

CL vs h/c
0.7
0.6
AoA 4
AoA 8
AoA 12
0.5
No Ground Effect 4
No Ground Effect 8
No Ground Effect 12
0.4
0.3
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
h/c
CD vs h/c
0.06
0.05
AoA 4
0.04 AoA 8
AoA 12
No Ground Effect 4
0.03 No Ground Effect 8
No Ground Effect 12
0.02
0.01
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
h/c
121

CL vs alpha
0.7
0.6 No Ground Effect

1.75
1.50
CL
0.5 1.00
0.75
0.50
0.4 0.25
0.3
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
AoA [deg]
CD vs alpha
0.06
0.05
No Ground Effect
1.75
0.04
1.50
CD
1.00
0.03 0.75
0.50
0.25
0.02
0.01
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
AoA [deg]
122

-4 0.1118 0.0138 8.09 (h/c=0.50) image method
-2 0.1765 0.0141 12.50 (h/c=0.50) image method
0 0.2353 0.0153 15.38 (h/c=0.50) image method
2 0.3176 0.0176 18.00 (h/c=0.50) image method
4 0.3971 0.0212 18.75 (h/c=0.50) image method
6 0.4735 0.0259 18.30 (h/c=0.50) image method
8 0.5471 0.0335 16.32 (h/c=0.50) image method
10 0.6186 0.0382 16.18 (h/c=0.50) image method
12 0.6676 0.0459 14.55 (h/c=0.50) image method
14 0.7000 0.0612 11.44 (h/c=0.50) image method
-4 0.0882 0.0159 5.56 (h/c=0.50) flat plate method
-2 0.1765 0.0135 13.04 (h/c=0.50) flat plate method
0 0.2574 0.0112 23.03 (h/c=0.50) flat plate method
-4 0.0471 0.0194 2.42 (h/c=) NA
-2 0.1206 0.0174 6.95 (h/c=) NA
0 0.2000 0.0171 11.72 (h/c=) NA
2 0.2794 0.0197 14.18 (h/c=) NA
4 0.3529 0.0259 13.64 (h/c=) NA
6 0.4235 0.0332 12.74 (h/c=) NA
8 0.4912 0.0415 11.84 (h/c=) NA
10 0.5676 0.0509 11.16 (h/c=) NA
12 0.6329 0.0612 10.34 (h/c=) NA
14 0.6871 0.0724 9.50 (h/c=) NA
123

Image & Flat Plate Method Comparison with CL & CD

USA 27 | AR 6 | Re 64000
0.7
0.6
0.5
CL Image h/c=0.5
0.4
CD Image h/c=0.5
CL Flat h/c=0.5
CD Flat h/c=0.5
CL No Ground Effect
0.3
CD No Ground Effect
0.2
0.1
0.0
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
AoA [deg]
124
Appendix C. Summary of Experimental Data from NASA TN D926
M.P. Fink and J.L. Lastinger, Aerodynamic characteristics of low aspect ratio wings in close proximity to the
ground, NASA TN D926, 1961
Expt Glenn Martin 21 modifed flat bottom from 0.3c to TE 3D Speed - Chord 0.3048m Re 490000 AR 2
-10 0.0400 0.0300 1.3333 (h/c=) NA
12 1.1400 0.2050 5.5610 (h/c=) NA
14 1.2300 0.2400 5.1250 (h/c=) NA
16 1.3100 0.2800 4.6786 (h/c=) NA
18 1.3600 0.3150 4.3175 (h/c=) NA
-8 0.1400 0.0300 4.6667 (h/c=) NA
-8 0.1400 0.0300 1.200 without ground effect
-8 0.1300 0.0300 4.3333 1.104 image method
-8 0.1150 0.0300 3.8333 0.939 image method
-8 0.1100 0.0300 3.6667 0.764 image method
-8 0.1000 0.0300 3.3333 0.604 image method
-8 0.0500 0.0300 1.6667 0.444 image method
-8 -0.1000 0.0300 -3.3333 0.274 image method
-8 -0.3200 0.0300 -10.6667 0.184 image method
-6 0.2300 0.0350 6.5714 (h/c=) NA
-6 0.2400 0.0350 6.8571 1.078 image method
-6 0.2400 0.0350 6.8571 0.913 image method
-6 0.2350 0.0350 6.7143 0.738 image method
-6 0.2250 0.0350 6.4286 0.578 image method
-6 0.1900 0.0325 5.8462 0.418 image method
-6 0.0750 0.0325 2.3077 0.248 image method
-6 -0.1200 0.0325 -3.6923 0.158 image method
-4 0.3300 0.0450 7.3333 (h/c=) NA
-4 0.3450 0.0450 7.6667 1.052 image method
-4 0.3500 0.0450 7.7778 0.887 image method
-4 0.3500 0.0425 8.2353 0.712 image method
-4 0.3400 0.0400 8.5000 0.552 image method
-4 0.3250 0.0400 8.1250 0.392 image method
-4 0.2400 0.0350 6.8571 0.222 image method
-4 0.1000 0.0325 3.0769 0.132 image method
-4 -0.0500 0.0350 -1.4286 0.092 image method
-2 0.4300 0.0500 8.6000 (h/c=) NA
-2 0.4300 0.0550 7.8182 1.026 image method
-2 0.4350 0.0525 8.2857 0.861 image method
-2 0.4450 0.0500 8.9000 0.686 image method
-2 0.4400 0.0500 8.8000 0.526 image method
-2 0.4300 0.0500 8.6000 0.366 image method
-2 0.3750 0.0450 8.3333 0.196 image method
-2 0.3000 0.0400 7.5000 0.106 image method
-2 0.2000 0.0400 5.0000 0.066 image method
-2 0.1100 0.0350 3.1429 0.046 image method
0 0.5400 0.0650 8.3077 (h/c=) NA
0 0.5400 0.0650 1.200 without ground effect
0 0.5400 0.0650 8.3077 1.000 image method
0 0.5400 0.0650 8.3077 0.835 image method
0 0.5400 0.0650 8.3077 0.660 image method
0 0.5500 0.0650 8.4615 0.500 image method
0 0.5600 0.0600 9.3333 0.340 image method
0 0.5400 0.0550 9.8182 0.170 image method
125
0 0.5600 0.0500 11.2000 0.080 image method
0 0.5900 0.0450 13.1111 0.040 image method
2 0.6400 0.0800 8.0000 (h/c=) NA
2 0.6600 0.0800 8.2500 0.974 image method
2 0.6700 0.0800 8.3750 0.809 image method
2 0.6600 0.0775 8.5161 0.634 image method
2 0.6800 0.0750 9.0667 0.474 image method
2 0.6900 0.0700 9.8571 0.314 image method
2 0.7300 0.0650 11.2308 0.144 image method
2 0.8400 0.0600 14.0000 0.054 image method
2 1.1000 0.0550 20.0000 0.014 image method
4 0.7500 0.1000 7.5000 (h/c=) NA
4 0.7600 0.0975 7.7949 0.948 image method
4 0.7700 0.0975 7.8974 0.783 image method
4 0.7600 0.0950 8.0000 0.608 image method
4 0.7900 0.0925 8.5405 0.448 image method
4 0.8250 0.0900 9.1667 0.288 image method
4 0.9100 0.0850 10.7059 0.118 image method
4 1.1350 0.0800 14.1875 0.028 image method
6 0.8400 0.1200 7.0000 (h/c=) NA
6 0.8500 0.1100 7.7273 0.922 image method
6 0.8600 0.1100 7.8182 0.757 image method
6 0.8800 0.1100 8.0000 0.582 image method
6 0.9200 0.1075 8.5581 0.422 image method
6 0.9400 0.1050 8.9524 0.262 image method
6 1.0850 0.1025 10.5854 0.092 image method
6 1.3700 0.1000 13.7000 0.002 image method
8 0.9500 0.1300 7.3077 (h/c=) NA
8 0.9500 0.1425 6.6667 0.896 image method
8 0.9800 0.1425 6.8772 0.731 image method
8 1.0000 0.1400 7.1429 0.556 image method
8 1.0300 0.1400 7.3571 0.396 image method
8 1.0700 0.1350 7.9259 0.236 image method
8 1.2700 0.1325 9.5849 0.066 image method
8 1.4200 0.1250 11.3600 -0.024 image method
10 1.0500 0.1750 6.0000 (h/c=) NA
10 1.0900 0.1650 6.6061 0.870 image method
10 1.1000 0.1675 6.5672 0.705 image method
10 1.1250 0.1675 6.7164 0.530 image method
10 1.1600 0.1650 7.0303 0.370 image method
10 1.2100 0.1600 7.5625 0.210 image method
10 1.4800 0.1500 9.8667 0.040 image method
126
L/D vs h/c
22
20
18
0
16 2
4
L/D
14
6
12 8
10
10
6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
h/c
CL vs h/c
1.60
1.40
1.20
0
1.00 2
4
0.80
6
0.60 8
10
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
h/c
127
CD vs h/c
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14 0
0.12 2
4
0.10
6
0.08 8
0.06 10
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
h/c
CL vs AoA
1.6
1.4
1.2
without ground effect
1.0 1.000
0.8 0.835
0.660
CL
0.6
0.500
0.4 0.340
0.2 0.170
0.080
0.0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.2
-0.4
AoA [deg]
128
CD vs AoA
0.18
0.16
0.14
1.000
0.12 0.835
0.660
CD
0.10
0.500
0.08 0.340
0.170
0.06
0.080
0.04
0.02
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
AoA [deg]
129
-5.8 0.3150 0.0250 12.6000 (h/c=) NA
-5.8 0.3150 0.0250 1.200 without ground effect
-5.8 0.3000 0.0250 12.0000 1.076 image method
-5.8 0.3100 0.0250 12.4000 0.911 image method
-5.8 0.2900 0.0250 11.6000 0.736 image method
-5.8 0.2900 0.0250 11.6000 0.576 image method
-5.8 0.2400 0.0225 10.6667 0.416 image method
-5.8 0.0900 0.0200 4.5000 0.246 image method
-5.8 -0.1050 0.0200 -5.2500 0.156 image method
-3.8 0.4450 0.0350 12.7143 (h/c=) NA
-3.8 0.4500 0.0350 12.8571 1.050 image method
-3.8 0.4450 0.0300 14.8333 0.885 image method
-3.8 0.4450 0.0300 14.8333 0.710 image method
-3.8 0.4400 0.0300 14.6667 0.550 image method
-3.8 0.4150 0.0250 16.6000 0.390 image method
-3.8 0.3100 0.0225 13.7778 0.220 image method
-3.8 0.1050 0.0175 6.0000 0.130 image method
-1.7 0.5950 0.0400 14.8750 (h/c=) NA
-1.7 0.6000 0.0400 15.0000 1.022 image method
-1.7 0.5850 0.0400 14.6250 0.857 image method
-1.7 0.6050 0.0400 15.1250 0.682 image method
-1.7 0.6150 0.0350 17.5714 0.522 image method
-1.7 0.6000 0.0325 18.4615 0.362 image method
-1.7 0.5300 0.0300 17.6667 0.192 image method
-1.7 0.4500 0.0225 20.0000 0.102 image method
-1.7 0.2700 0.0150 18.0000 0.062 image method
0.4 0.7300 0.0550 13.2727 (h/c=) NA
0.4 0.7300 0.0550 1.200 without ground effect
0.4 0.7400 0.0525 14.0952 0.995 image method
0.4 0.7400 0.0500 14.8000 0.830 image method
0.4 0.7800 0.0500 15.6000 0.655 image method
0.4 0.7900 0.0500 15.8000 0.495 image method
0.4 0.7700 0.0450 17.1111 0.335 image method
0.4 0.7700 0.0400 19.2500 0.165 image method
0.4 0.8000 0.0350 22.8571 0.075 image method
0.4 0.8600 0.0300 28.6667 0.035 image method
2.6 0.8500 0.0750 11.3333 (h/c=) NA
2.6 0.8900 0.0600 14.833 0.966 image method
2.6 0.9000 0.0650 13.846 0.801 image method
2.6 0.9300 0.0650 14.308 0.626 image method
2.6 0.9500 0.0600 15.833 0.466 image method
2.6 0.9600 0.0550 17.455 0.306 image method
2.6 1.0300 0.0500 20.600 0.136 image method
2.6 1.1400 0.0400 28.500 0.046 image method
2.6 1.3900 0.0375 37.067 0.006 image method
4.7 0.9900 0.0900 11.0000 (h/c=) NA
4.7 1.0600 0.0875 12.114 0.939 image method
4.7 1.0700 0.0750 14.267 0.774 image method
130
4.7 1.0800 0.0700 15.429 0.599 image method
4.7 1.1200 0.0650 17.231 0.439 image method
4.7 1.1300 0.0600 18.833 0.279 image method
4.7 1.2400 0.0500 24.800 0.109 image method
4.7 1.5000 0.0400 37.500 0.019 image method
6.7 1.1200 0.1100 10.1818 (h/c=) NA
6.7 1.1800 0.1100 10.727 0.912 image method
6.7 1.1650 0.0925 12.595 0.747 image method
6.7 1.1900 0.0900 13.222 0.572 image method
6.7 1.2300 0.0850 14.471 0.412 image method
6.7 1.2650 0.0775 16.323 0.252 image method
6.7 1.4100 0.0675 20.889 0.082 image method
6.7 1.5350 0.0625 24.560 -0.008 image method
8.8 1.2550 0.1400 8.9643 (h/c=) NA
8.8 1.2800 0.1325 9.6604 0.885 image method
8.8 1.3000 0.1100 11.8182 0.720 image method
8.8 1.3100 0.1075 12.1860 0.545 image method
8.8 1.3300 0.1025 12.9756 0.385 image method
8.8 1.3600 0.0950 14.3158 0.225 image method
8.8 1.5600 0.0800 19.5000 0.055 image method
10.8 1.3700 0.1700 8.0588 (h/c=) NA
10.8 1.3600 0.1550 8.7742 0.859 image method
10.8 1.3900 0.1350 10.2963 0.694 image method
10.8 1.4100 0.1300 10.8462 0.519 image method
10.8 1.4050 0.1250 11.2400 0.359 image method
10.8 1.4500 0.1200 12.0833 0.199 image method
10.8 1.6800 0.1125 14.9333 0.029 image method
12.9 1.4400 0.2000 7.2000 (h/c=) NA
12.9 1.4600 0.1850 7.8919 0.833 image method
12.9 1.4500 0.1650 8.7879 0.668 image method
12.9 1.4500 0.1650 8.7879 0.493 image method
12.9 1.4700 0.1600 9.1875 0.333 image method
12.9 1.5000 0.1625 9.2308 0.173 image method
12.9 1.6800 0.1800 9.3333 0.003 image method
-10 0.0300 0.0250 1.2000 (h/c=) NA
-7.8 0.1700 0.0250 6.8000 (h/c=) NA
14.8 1.4900 0.2400 6.2083 (h/c=) NA
16.8 1.4900 0.3000 4.9667 (h/c=) NA
131
L/D vs h/c
40
36
32
2.6
28
4.7
24 6.7
L/D
20 8.8
10.8
16
12.9
12
4
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
h/c
CL vs h/c
1.80
1.60
2.6
1.40 4.7
6.7
8.8
1.20 10.8
12.9
1.00
0.80
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
h/c
132
CD vs h/c
0.25
0.20
2.6
0.15 4.7
6.7
8.8
0.10 10.8
12.9
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
h/c
CL vs AoA
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2 1.000
1.0 0.835
0.660
CL
0.8
0.500
0.6 0.340
0.4 0.170
0.080
0.2
0.0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.2
AoA [deg]
133
CD vs AoA
0.18
0.16
0.14 without ground effect

1.000
0.12
0.835
0.10 0.660
CD
0.08 0.500
0.340
0.06
0.170
0.04 0.080
0.02
0.00
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
AoA [deg]
134
Appendix D. Summary of Experimental Data from Chawla, Edwards and Franke, Journal of Aircraft vol.27
no.4, 1990
M.D. Chawla, L.C. Edwards and M.E. Franke, Wind tunnel investigation of Wing-in-ground effects, Journal of
Aircraft vol.27 no.4, 1990
Expt NACA 4415 adapted data 3D Speed 28.16m/s Chord 0.2286m Re 402386 AR 2.33 with sweep 17.54 deg
AoA[deg] CL CD L/D h/c Ground Simulation
5 0.4667 0.0853 0.25 flat plate method without end plates
5 0.5571 0.0960 0.25 flat plate method with end plates
rest of data scaled by scaled by
83.8% 88.9%
0 0.1516 0.0249 6.0897 0.250 flat plate method
L/D vs h/c (Adapted Data)

7.0
6.0
0
5.0 5
10
15
4.0 20
25
3.0
2.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
h/c
135
no.4, 1990
CL & CD vs h/c (Adapted Data)

1.0
0 CL
0.8 0 CD
5 CL
0.6 5 CD
10 CL
10 CD
0.4
15 CL
15 CD
0.2 20 CL
20 CD
0.0 25 CL
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 25 CD
-0.2
h/c
CL vs AoA (Adapted Data)

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 2.35
1.00
CL
0.5
0.50
0.4 0.25
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
AoA [deg]
136
no.4, 1990
CD vs AoA (Adapted Data)

0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3 2.35
1.00
CD
0.3
0.50
0.2 0.25
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
AoA [deg]
137
Appendix E. Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed and Sharma, Experimental Thermal and fluid
science vol.29 page 633-647, 2004.
M.R. Ahmed and S.D. Sharma, An investigation on the aerodynamics of a symmetrical airfoil in ground effect,
Experimental Thermal and fluid science vol.29 page 633-647, 2004
Expt NACA 0015 2D Speed 35.000m/s Chord 0.10m Re 240000 AR 3
0.0 0.0109 0.0104 1.05 0.80 flat plate method
138
l/d vs h/c
NACA 0015 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | Various AoA
80
70
60
0.0
50
2.5
l/d
40 5.0
7.5
30
10.0
20
10
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
h/c
cl vs h/c
NACA 0015 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | AoA 0 to 10 deg
1.60
1.40
1.20
0.0
1.00
2.5
0.80 5.0
7.5
0.60
10.0
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
h/c
139
cd vs h/c
NACA 0015 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | AoA 0 to 10 deg
0.025
0.020
0
0.015 2.5
5.0
0.010 7.5
10
0.005
0.000
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
h/c
cl vs alpha
1.4
1.2
0.80
1.0 0.70
0.60
0.8
0.50
cl
0.40
0.6
0.30
0.4 0.20
0.10
0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
AoA [deg]
140
cd vs alpha
0.024
0.022
0.80
0.020
0.70
0.018 0.60
0.50
cd
0.016
0.40
0.014 0.30
0.20
0.012
0.10
0.010
0.008
0 2 4 6 8 10
AoA [deg]
141
Appendix F. Summary of Experimental Data from Kwang, Ho and Hee, Journal Marine Science and
Technology vol.13 pg317-327, 2008
H.J. Kwang, H.C. Ho and J.K. Hee, Experimental investigation of wing in ground effect with a NACA 6409 section,
Journal Marine Science and Technology vol.13 pg317-327, 2008
AoA[deg] CL CD L/D h/c Ground Simulation
L/D vs h/c
NACA 6409 Flat Plate method | AR2 | AoA 0 to 8 deg | Re 340000 | Various AoA
30
25 0
2
L/D
20 4
6
15 8
10
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
h/c
142
CL vs h/c
NACA 6409 | Flat Plate method | AR2 | AoA 0 to 8 deg | Numerical
0.90
0.80
0.70
0
0.60 2
4
0.50 6
8
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
h/c
CD vs h/c
NACA 6409 | Flat Plate method | AR2 | AoA 0 to 8 deg | Numerical
0.08
0.07
0.06
0
0.05 2
4
0.04 6
8
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
h/c
143
CL vs AoA
0.9
0.8
0.7 0.300
0.250
0.6 0.200
CL
0.150
0.5 0.100
0.050
0.4
0.025
0.3
0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]
CD vs AoA
0.08
0.07
0.06 0.300
0.250
0.05 0.200
CD
0.150
0.04 0.100
0.050
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.01
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]
144
Appendix G. Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed, International Journal of Fluid Mech Research vol32
n2, 2005.
MR Ahmed, Aerodynamics of a cambered airfoil in ground effect, Intl J Fluid Mech Research vol32 n2, 2005
Expt NACA 4415 2D Speed 35m/s Chord 0.1m Re 240000 AR -
AoA [deg] cl cd l/d h/c Ground Simulation
145
n2, 2005.
l/d vs h/c
100.0
90.0
80.0
0.0
70.0 2.5
5.0
60.0 7.5
10.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
h/c
cl vs h/c
1.8
1.6
1.4
0.0
1.2 2.5
5.0
1.0 7.5
10.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
h/c
146
n2, 2005.
cd vs h/c
0.040
0.035
0.030 0
2.5
0.025 5.0
7.5
0.020 10
0.015
0.010
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
h/c
cl vs AoA
NACA 4415 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | Various h/c
1.800
1.600
0.80
1.400 0.70
0.60
1.200 0.50
0.40
1.000 0.30
0.20
0.800
0.10
0.05
0.600
0.400
0 2 4 6 8 10
AoA [deg]
147
n2, 2005.
cd vs AoA
NACA 4415 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | Various h/c
0.040
0.035 0.80
0.70
0.030 0.60
0.50
0.025 0.40
0.30
0.020 0.20
0.10
0.015 0.05
0.010
0 2 4 6 8 10
AoA [deg]
148
Appendix H. Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed, Takasaki and kohama, AIAA J vol45 n1, 2007.
MR Ahmed, T Takasaki, Y kohama, Aerodynamics of a NACA 4412 airfoil in ground effect, AIAA J vol45 n1, 2007
Expt NACA 4412 end plates used Speed 30.8m/s Chord 0.15m Re 300000 AR 4
AoA [deg] cl cd l/d h/c Ground Simulation
0.0 0.4664 0.0080 58.13 1.00 moving ground method
149
Expt NACA 4412 3D end plates used Speed 30.8m/s Chord 0.15m Re 300000 AR 4
l/d vs h/c
NACA 4412 | Moving ground method | 3D | AR4 | Re 300000 | AoA 0 to 10 deg
100
90
80 0
2
70
4
6
60
8
50 10
40
30
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
h/c
cl vs h/c
NACA 4412 | Moving ground method | 3D | AR4 | Re 300000 | AoA 0 to 10 deg
1.600
1.400
1.200
0
1.000 2
4
0.800
6
0.600 8
10
0.400
0.200
0.000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
h/c
150
cd vs h/c
NACA 4412 | Moving ground method | AR4 (end plates) | Re 300000 | AoA 0 to 10 deg
0.025
0.020
0
0.015 2
4
cd
6
0.010 8
10
0.005
0.000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
h/c
cl vs AoA
NACA 4412 | Moving ground method | AR4 (with end plates) | Re 300000 | Various h/c
1.6
1.4
1.2 1.00
0.80
1.0 0.60
0.40
0.8 0.30
0.15
0.6
0.05
0.4
0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10
AoA [deg]
151
cd vs AoA
NACA 4412 | Moving ground method | AR4 (with end plates) | Re 300000 | Various h/c
0.025
0.020 1.00
0.80
0.60
0.015 0.40
0.30
0.15
0.010 0.05
0.005
0 2 4 6 8 10
AoA [deg]
152
Appendix I. Summary of Pressure Distribution over NACA 4415 section at various Reynolds number.
Angle of Attack fixed and Reynolds number decreasing from 1.0E06 to 2.0E05.
Actual
Article AoA x/c cp surface h/c remarks Reynolds
NACA TR 832 0 0.000 0.9143 L 1,000,000 OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.025 -0.3143 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.050 -0.4286 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.075 -0.4000 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.100 -0.3643 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.150 -0.2571 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.200 -0.1714 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.250 -0.1143 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.300 -0.0714 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.350 -0.0357 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.400 0.0000 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.450 0.0143 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.500 0.0286 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.550 0.0429 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.600 0.0571 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.650 0.0857 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.700 0.1000 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.750 0.1143 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.800 0.1429 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.850 0.1714 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.900 0.2000 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.950 0.2143 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 1.000 0.2571 lower OGE averaged cp at TE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.000 0.9143 U 1,000,000 OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.025 -0.0429 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.050 -0.3429 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.075 -0.5143 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.100 -0.6143 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.150 -0.7286 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.200 -0.7714 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.250 -0.8143 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.300 -0.8071 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.350 -0.7500 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.400 -0.7000 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.450 -0.6571 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.500 -0.6143 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.550 -0.5429 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.600 -0.4571 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.650 -0.4000 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.700 -0.3429 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.750 -0.2429 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.800 -0.1500 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.850 -0.0714 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.900 0.0429 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 0.950 0.1571 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 0 1.000 0.2571 upper OGE averaged cp at TE 1000000
NASA TM X-2225 0.16 0.0000 0.0223 L 895,013 OGE 0.9777 895013
NASA TM X-2225 0.16 0.0050 0.6126 Lower OGE 0.3874 895013
NASA TM X-2225 0.16 0.0100 1.0355 Lower OGE -0.0355 895013
153
Actual
NASA TM X-2225 0.16 0.0000 0.0223 U 895,013 OGE 0.9777 895013
NASA TM X-2225 0.16 0.0050 0.1208 upper OGE 0.8792 895013
NASA TM X-2225 0.16 0.0500 1.3821 upper OGE -0.3821 895013
NASA TM X-2225 0.06 0.0000 0.1000 L 537,388 OGE 0.9000 537388
NASA TM X-2225 0.06 0.0000 0.1000 U 537,388 OGE 0.9000 537388
154
Actual
NASA TM X-2225 0.02 0.0000 0.0569 L 345,444 OGE 0.9431 345444
NASA TM X-2225 0.02 0.0000 0.0569 U 345,444 OGE 0.9431 345444
155
Actual
cp vs x/c
x/c
-2.5
-2.0
L 1,000,000
-1.5
U 1,000,000
L 895,013
-1.0
U 895,013
cp
L 537,388
-0.5
U 537,388
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
L 345,444
0.0
U 345,444
0.5
1.0
156
Actual
NACA TR 832 4 0.000 0.7579 L 1,000,000 OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.025 0.4000 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.050 0.2000 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.075 0.1158 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.100 0.0842 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.150 0.0632 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.200 0.0737 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.250 0.0947 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.300 0.1158 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.350 0.1158 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.400 0.1158 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.450 0.1368 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.500 0.1368 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.550 0.1368 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.600 0.1474 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.650 0.1474 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.700 0.1579 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.750 0.1579 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.800 0.1684 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.850 0.2000 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.900 0.2421 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.950 0.2737 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 1.000 0.3474 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.000 0.7579 U 1,000,000 OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.025 -0.9053 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.050 -1.1158 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.075 -1.2000 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.100 -1.2105 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.150 -1.2211 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.200 -1.2000 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.250 -1.1684 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.300 -1.0947 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.350 -1.0105 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.400 -0.9368 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.450 -0.8421 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.500 -0.7368 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.550 -0.6316 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.600 -0.5579 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.650 -0.4737 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.700 -0.3474 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.750 -0.2632 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.800 -0.1474 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.850 -0.0737 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.900 0.0526 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 0.950 0.1684 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 4 1.000 0.3474 upper OGE 1000000
NASA TM X-2225 4.51 0.0000 0.1431 L 894,945 OGE 0.8569 894945
157
Actual
NASA TM X-2225 4.51 0.0000 0.1431 U 894,945 OGE 0.8569 894945
NASA TM X-2225 4.17 0.0000 0.0791 L 538,191 OGE 0.9209 538191
NASA TM X-2225 4.17 0.0000 0.0791 U 538,191 OGE 0.9209 538191
158
Actual
NASA TM X-2225 4.1 0.0000 0.0784 L 345,073 OGE 0.9216 345073
NASA TM X-2225 4.1 0.0000 0.0784 U 345,073 OGE 0.9216 345073
159
Actual
cp vs x/c
x/c
-2.5
-2.0
L 1,000,000
-1.5
U 1,000,000
L 894,945
-1.0
U 894,945
cp
L 538,191
-0.5
U 538,191
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
L 345,073
0.0
U 345,073
0.5
1.0
160
Actual
NACA TR 832 8 0.000 -0.4000 L 1,000,000 OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.025 0.8000 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.050 0.6000 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.075 0.5000 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.100 0.4000 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.150 0.3263 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.200 0.2842 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.250 0.2632 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.300 0.2421 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.350 0.2316 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.400 0.2316 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.450 0.2211 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.500 0.2211 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.550 0.2105 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.600 0.2000 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.650 0.2000 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.700 0.2000 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.750 0.1895 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.800 0.1895 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.850 0.1789 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.900 0.1789 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.950 0.1368 lower OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 1.000 0.0947 lower OGE averaged cp at TE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.000 -0.4000 U 1,000,000 OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.025 -2.1263 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.050 -2.0737 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.075 -1.9684 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.100 -1.8632 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.150 -1.7368 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.200 -1.6105 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.250 -1.5368 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.300 -1.3474 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.350 -1.2000 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.400 -1.1684 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.450 -1.0000 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.500 -0.8421 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.550 -0.7368 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.600 -0.5579 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.650 -0.4526 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.700 -0.3368 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.750 -0.2000 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.800 -0.0947 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.850 -0.0105 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.900 0.0421 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 0.950 0.0737 upper OGE 1000000
NACA TR 832 8 1.000 0.0947 upper OGE averaged cp at TE 1000000
NASA TM X-2225 8.81 0.0000 0.6930 L 895,148 OGE 0.3070 895148
NASA TM X-2225 8.81 0.0100 -0.0021 Lower OGE 1.0021 895148
161
Actual
NASA TM X-2225 8.81 0.0000 0.6930 U 895,148 OGE 0.3070 895148
NASA TM X-2225 7.76 0.0000 0.5009 L 892,558 OGE 0.4991 892558
NASA TM X-2225 7.76 0.0000 0.5926 U 892,558 OGE 0.4074 892558
162
Actual
NASA TM X-2225 8.31 0.0000 0.5926 L 537,965 OGE 0.4074 537965
NASA TM X-2225 8.31 0.0000 0.5926 U 537,965 OGE 0.4074 537965
NASA TM X-2225 8.19 0.0000 0.6078 L 342,560 OGE 0.3922 342560
NASA TM X-2225 8.19 0.0000 0.6078 U 342,560 OGE 0.3922 342560
163
Actual
cp vs x/c
x/c
-2.5
-2.0
L 1,000,000
U 1,000,000
-1.5
L 895,148
U 895,148
-1.0
L 892,558
cp
U 892,558
-0.5
L 537,965
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
U 537,965
0.0
L 342,560
U 342,560
0.5
1.0
164
Appendix J. Calculated Lift and Drag of Finite NACA 4415 wing
NACA 4415
2D data without ground effect for estimating 3D data without ground effect
Experimental Data from Abbott & Doenhoff obtained under conditions Mach 0.17 and below (1959)
AoA[deg] cl Linear Region Remarks cl-alpha Reynolds No. cd Remarks

-18 -0.750 AoA not used. 3.00E+06 No cd value
-12 -0.850 Linear AoA not used. 0.1038 3.00E+06 No cd value
-10 -0.625 Region AoA not used. 0.1038 3.00E+06 0.0103 Valid range
-8 -0.450 AoA not used. 0.1038 3.00E+06 0.0090 of cd values
-6 -0.200 0.1038 3.00E+06 0.0081 from drag
-4 0.000 0.1038 3.00E+06 0.0078 polar.
-2 0.200 0.1038 3.00E+06 0.0076
0 0.400 0.1038 3.00E+06 0.0075
1 0.511 Interpolated. 0.1038 3.00E+06 0.0075 Interpolated.
2 0.650 0.1038 3.00E+06 0.0074
4 0.850 0.1038 3.00E+06 0.0075
6 1.050 0.1038 3.00E+06 0.0088
8 1.175 0.1038 3.00E+06 0.0112
9 1.251 Non Linear Interpolated. 3.00E+06 0.0136 Interpolated.
10 1.325 Region 3.00E+06 0.0170
11 1.361 Interpolated. 3.00E+06 0.0191 Interpolated.
12 1.425 Max cl 3.00E+06 0.0238
14 1.400 Stall Region 3.00E+06 No cd value
15 Stall Region Interpolated.
16 1.325 Stall Region 3.00E+06 No cd value
18 1.275 Stall Region AoA not used. 3.00E+06 No cd value
20 1.225 Stall Region AoA not used. 3.00E+06 No cd value
At Mach 0.17, cl-alpha reduces at most, by factor of 0.9854 or by % of 1.456%
Section cl vs AoA
Near Stall Region
2.0 y = -0.0007x3 + 0.0153x2 - 0.0404x + 0.8857
R2 = 0.9914
1.6
1.2
Linear Region 0.8
y = 0.1038x + 0.4075
R2 = 0.9985 0.4
cl
0.0
-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-0.4
-0.8
-1.2
AoA [deg]
165
NACA 4415
2D data without ground effect for estimating 3D data without ground effect
Experimental Data from Abbott & Doenhoff obtained under conditions Mach 0.17 and below (1959)
cl cd cd values interpolated to match AoA

1.425 0.02325
1.325 0.01675
1.200 0.01175
1.050 0.00850
0.850 0.00750
0.650 0.00750
0.475 0.00750
0.250 0.00750
0.025 0.00775
-0.200 0.00800
-0.400 0.00900
-0.625 0.01025
-0.825 0.01300
Section cd vs cl [DRAG POLAR]
y = 0.0033x6 - 0.0005x5 - 0.0011x4

0.024
- 0.0029x3 + 0.0029x2 - 0.0011x
+ 0.0077
0.020
R2 = 0.9995
0.016
cd
0.012
0.008
0.004
0.000
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
cl
166
NACA 4415
3D data without ground effect
Expected Experimental Data
AoA Speed Temp Speed of Mach Reynolds Aspect section cl-alpha CL-alpha 3D CL-alpha 3D
[deg] [m/s] [degC] Sound [m/s] Number No. Ratio [per rad] [per rad] [per deg]
-18 AoA not used.
-16
-14
-12 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514 5.947 2.968 0.05181
-10 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514 5.947 2.968 0.05181
-8 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514 5.947 2.968 0.05181
-6 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514 5.947 2.968 0.05181
-4 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514 5.947 2.968 0.05181
-2 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514 5.947 2.968 0.05181
0 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514 5.947 2.968 0.05181
1 18.53 31.0 349.582 0.0530 200000 2.514 5.947 2.968 0.05181
2 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514 5.947 2.968 0.05181
3 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514 5.947 2.968 0.05181
4 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514 5.947 2.968 0.05181
5 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514 5.947 2.968 0.05181
6 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514 5.947 2.968 0.05181
7 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514 5.947 2.968 0.05181
8 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514 5.947 2.968 0.05181
9 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514 Non Linear Region
10 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514
11 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514
12 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514
14 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514
15 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514
16 18.53 30.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.514
18 AoA not used.
20
Notes Temperature set to average of 30 degC

Kinematic viscosity at 30 deg C 1.62E-05 m^2/s
CL-alpha factors in finite width and compressibility, using the following equation.
John D Anderson Jr., Aircraft Performance and Design, 1999, McGraw-Hill

Eqn 2.18b
a0
acomp =
1 M 2 + [a0 (AR)] + a0 (AR)
2
Based on figure 2.23, zero lift AoA remains the same.

The new lift curve is calculated with new gradient CL-alpha.
Due to finite wings, induced drag contribution is calculated by Eqn 2.30.

C L2
C Di =
eAR
Based on example 2.14's calculation, Total Drag given by the following.
CD = cd + CDi
167
NACA 4415
AoA CL % diff CL CD- CD % diff CD Lift/Drag
[deg] induced
-18 AoA not used. Span Efficiency Factor Eqn 2.31
-16
-14
1
-12
e=
-10 -0.3108 50.3% 0.0125 0.0228 121.7% -13.61
1+
-8 -0.2072 53.9% 0.0056 0.0146 61.7% -14.18
-6 -0.1036 48.2% 0.0014 0.0095 17.3% -10.96 Estimated from figure 2.39
-4 0.0000 0.0% 0.0000 0.0078 0.0% 0.00 = 0.0251
-2 0.1036 48.2% 0.0014 0.0090 18.4% 11.56 Therefore
0 0.2072 48.2% 0.0056 0.0131 74.1% 15.83 e= 0.9755
1 0.2590 49.3% 0.0087 0.0162 116.5% 16.01
2 0.3108 52.2% 0.0125 0.0199 169.3% 15.58 zero lift AoA
3 0.3627 49.6% 0.0171 0.0245 230.8% 14.82 -4 [deg]
4 0.4145 51.2% 0.0223 0.0298 296.2% 13.90
5 0.4663 49.7% 0.0282 0.0360 361.8% 12.95 intercept =-(CL-alpha)*(alpha-ZL)
6 0.5181 50.7% 0.0348 0.0437 394.4% 11.86 0.2072
7 0.5699 49.8% 0.0421 0.0524 412.6% 10.88
8 0.6217 47.1% 0.0502 0.0613 448.9% 10.14
9 0.6750 0.0591 0.0727 434.4% 9.28
10 0.7155 0.0664 0.0835 390.5% 8.57
11 0.7425 0.0716 0.0907 374.2% 8.19
12 0.7695 Max Lift? 0.0768 0.1006 323.1% 7.65
14 0.7560 0.0742 No cd
15 0.7358 0.0703 values
16 0.7155 0.0664
18 AoA not used.
20
CL A % used to reduce section cl value such that stall and linear region match
54%
Wing CL & CD vs AoA
1.0
0.8 y = 0.0518x + 0.2072
0.6
CL
0.4 CD
est. CL
0.2 est. CD
Linear (CL)
0.0
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-0.2
-0.4
AoA [Deg]
168
NACA 4415
CL / CD vs AoA out of Ground Effect
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0 Lift/Drag
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-5.0
-10.0
-15.0
-20.0
AoA [Deg]
169
Appendix K. Loadcell Characteristics
Summary of load cell behaviour

In z direction, the correlation cofficient of applied force and measured force ranges from 0.9974 to 1.0000.
In the z direction, the measured force is 100.96% of the applied force in compression.
In tension, the measured force is 101.29% of the applied force.
The mass of the model and supports are estimated at 2.2107kg.
To assume the load cell transits seamlessly from compressive to tensile measurement is reasonable.
Then overall, the measured force is 101.25% of the applied force in the z direction.
The standard deviation from each reading would be used as individual uncertainty. The final uncertainty in the
measurement comes from factoring drift into the baseline reading and the difference of readings.
Looking at three plots for compression and two plots for tension, mass used does not determine the amount of
drift or direction of drift.
Discontinuities occur when a collection of small masses are replaced by a single piece large one.
From the trends seen within each small group, larger time between gives larger dirft.
While this collection of data does not conclusively indicate that drift is linear with time, some groups of points
support this idea.
To simplify this, drift in load cell reading is considered linear with time and error caused by this idea would
reduce when time interval between the same applied force reduced to as short as possible.
It was assumed that g value is 9.81ms^-2.
COMPRESSIVE loadings / unloadings in z direction

Run8
Applied force [N] Measured force [N] Standard deviation [N] max [N] min [N] Sample size
4.6950 -46.9465 0.0031 -46.9594 -46.9341 20000
5.6567 -47.8976 0.0031 -47.9125 -47.8849 10000
5.6567 -47.8951 0.0032 -47.9069 -47.8828 10000
6.6213 -48.8502 0.0031 -48.8629 -48.8387 10000
6.6213 -48.8508 0.0031 -48.8852 -48.8238 10000
7.5860 -49.8066 0.0030 -49.8177 -49.7959 10000
7.5860 -49.8068 0.0030 -49.8235 -49.7934 10000
8.5498 -50.7603 0.0030 -50.7726 -50.7498 10000
8.5498 -50.7616 0.0032 -50.7741 -50.7492 10000
9.5184 -51.7194 0.0034 -51.7326 -51.7043 10000
9.5184 -51.7196 0.0035 -51.7336 -51.7074 10000
10.4855 -52.6794 0.0034 -52.6935 -52.6658 10000
10.4855 -52.6810 0.0035 -52.6957 -52.6662 10000
11.6353 -53.8284 0.0066 -53.8473 -53.8064 10000
11.6353 -53.8476 0.0062 -53.8678 -53.8283 10000
12.5888 -54.8100 0.0053 -54.8276 -54.7918 10000
12.5888 -54.8231 0.0044 -54.8401 -54.8012 10000
13.5473 -55.7831 0.0041 -55.7972 -55.7661 10000
13.5473 -55.7917 0.0039 -55.8064 -55.7771 10000
14.5050 -56.7464 0.0036 -56.7602 -56.7324 10000
14.5050 -56.7516 0.0035 -56.7656 -56.7342 10000
15.4667 -57.7092 0.0035 -57.7216 -57.6958 10000
15.4667 -57.7145 0.0033 -57.7282 -57.7019 10000
16.4313 -58.6735 0.0032 -58.6854 -58.6611 10000
16.4313 -58.6746 0.0031 -58.6875 -58.6617 10000
17.3960 -59.6302 0.0032 -59.6414 -59.6168 10000
17.3960 -59.6311 0.0032 -59.6455 -59.6177 10000
18.3598 -60.5845 0.0031 -60.5971 -60.5728 10000
18.3598 -60.5844 0.0033 -60.5969 -60.5726 10000
19.3284 -61.5433 0.0032 -61.5601 -61.5257 10000
19.3284 -61.5417 0.0034 -61.5539 -61.5276 10000
20.2955 -62.5020 0.0040 -62.5161 -62.4877 10000
20.2955 -62.5072 0.0037 -62.5279 -62.4937 10000
21.4453 -63.6759 0.0034 -63.6907 -63.6625 10000
170
21.4453 -63.6792 0.0036 -63.6964 -63.6631 10000

22.3988 -64.6296 0.0040 -64.6431 -64.6105 10000
22.3988 -64.6344 0.0037 -64.6548 -64.6083 10000
23.3573 -65.5879 0.0036 -65.6013 -65.5725 10000
23.3573 -65.5916 0.0034 -65.6097 -65.5766 10000
24.3150 -66.5414 0.0035 -66.5586 -66.5267 10000
24.3150 -66.5446 0.0035 -66.5606 -66.5314 10000
25.2767 -67.4998 0.0034 -67.5131 -67.4826 10000
25.2767 -67.5012 0.0034 -67.5153 -67.4890 10000
26.2413 -68.4588 0.0034 -68.4729 -68.4441 10000
26.2413 -68.4632 0.0034 -68.4760 -68.4494 10000
27.2060 -69.4222 0.0035 -69.4342 -69.4091 10000
27.2060 -69.4240 0.0035 -69.4386 -69.4108 10000
28.1698 -70.3810 0.0037 -70.3952 -70.3643 10000
28.1698 -70.3829 0.0035 -70.3971 -70.3674 10000
29.1384 -71.3443 0.0037 -71.3602 -71.3288 10000
29.1384 -71.3468 0.0038 -71.3627 -71.3319 10000
30.1055 -72.3041 0.0045 -72.3227 -72.2874 10000
30.1055 -72.3038 0.0053 -72.3205 -72.2855 10000
31.2553 -73.4678 0.0055 -73.4849 -73.4463 10000
31.2553 -73.4691 0.0055 -73.4888 -73.4467 10000
30.1055 -72.3039 0.0045 -72.3190 -72.2897 2000
29.1384 -71.3459 0.0051 -71.3679 -71.3249 2000
28.1698 -70.3880 0.0046 -70.4022 -70.3734 2000
27.2060 -69.4335 0.0046 -69.4502 -69.4183 2000
26.2413 -68.4797 0.0044 -68.4933 -68.4606 2000
25.2767 -67.5223 0.0045 -67.5359 -67.5058 2000
24.3150 -66.5692 0.0046 -66.5836 -66.5545 2000
23.3573 -65.6210 0.0043 -65.6361 -65.6055 2000
22.3988 -64.6708 0.0044 -64.6863 -64.6548 2000
21.4453 -63.7259 0.0043 -63.7408 -63.7093 2000
20.2955 -62.5579 0.0044 -62.5725 -62.5418 2000
19.3284 -61.5994 0.0043 -61.6165 -61.5825 2000
18.3598 -60.6389 0.0044 -60.6522 -60.6246 2000
17.3960 -59.6826 0.0046 -59.6962 -59.6672 2000
16.4313 -58.7266 0.0045 -58.7428 -58.7085 2000
15.4667 -57.7691 0.0042 -57.7877 -57.7393 2000
14.5050 -56.8147 0.0042 -56.8322 -56.7991 2000
13.5473 -55.8646 0.0038 -55.8798 -55.8479 2000
12.5888 -54.9123 0.0036 -54.9270 -54.9014 2000
11.6353 -53.9650 0.0038 -53.9810 -53.9519 2000
10.4855 -52.8216 0.0033 -52.8332 -52.8098 2000
9.5184 -51.8625 0.0036 -51.8764 -51.8516 2000
8.5498 -50.9001 0.0036 -50.9144 -50.8869 2000
7.5860 -49.9411 0.0036 -49.9573 -49.9252 2000
6.6213 -48.9839 0.0035 -48.9989 -48.9691 2000
5.6567 -48.0268 0.0031 -48.0379 -48.0144 2000
4.6950 -47.0690 0.0036 -47.0833 -47.0563 2000
3.7373 -46.1167 0.0046 -46.2025 -46.0153 2000
2.7788 -45.1625 0.0040 -45.1766 -45.1480 2000
1.8253 -44.2111 0.0032 -44.2229 -44.2021 2000
0.0000 -42.3057 0.0044 -42.3187 -42.2900 2000
0.0000 -42.4041 0.0085 -42.4218 -42.3686 2000
171
Run8
Applied force [N] Time between same applied force [h:mm:ss] Drift in applied force [N]
30.1055 0:07:07 -2.0364E-05
29.1384 0:11:37 -0.00037146
28.1698 0:16:03 -0.00604509
27.2060 0:21:20 -0.01035789
26.2413 0:28:21 -0.01865783
25.2767 0:35:37 -0.02179325
24.3150 0:42:35 -0.02620487
23.3573 0:49:30 -0.03128463
22.3988 0:56:26 -0.03880444
21.4453 1:03:17 -0.04831388
20.2955 1:11:08 -0.0532999
19.3284 1:18:07 -0.05692467
18.3598 1:24:57 -0.05442001
17.3960 1:32:19 -0.05188499
16.4313 1:39:14 -0.05249168
15.4667 1:47:05 -0.05721488
14.5050 1:54:40 -0.06575782
13.5473 2:01:37 -0.07718361
12.5888 2:08:37 -0.09581595
11.6353 2:15:36 -0.12697345
10.4855 2:23:24 -0.14142218
9.5184 2:30:29 -0.14304382
8.5498 2:37:07 -0.13912854
7.5860 2:43:53 -0.13443269
6.6213 2:50:49 -0.13339168
5.6567 2:57:39 -0.1304596
4.6950 3:05:54 -0.12242389
172
Run8
Compression Run8
-40
-45 0 10 20 30 40
-50
measured force
-55
-60
-65
y = -0.9974x - 42.292
-70
R2 = 1
-75
-80
applied force
With offset taken out, measured force is 99.74% of applied force.
Compression Run8
-40
0 10 20 30 40
-45
-50
measured force
-55
-60
-65
-70
-75
-80
applied force
A small amount of drift can be detected when load cell is loaded in compression and unloaded.
Compression Run8 Drift
0.00
differemce in measured force
0:00:00
-0.02 0:28:48 0:57:36 1:26:24 1:55:12 2:24:00 2:52:48 3:21:36
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.10
-0.12
-0.14
-0.16
time between same applied force
173
Run9
0.0000 -42.0034 0.0046 -42.0208 -41.9864 10000
0.0000 -42.0102 0.0040 -42.0277 -41.9932 10000
0.0000 -42.0163 0.0039 -42.0331 -42.0006 10000
0.9534 -43.0854 0.0294 -43.1288 -43.0017 10000
0.9534 -43.1181 0.0053 -43.1356 -43.0991 10000
1.9120 -44.2526 0.0201 -44.2826 -44.1876 10000
1.9120 -44.1904 0.0079 -44.2125 -44.1672 10000
2.8696 -45.1110 0.0039 -45.1266 -45.0949 10000
2.8696 -45.1129 0.0041 -45.1269 -45.0948 10000
3.8313 -46.0720 0.0051 -46.1271 -46.0360 10000
3.8313 -46.0871 0.0043 -46.1038 -46.0723 10000
4.7959 -47.0557 0.0047 -47.0739 -47.0389 10000
4.7959 -47.0585 0.0039 -47.0740 -47.0421 10000
5.7606 -48.0184 0.0046 -48.0375 -47.9991 10000
5.7606 -48.0235 0.0036 -48.0385 -48.0093 10000
6.7245 -48.9832 0.0042 -49.0007 -48.9636 10000
6.7245 -48.9883 0.0036 -49.0031 -48.9705 10000
7.6931 -49.9518 0.0034 -49.9672 -49.9354 10000
7.6931 -49.9593 0.0045 -49.9763 -49.9428 10000
8.6601 -50.9203 0.0045 -51.0123 -50.8319 10000
8.6601 -50.9240 0.0039 -50.9398 -50.9092 10000
9.8100 -52.9818 0.0306 -53.0182 -52.8593 8000
9.8100 -52.9229 0.0106 -52.9483 -52.8987 2000
10.7634 -53.7885 0.0221 -53.8353 -53.7375 5000
11.7220 -54.6561 0.0190 -54.6964 -54.6148 5000
12.6796 -55.5372 0.0132 -55.5948 -55.5042 5000
13.6413 -56.4490 0.0090 -56.4728 -56.4239 5000
14.6059 -57.3744 0.0069 -57.3943 -57.3545 5000
15.5706 -58.3114 0.0059 -58.3353 -58.2923 5000
16.5345 -59.2526 0.0049 -59.2689 -59.2375 5000
17.5031 -60.1946 0.0047 -60.2099 -60.1784 5000
18.4701 -61.1438 0.0048 -61.1598 -61.1264 5000
19.6200 -62.4135 0.0389 -62.4816 -62.3264 5000
20.5734 -63.4495 0.0088 -63.5024 -63.4160 5000
21.5320 -64.4094 0.0053 -64.4729 -64.3446 5000
22.4896 -65.3466 0.0055 -65.3645 -65.3149 5000
23.4513 -66.2820 0.0057 -66.3756 -66.2066 5000
24.4159 -67.2238 0.0049 -67.2413 -67.2032 5000
25.3806 -68.1650 0.0046 -68.1853 -68.1496 5000
26.3445 -69.1144 0.0039 -69.1297 -69.1016 5000
27.3131 -70.0609 0.0042 -70.0748 -70.0457 5000
28.2801 -71.0153 0.0039 -71.0301 -70.9993 5000
29.4300 -72.1886 0.0072 -72.2092 -72.1708 5000
28.2801 -71.0779 0.0038 -71.0912 -71.0664 2000
27.3131 -70.1069 0.0039 -70.1220 -70.0933 2000
26.3445 -69.1341 0.0036 -69.1456 -69.1250 2000
25.3806 -68.1688 0.0064 -68.2610 -68.0742 2000
24.4159 -67.2065 0.0036 -67.2206 -67.1926 2000
23.4513 -66.2354 0.0041 -66.2539 -66.2138 2000
22.4896 -65.2735 0.0038 -65.2877 -65.2613 2000
21.5320 -64.3180 0.0035 -64.3299 -64.3076 2000
20.5734 -63.3625 0.0064 -63.4392 -63.2995 2000
19.6200 -62.4090 0.0036 -62.4226 -62.3966 2000
18.4701 -61.2339 0.0045 -61.2749 -61.1951 2000
174
17.5031 -60.2613 0.0041 -60.2744 -60.2458 2000

16.5345 -59.2919 0.0038 -59.3064 -59.2800 2000
15.5706 -58.3282 0.0038 -58.3444 -58.3147 2000
14.6059 -57.3624 0.0038 -57.3761 -57.3464 2000
13.6413 -56.3962 0.0038 -56.4094 -56.3838 2000
12.6796 -55.4317 0.0036 -55.4448 -55.4198 2000
11.7220 -54.4748 0.0036 -54.4862 -54.4616 2000
10.7634 -53.5154 0.0037 -53.5273 -53.5039 2000
9.8100 -52.5583 0.0038 -52.5709 -52.5476 2000
8.6601 -51.3408 0.0084 -51.3636 -51.3153 2000
7.6931 -50.3421 0.0061 -50.3572 -50.3219 2000
6.7245 -49.3549 0.0056 -49.3704 -49.3370 2000
5.7606 -48.3771 0.0054 -48.3979 -48.3568 2000
4.7959 -47.3985 0.0043 -47.4120 -47.3839 2000
3.8313 -46.4252 0.0042 -46.4377 -46.4126 2000
2.8696 -45.4579 0.0042 -45.4712 -45.4441 2000
1.9120 -44.4787 0.0041 -44.4938 -44.4660 2000
0.9534 -43.4919 0.0065 -43.5114 -43.4736 2000
0.0000 -42.5103 0.0079 -42.5319 -42.4906 2000
0.0000 -42.4750 0.0053 -42.4897 -42.4593 2000
0.0000 -42.4415 0.0048 -42.4552 -42.4277 2000
Run9
28.2801 0:05:49 0.5240
27.3131 0:10:19 0.4311
26.3445 0:14:31 0.4535
25.3806 0:18:15 0.4708
24.4159 0:21:08 0.4878
23.4513 0:26:03 0.5175
22.4896 0:28:50 0.5408
21.5320 0:32:06 0.5600
20.5734 0:34:33 0.5669
19.6200 0:37:13 0.5225
18.4701 0:41:00 0.5447
17.5031 0:44:54 0.4078
16.5345 0:47:50 0.4316
15.5706 0:50:47 0.4537
14.6059 0:53:17 0.4805
13.6413 0:55:53 0.5155
12.6796 0:58:33 0.5615
11.7220 1:01:03 0.6218
10.7634 1:03:33 0.7068
9.8100 1:07:32 0.3940
8.6601 1:14:53 -0.4187
7.6931 1:24:10 -0.3866
6.7245 1:35:24 -0.3691
5.7606 1:46:19 -0.3561
4.7959 1:56:47 -0.3414
3.8313 2:09:55 -0.3456
2.8696 2:18:04 -0.3459
1.9120 2:31:04 -0.2571
0.9534 2:46:08 -0.3902
0.0000 3:07:06 -0.4657
175
Run9
Compression Run9
-40
0 10 20 30 40
-45
measured force
-50
-55
-60
-65
y = -1.0209x - 42.344
-70 R2 = 0.9995
-75
applied force
Compression Run9
-40
0 10 20 30 40
-45
-50
measured force
-55
-60
-65
-70
-75
applied force
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0:00:00 0:28:48 0:57:36 1:26:24 1:55:12 2:24:00 2:52:48 3:21:36
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
176
Run10
0.0000 -42.3693 0.0065 -42.3851 -42.3476 2000
0.0000 -42.3631 0.0058 -42.3781 -42.3368 2000
0.9534 -43.4006 0.0051 -43.4172 -43.3773 2000
1.9120 -44.4628 0.0088 -44.4819 -44.4347 2000
2.8696 -45.3698 0.0082 -45.3861 -45.3426 2000
3.8313 -46.3111 0.0105 -46.3287 -46.2805 2000
4.7959 -47.2512 0.0102 -47.2715 -47.2190 2000
5.7606 -48.2017 0.0098 -48.2270 -48.1707 2000
6.7245 -49.1522 0.0082 -49.1726 -49.1226 2000
7.6931 -50.1089 0.0111 -50.1298 -50.0745 2000
8.6601 -51.0650 0.0120 -51.1407 -50.9840 2000
9.8100 -52.7574 0.0075 -52.7802 -52.7374 2000
10.7634 -53.5905 0.0082 -53.6155 -53.5605 2000
11.7220 -54.4815 0.0061 -54.4988 -54.4614 2000
12.6796 -55.3973 0.0069 -55.4110 -55.3690 2000
13.6413 -56.3313 0.0072 -56.3515 -56.3016 2000
14.6059 -57.2743 0.0083 -57.3032 -57.2391 2000
15.5706 -58.2228 0.0088 -58.3561 -58.1225 2000
16.5345 -59.1716 0.0074 -59.1884 -59.1392 2000
17.5031 -60.1260 0.0065 -60.1430 -60.1003 2000
18.4701 -61.0779 0.0074 -61.1453 -61.0080 2000
19.6200 -62.3647 0.0089 -62.3868 -62.3313 2000
20.5734 -63.3298 0.0108 -63.3539 -63.2920 2000
21.5320 -64.2322 0.0090 -64.2635 -64.1984 2000
22.4896 -65.1718 0.0098 -65.1915 -65.1285 2000
23.4513 -66.1103 0.0101 -66.1338 -66.0711 2000
24.4159 -67.0611 0.0098 -67.1329 -67.0131 2000
25.3806 -68.0094 0.0112 -68.0342 -67.9652 2000
26.3445 -68.9693 0.0078 -68.9946 -68.9380 2000
27.3131 -69.9191 0.0119 -69.9625 -69.8645 2000
28.2801 -70.8757 0.0109 -70.8968 -70.8363 2000
29.4300 -72.0744 0.0092 -72.0958 -72.0343 2000
29.4300 -72.0431 0.0082 -72.0618 -72.0116 2995
29.4300 -72.0438 0.0071 -72.0643 -72.0139 3000
28.2801 -70.8645 0.0098 -70.8848 -70.8265 3000
27.3131 -69.9059 0.0057 -69.9339 -69.8745 3000
26.3445 -68.9378 0.0070 -68.9546 -68.9133 3000
25.3806 -67.9704 0.0070 -67.9867 -67.9364 3000
24.4159 -67.0080 0.0130 -67.1981 -66.8531 3000
23.4513 -66.0390 0.0110 -66.0583 -65.9890 3000
22.4896 -65.0822 0.0081 -65.1030 -65.0437 3000
21.5320 -64.1264 0.0090 -64.1501 -64.0906 3000
20.5734 -63.1697 0.0076 -63.1919 -63.1399 3000
19.6200 -62.2185 0.0084 -62.2389 -62.1815 3000
18.4701 -61.0321 0.0120 -61.0572 -60.9733 3000
17.5031 -60.0622 0.0086 -60.0816 -60.0240 3000
16.5345 -59.0863 0.0076 -59.1022 -59.0537 3000
15.5706 -58.1170 0.0136 -58.1441 -58.0685 3000
14.6059 -57.1463 0.0101 -57.1720 -57.1092 3000
13.6413 -56.1769 0.0098 -56.1974 -56.1471 3000
12.6796 -55.2167 0.0079 -55.2325 -55.1735 3000
11.7220 -54.2547 0.0092 -54.2798 -54.2139 3000
10.7634 -53.2978 0.0080 -53.3123 -53.2607 3000
9.8100 -52.3434 0.0064 -52.3867 -52.2960 3000
177
8.6601 -51.0778 0.0161 -51.1063 -51.0321 3000

7.6931 -50.0562 0.0133 -50.0802 -50.0128 3000
6.7245 -49.0791 0.0112 -49.1053 -49.0402 3000
5.7606 -48.1091 0.0134 -48.1338 -48.0701 3000
4.7959 -47.1404 0.0136 -47.1644 -47.0889 3000
3.8313 -46.1703 0.0124 -46.1949 -46.1322 3000
2.8696 -45.2019 0.0111 -45.2335 -45.1691 3000
1.9120 -44.2433 0.0129 -44.2709 -44.2003 3000
0.9534 -43.2541 0.0108 -43.2759 -43.2131 3000
0.0000 -42.2667 0.0099 -42.2875 -42.2300 3000
0.0000 -42.2553 0.0074 -42.2780 -42.2243 3000
0.0000 -42.2600 0.0070 -42.2807 -42.2324 3000
0.0000 -42.2571 0.0080 -42.2797 -42.2127 6000
Run10
29.4300 0:49:05 0.0310
28.2801 0:57:51 0.0112
27.3131 1:05:57 0.0132
26.3445 1:13:05 0.0316
25.3806 1:22:44 0.0390
24.4159 1:31:32 0.0531
23.4513 1:41:15 0.0713
22.4896 1:51:20 0.0897
21.5320 1:57:33 0.1058
20.5734 2:12:33 0.1601
19.6200 2:11:04 0.1462
18.4701 2:28:02 0.0457
17.5031 2:36:23 0.0638
16.5345 2:47:14 0.0853
15.5706 2:56:53 0.1058
14.6059 3:07:29 0.1281
13.6413 3:18:27 0.1544
12.6796 3:27:56 0.1806
11.7220 3:37:29 0.2268
10.7634 3:46:59 0.2927
9.8100 3:56:49 0.4140
8.6601 4:06:50 -0.0128
7.6931 4:21:24 0.0527
6.7245 4:31:44 0.0731
5.7606 4:41:42 0.0926
4.7959 4:51:52 0.1108
3.8313 5:01:28 0.1408
2.8696 5:11:23 0.1679
1.9120 5:20:53 0.2196
0.9534 5:30:30 0.1465
0.0000 5:52:00 0.1064
From 3 compression runs, the average measured vs applied force gradient is 1.0096
Correction factor to measured compressive force 0.9905
178
Run10
Compression Run10
-40
0 10 20 30 40
-45
measured force
-50
-55
-60
-65
y = -1.0105x - 42.391
-70 R2 = 0.9999
-75
applied force
Compression Run10
-40
0 10 20 30 40
-45
-50
measured force
-55
-60
-65
-70
-75
applied force
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
0:00:00 1:12:00 2:24:00 3:36:00 4:48:00 6:00:00 7:12:00
179
TENSILE loadings / unloadings in z direction

Run6
0.3097 -40.8720 0.0042 -40.8864 -40.8577 7500
0.3097 -40.8586 0.0056 -40.8764 -40.8435 7500
0.3097 -40.8437 0.0053 -40.8600 -40.8267 7500
0.5455 -40.6139 0.0040 -40.6287 -40.5966 7500
0.5455 -40.6035 0.0054 -40.6216 -40.5837 7500
0.5455 -40.5899 0.0053 -40.6075 -40.5717 7500
1.0512 -40.0988 0.0035 -40.1117 -40.0863 7500
1.0512 -40.0905 0.0043 -40.1075 -40.0769 7500
1.0512 -40.0803 0.0042 -40.0937 -40.0643 7500
1.5477 -39.6019 0.0065 -39.6202 -39.5828 7500
1.5477 -39.5860 0.0051 -39.6030 -39.5674 7500
1.5477 -39.5749 0.0046 -39.5927 -39.5596 7500
1.8253 -39.5493 0.0079 -39.5694 -39.5253 7500
1.8253 -39.5135 0.0120 -39.5429 -39.4819 7500
1.8253 -39.4790 0.0099 -39.5078 -39.4461 7500
3.5900 -37.5149 0.0109 -37.5434 -37.4736 7500
3.5900 -37.4807 0.0099 -37.5098 -37.4549 7500
3.5900 -37.4538 0.0078 -37.4772 -37.4310 7500
5.5019 -35.5330 0.0070 -35.5542 -35.5123 7500
5.5019 -35.5140 0.0058 -35.5325 -35.4965 7500
5.5019 -35.4975 0.0055 -35.5151 -35.4799 7500
7.4213 -33.5761 0.0055 -33.5969 -33.5582 7500
7.4213 -33.5618 0.0047 -33.5768 -33.5439 7500
7.4213 -33.5496 0.0047 -33.5637 -33.5329 7500
9.3506 -31.6125 0.0050 -31.6293 -31.5961 7500
9.3506 -31.6023 0.0043 -31.6199 -31.5880 7500
9.3506 -31.5930 0.0042 -31.6084 -31.5787 7500
11.2830 -29.6681 0.0049 -29.7341 -29.6216 7500
11.2830 -29.6589 0.0039 -29.6719 -29.6439 7500
11.2830 -29.6513 0.0038 -29.6642 -29.6382 7500
13.4000 -27.5518 0.0044 -27.6013 -27.4916 7500
13.4000 -27.5449 0.0037 -27.5595 -27.5324 7500
13.4000 -27.5385 0.0036 -27.5525 -27.5233 7500
15.3119 -25.6372 0.0041 -25.6520 -25.6195 7500
15.3119 -25.6322 0.0036 -25.6445 -25.6196 7500
15.3119 -25.6267 0.0038 -25.6419 -25.6135 7500
17.2313 -23.7189 0.0039 -23.7334 -23.7026 7500
17.2313 -23.7127 0.0036 -23.7245 -23.6971 7500
17.2313 -23.7087 0.0037 -23.7206 -23.6949 7500
19.1606 -21.7904 0.0036 -21.8166 -21.7691 7500
19.1606 -21.7870 0.0035 -21.8002 -21.7733 7500
19.1606 -21.7833 0.0036 -21.7990 -21.7560 7500
21.0930 -19.8661 0.0037 -19.8796 -19.8515 7500
21.0930 -19.8633 0.0035 -19.8753 -19.8490 7500
21.0930 -19.8608 0.0035 -19.8745 -19.8465 7500
23.2100 -17.7359 0.0041 -17.7560 -17.7139 7500
23.2100 -17.7313 0.0039 -17.7452 -17.7174 7500
23.2100 -17.7292 0.0038 -17.7432 -17.7157 7500
25.1219 -15.8325 0.0042 -15.8591 -15.8007 7500
25.1219 -15.8290 0.0042 -15.8455 -15.8129 7500
25.1219 -15.8276 0.0040 -15.8438 -15.8149 7500
27.0413 -13.9222 0.0042 -13.9421 -13.8948 7500
27.0413 -13.9199 0.0041 -13.9371 -13.9054 7500
180
27.0413 -13.9186 0.0039 -13.9348 -13.9040 7500

28.9706 -12.0067 0.0044 -12.0794 -11.9634 7500
28.9706 -12.0052 0.0040 -12.0201 -11.9907 7500
28.9706 -12.0036 0.0040 -12.0189 -11.9890 7500
30.9030 -10.0883 0.0043 -10.1432 -10.0499 7500
30.9030 -10.0860 0.0041 -10.1019 -10.0706 7500
30.9030 -10.0847 0.0040 -10.0983 -10.0692 7500
33.0200 -7.9579 0.0043 -7.9862 -7.9327 7500
33.0200 -7.9567 0.0043 -7.9733 -7.9419 7500
33.0200 -7.9551 0.0043 -7.9908 -7.9126 7500
30.9030 -10.0794 0.0041 -10.0974 -10.0636 4500
30.9030 -10.0780 0.0042 -10.0932 -10.0587 4500
30.9030 -10.0775 0.0042 -10.0943 -10.0636 4500
28.9706 -11.9908 0.0040 -12.0086 -11.9771 4500
28.9706 -11.9912 0.0042 -12.0061 -11.9775 4500
28.9706 -11.9927 0.0041 -12.0077 -11.9766 4500
27.0413 -13.9037 0.0040 -13.9208 -13.8885 4500
27.0413 -13.9052 0.0041 -13.9370 -13.8846 4500
27.0413 -13.9061 0.0040 -13.9312 -13.8896 4500
25.1219 -15.8078 0.0040 -15.8225 -15.7923 4500
25.1219 -15.8088 0.0039 -15.8212 -15.7943 4500
25.1219 -15.8106 0.0039 -15.8278 -15.7956 4500
23.2100 -17.7074 0.0067 -17.9125 -17.5451 4500
23.2100 -17.7084 0.0035 -17.7228 -17.6950 4500
23.2100 -17.7095 0.0038 -17.7230 -17.6969 4500
21.0930 -19.8349 0.0035 -19.8506 -19.8213 4500
21.0930 -19.8363 0.0035 -19.8484 -19.8245 4500
21.0930 -19.8368 0.0034 -19.8512 -19.8238 4500
19.1606 -21.7520 0.0033 -21.7630 -21.7394 4500
19.1606 -21.7536 0.0033 -21.7653 -21.7411 4500
19.1606 -21.7546 0.0034 -21.7689 -21.7415 4500
17.2313 -23.6679 0.0037 -23.6905 -23.6453 4500
17.2313 -23.6698 0.0033 -23.6826 -23.6584 4500
17.2313 -23.6716 0.0034 -23.6949 -23.6548 4500
15.3119 -25.5742 0.0033 -25.5858 -25.5625 4500
15.3119 -25.5758 0.0033 -25.5883 -25.5631 4500
15.3119 -25.5778 0.0033 -25.5878 -25.5652 4500
13.4000 -27.4740 0.0034 -27.4902 -27.4597 4500
13.4000 -27.4756 0.0033 -27.4888 -27.4642 4500
13.4000 -27.4773 0.0032 -27.4888 -27.4650 4500
11.2830 -29.5708 0.0031 -29.5828 -29.5599 4500
11.2830 -29.5716 0.0031 -29.5847 -29.5613 4500
11.2830 -29.5720 0.0031 -29.5836 -29.5608 4500
9.3506 -31.4865 0.0031 -31.4977 -31.4735 4500
9.3506 -31.4877 0.0031 -31.4969 -31.4768 4500
9.3506 -31.4899 0.0031 -31.5024 -31.4774 4500
7.4213 -33.4024 0.0032 -33.4151 -33.3905 4500
7.4213 -33.4047 0.0030 -33.4160 -33.3934 4500
7.4213 -33.4060 0.0030 -33.4157 -33.3942 4500
5.5019 -35.3105 0.0032 -35.3207 -35.2975 4500
5.5019 -35.3115 0.0031 -35.3235 -35.2999 4500
5.5019 -35.3134 0.0032 -35.3253 -35.3021 4500
3.5900 -37.2101 0.0033 -37.2227 -37.1956 4500
3.5900 -37.2124 0.0031 -37.2228 -37.1990 4500
3.5900 -37.2140 0.0031 -37.2256 -37.2028 4500
1.8253 -39.2538 0.0034 -39.2694 -39.2405 4500
181
1.8253 -39.2540 0.0032 -39.2659 -39.2424 4500

1.8253 -39.2529 0.0032 -39.2676 -39.2423 4500
1.5477 -39.5872 0.0036 -39.6017 -39.5731 4500
1.5477 -39.5868 0.0032 -39.5976 -39.5748 4500
1.5477 -39.5859 0.0034 -39.5998 -39.5746 4500
1.0512 -40.1430 0.0051 -40.1573 -40.1242 4500
1.0512 -40.1492 0.0032 -40.1622 -40.1371 4500
1.0512 -40.1484 0.0032 -40.1612 -40.1367 4500
0.5455 -40.6672 0.0033 -40.6779 -40.6546 4500
0.5455 -40.6623 0.0037 -40.6764 -40.6481 4500
0.5455 -40.6539 0.0043 -40.6676 -40.6418 4500
0.3097 -40.8928 0.0054 -40.9129 -40.8787 4500
0.3097 -40.8806 0.0047 -40.8939 -40.8658 4500
0.3097 -40.8717 0.0035 -40.8843 -40.8591 4500
Run6
30.9030 0:13:26 0.0080
28.9706 0:24:00 0.0136
27.0413 0:34:55 0.0152
25.1219 0:46:07 0.0206
23.2100 0:56:25 0.0237
21.0930 1:07:33 0.0274
19.1606 1:18:08 0.0335
17.2313 1:29:15 0.0436
15.3119 1:39:45 0.0561
13.4000 1:50:04 0.0694
11.2830 2:01:16 0.0880
9.3506 2:11:53 0.1146
7.4213 2:24:28 0.1581
5.5019 2:35:27 0.2030
3.5900 2:46:00 0.2709
1.8253 3:05:49 0.2603
1.5477 3:18:31 0.0010
1.0512 3:30:35 -0.0570
0.5455 3:42:21 -0.0587
0.3097 3:54:32 -0.0236
182
Run6
Tension Run6
0
0 10 20 30 40
-10
y = 1.0055x - 41.067
measured force
R2 = 0.9999
-20
-30
-40
-50
applied force
With offset taken out, the measured force is 100.55% of the applied force.
Tension Run6
0
0 10 20 30 40
-10
measured force
-20
-30
-40
-50
applied force
A small amount of drift can be detected when load cell is loaded in tension and unloaded.
Tension Run6 Drift
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0:00:00
-0.05 0:28:48 0:57:36 1:26:24 1:55:12 2:24:00 2:52:48 3:21:36 3:50:24 4:19:12
-0.10
183
Run7
0.3097 -41.1373 0.0080 -41.1602 -41.1042 7500
0.3097 -41.1502 0.0067 -41.1722 -41.1221 7500
0.3097 -41.1581 0.0063 -41.1824 -41.1329 7500
0.5455 -40.9939 0.0071 -41.0183 -40.9586 7500
0.5455 -40.9804 0.0071 -40.9989 -40.9486 7500
0.5455 -40.9721 0.0069 -40.9938 -40.9402 7500
1.0512 -40.4893 0.0053 -40.5049 -40.4611 7500
1.0512 -40.4783 0.0064 -40.4977 -40.4510 7500
1.0512 -40.4730 0.0060 -40.4915 -40.4434 7500
1.5477 -39.9723 0.0063 -39.9917 -39.9443 7500
1.5477 -39.9638 0.0061 -39.9874 -39.9381 7500
1.5477 -39.9618 0.0053 -39.9776 -39.9381 7500
1.8253 -39.9233 0.0194 -39.9663 -39.8794 7500
1.8253 -39.8643 0.0153 -39.9003 -39.8299 7500
1.8253 -39.8180 0.0122 -39.8484 -39.7863 7500
1.8253 -39.7738 0.0096 -39.7995 -39.7410 7500
1.8253 -39.7483 0.0072 -39.7684 -39.7247 7500
1.8253 -39.7251 0.0078 -39.7461 -39.7000 7500
3.5900 -37.7176 0.0131 -37.7469 -37.6704 7500
3.5900 -37.6885 0.0088 -37.7135 -37.6576 7500
3.5900 -37.6657 0.0083 -37.6873 -37.6303 7500
3.5900 -37.6243 0.0056 -37.6466 -37.6024 7500
3.5900 -37.6127 0.0052 -37.6480 -37.5894 7500
3.5900 -37.6016 0.0049 -37.6196 -37.5832 7500
5.5019 -35.6857 0.0048 -35.7025 -35.6677 7500
5.5019 -35.6749 0.0059 -35.7067 -35.6124 7500
5.5019 -35.6675 0.0065 -35.7001 -35.6217 7500
7.4213 -33.7530 0.0056 -33.7722 -33.7282 7500
7.4213 -33.7470 0.0049 -33.7759 -33.7139 7500
7.4213 -33.7377 0.0065 -33.7558 -33.6995 7500
9.3506 -31.8138 0.0064 -31.8333 -31.7764 7500
9.3506 -31.8087 0.0055 -31.8258 -31.7832 7500
9.3506 -31.8038 0.0063 -31.8319 -31.7679 7500
11.2830 -29.8803 0.0061 -29.9025 -29.8520 7500
11.2830 -29.8748 0.0059 -29.8926 -29.8441 7500
11.2830 -29.8713 0.0052 -29.8889 -29.8528 7500
13.4000 -27.7713 0.0063 -27.8659 -27.6900 7500
13.4000 -27.7675 0.0053 -27.7858 -27.7436 7500
13.4000 -27.7650 0.0052 -27.7837 -27.7443 7500
15.3119 -25.8458 0.0071 -25.8718 -25.8207 7500
15.3119 -25.8431 0.0072 -25.8648 -25.8167 7500
15.3119 -25.8405 0.0069 -25.8629 -25.8124 7500
17.2313 -23.9286 0.0070 -23.9517 -23.9001 7500
17.2313 -23.9282 0.0059 -23.9504 -23.9077 7500
17.2313 -23.9294 0.0058 -23.9490 -23.9059 7500
19.1606 -22.0132 0.0062 -22.0338 -21.9829 7500
19.1606 -22.0127 0.0060 -22.0346 -21.9782 7500
19.1606 -22.0130 0.0059 -22.0330 -21.9846 7500
23.2100 -17.9719 0.0060 -18.0044 -17.9465 7500
23.2100 -17.9711 0.0064 -17.9983 -17.9439 7500
23.2100 -17.9697 0.0061 -17.9924 -17.9461 7500
27.0413 -14.1706 0.0057 -14.1961 -14.1458 7500
27.0413 -14.1682 0.0054 -14.1865 -14.1465 7500
27.0413 -14.1668 0.0057 -14.1933 -14.1354 7500
184
33.0200 -8.2120 0.0066 -8.2878 -8.0931 7500

33.0200 -8.2086 0.0060 -8.2357 -8.1843 7500
33.0200 -8.2053 0.0076 -8.2301 -8.1598 7500
0.0000 -43.0020 0.0072 -43.0271 -42.9742 7500
0.0000 -43.0210 0.0085 -43.0441 -42.9820 7500
0.0000 -43.0386 0.0082 -43.0645 -43.0088 7500
0.0000 -43.0531 0.0081 -43.0744 -43.0123 7500
0.0000 -43.0582 0.0064 -43.0798 -43.0274 7500
0.0000 -43.0659 0.0065 -43.0865 -43.0327 7500
0.0000 -43.1610 0.0057 -43.1798 -43.1331 7500
0.0000 -43.1647 0.0071 -43.1868 -43.1303 7500
0.0000 -43.1655 0.0066 -43.1849 -43.1344 7500
0.0000 -43.1697 0.0067 -43.1900 -43.1425 7500
0.0000 -43.1699 0.0064 -43.1911 -43.1453 7500
0.0000 -43.1705 0.0064 -43.1913 -43.1379 7500
33.0200 -8.6033 0.0214 -8.6838 -8.5489 7500
33.0200 -8.5439 0.0164 -8.6431 -8.4735 7500
33.0200 -8.5008 0.0132 -8.5415 -8.4513 7500
28.9706 -12.4953 0.0094 -12.5719 -12.4205 7500
28.9706 -12.4755 0.0082 -12.5025 -12.4449 7500
28.9706 -12.4581 0.0072 -12.5129 -12.4076 7500
23.2100 -18.1469 0.0068 -18.1690 -18.1196 7500
23.2100 -18.1362 0.0064 -18.1593 -18.1071 7500
23.2100 -18.1274 0.0074 -18.1492 -18.0891 7500
19.1606 -22.1553 0.0052 -22.1737 -22.1356 7500
19.1606 -22.1477 0.0052 -22.1650 -22.1235 7500
19.1606 -22.1394 0.0061 -22.1586 -22.1077 7500
17.2313 -24.0436 0.0057 -24.0621 -24.0180 7500
17.2313 -24.0400 0.0059 -24.0595 -24.0141 7500
17.2313 -24.0353 0.0068 -24.1113 -23.9399 7500
15.3119 -25.9346 0.0063 -26.0450 -25.8413 7500
15.3119 -25.9320 0.0050 -25.9494 -25.9123 7500
15.3119 -25.9283 0.0089 -26.1788 -25.7464 7500
13.4000 -27.8223 0.0054 -27.9050 -27.7346 7500
13.4000 -27.8206 0.0055 -27.9158 -27.7275 7500
13.4000 -27.8201 0.0044 -27.8483 -27.7808 7500
11.2830 -29.9113 0.0058 -29.9292 -29.8754 7500
11.2830 -29.9091 0.0054 -29.9248 -29.8783 7500
11.2830 -29.9089 0.0065 -29.9256 -29.8622 7500
9.3506 -31.8249 0.0048 -31.8424 -31.7999 7500
9.3506 -31.8253 0.0049 -31.8441 -31.7883 7500
9.3506 -31.8265 0.0056 -31.8436 -31.7743 7500
7.4213 -33.7418 0.0044 -33.7709 -33.7113 7500
7.4213 -33.7422 0.0039 -33.7539 -33.7185 7500
7.4213 -33.7404 0.0059 -33.7574 -33.7129 7500
5.5019 -35.6342 0.0042 -35.6485 -35.6201 7500
5.5019 -35.6226 0.0050 -35.6376 -35.6031 7500
5.5019 -35.6106 0.0053 -35.6284 -35.5910 7500
3.5900 -37.4895 0.0047 -37.5052 -37.4737 7500
3.5900 -37.4783 0.0050 -37.4952 -37.4614 7500
3.5900 -37.4671 0.0048 -37.4838 -37.4512 7500
1.8253 -39.3953 0.0072 -39.4180 -39.3763 7500
1.8253 -39.3749 0.0064 -39.3933 -39.3552 7500
1.8253 -39.3591 0.0052 -39.3767 -39.3432 7500
1.5477 -39.7648 0.0061 -39.7871 -39.7468 7500
1.5477 -39.7508 0.0053 -39.7707 -39.7321 7500
185
1.5477 -39.7413 0.0049 -39.7613 -39.7143 7500

1.0512 -40.3099 0.0052 -40.3309 -40.2913 7500
1.0512 -40.2963 0.0075 -40.3256 -40.2735 7500
1.0512 -40.2784 0.0064 -40.3005 -40.2566 7500
0.5455 -40.8096 0.0065 -40.8289 -40.7830 7500
0.5455 -40.7855 0.0084 -40.8106 -40.7595 7500
0.5455 -40.7624 0.0071 -40.7846 -40.7419 7500
0.3097 -41.0133 0.0097 -41.0395 -40.9865 7500
0.3097 -40.9893 0.0069 -41.0131 -40.9673 7500
0.3097 -40.9726 0.0060 -40.9937 -40.9527 7500
Run7
33.0200 2:30:43 -0.3407
28.9706 2:44:36 1.6923
23.2100 2:57:50 -0.1659
19.1606 3:05:57 -0.1345
17.2313 3:28:16 -0.1109
15.3119 3:46:01 -0.0885
13.4000 4:10:42 -0.0531
11.2830 4:25:51 -0.0343
9.3506 4:39:58 -0.0168
7.4213 4:53:56 0.0044
5.5019 5:09:28 0.0535
3.5900 5:23:23 0.1346
3.5900 5:32:35 0.2123
1.8253 5:56:34 0.3726
1.8253 6:03:11 0.4921
1.5477 6:18:45 0.2137
1.0512 6:34:29 0.1854
0.5455 6:49:16 0.1963
0.3097 7:05:06 0.1568
From 2 tension runs, the average measured vs applied force gradient is 1.0129
Correction factor to measured tensile force 0.9873
186
Run7
Tension Run7
0
0 10 20 30 40
-10
y = 1.0203x - 41.666
measured force
R2 = 0.9972
-20
-30
-40
-50
applied force
With offset taken out, the measured force is 102.03% of the applied force.
Tension Run7
0
0 10 20 30 40
-10
measured force
-20
-30
-40
-50
applied force
A small amount of drift can be detected when load cell is loaded in tension and unloaded.
Tension Run7 Drift
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0:00:00 1:12:00 2:24:00 3:36:00 4:48:00 6:00:00 7:12:00 8:24:00
-0.50
187
Drag loadings in x direction

Run10
0.0000 3.1294 0.0029 3.1400 3.1184 7500
0.0000 3.1242 0.0028 3.1368 3.1142 7500
0.1232 2.6408 0.0032 2.6555 2.6227 7500
1.0766 1.6980 0.0023 1.7113 1.6824 7500
2.0352 0.7543 0.0029 0.7665 0.7417 7500
2.9928 -0.1894 0.0021 -0.1809 -0.1963 7500
3.9545 -1.1399 0.0024 -1.1311 -1.1515 7500
4.9191 -2.0940 0.0029 -2.0842 -2.1092 7500
5.8838 -3.0481 0.0037 -3.0332 -3.0618 7500
6.8477 -4.0012 0.0029 -3.9918 -4.0126 7500
0.0000 3.1043 0.0032 3.1163 3.0930 7500
Drag Run10
4
3
2
measured force
1
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-2 y = -1.029x + 2.9654
-3 R2 = 0.9976
-4
-5
applied force
From 2 drag runs, the average measured vs applied force gradient is 1.0256
Correction factor to measured drag force 0.9750
188
Run 11
0.0000 3.0847 0.0025 3.0971 3.0678 7500
0.1232 2.5924 0.0029 2.6007 2.5799 7500
1.0766 1.6489 0.0025 1.6569 1.6364 7500
2.0352 0.7018 0.0027 0.7215 0.6868 7500
2.9928 -0.2420 0.0020 -0.2365 -0.2564 7500
3.9545 -1.1907 0.0021 -1.1843 -1.2064 7500
4.9191 -2.1401 0.0021 -2.1322 -2.1519 7500
5.8838 -3.0885 0.0019 -3.0779 -3.1103 7500
6.8477 -4.0363 0.0018 -4.0292 -4.0437 7500
0.0000 3.0980 0.0024 3.1064 3.0892 7500
Drag Run11
4
3
2
measured force
1
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-2 y = -1.0222x + 2.8878
-3 R2 = 0.9974
-4
-5
applied force
189
190
191
Appendix L. Drawings of the Model.
Figure L1. Complete center portion of wing.
Figure L2. Lower half of center portion of wing.
192
Figure L3. Upper half of center portion of wing.
Figure L4. Left extension of wing.
193
Figure L5. Right extension of wing.
Figure L6. Internal pivot joints of wing.
194
Figure L7. Location of pressure taps along mid-span of wing.
195
Appendix M. Downstream Pressure Profile.
Downstream Pressure Profile
5 measurement points on Starboard side

x-position various distances fore and aft of model.
y-position 500mm from Wind Tunnel Centre Line (Starboard side, orthogonal right hand rule)
z-position along Wind Tunnel Centre Line
5 measurement points on Port side

x-position various distances fore and aft of model.
y-position 500mm from Wind Tunnel Centre Line (Port side, orthogonal right hand rule)
z-position along Wind Tunnel Centre Line
Tubes' length 600mm

Manometer inclined at 30 deg, 14 tubes, portable
Thermometer simple ambient temperature type
Observations
On the Star Board wall, a clear static pressure drop was not observed. The static pressure rose a little before
decreasing. The raw pressure readings showed a consistent pressure profile with all 5 readings flucuating
together, slightly. However, the start static pressure ahead of the model is higher than the end static pressure
It is expected that greater speed in the wind tunnel has a higher Reynolds number and also causes a thinner
wall boundary layer. In turn, giving a smaller contraction with smaller speed increase and smaller dp/dx. This
was not seen on the Star Board wall of the tunnel.
Comments
Overall, there is still a likely leak of air into the tunnel on the Star Board side, causing air to slow down
(pressure rise).
A way forward is to assume that the boundary layer on both sides sufficiently similar. The dp/dx readings on the
Port Side are taken to represent the dp/dx readings along the centre line and experienced by the model.
196
Starboard side of wind tunnel
Distance from Inverter Freq Delta Static Temperature Static Data Set
Model centre [m] [Hz] Reading [mm] Calculated [degC] Pressure [Pa] Number
-0.12 26.00 -72.5 28.62 -354.2 SB5
-0.06 26.00 -72.0 28.62 -351.8 SB5
0.00 26.00 -72.0 28.62 -351.8 SB5
0.06 26.00 -72.5 28.62 -354.2 SB5
0.12 26.00 -73.0 28.62 -356.7 SB5
-0.12 27.00 -79.0 28.67 -386.0 SB5
-0.06 27.00 -78.5 28.67 -383.5 SB5
0.00 27.00 -78.5 28.67 -383.5 SB5
0.06 27.00 -79.5 28.67 -388.4 SB5
0.12 27.00 -79.5 28.67 -388.4 SB5
-0.12 26.00 -72.5 29.00 -354.2 SB6
-0.06 26.00 -72.0 29.00 -351.7 SB6
0.00 26.00 -72.0 29.00 -351.7 SB6
0.06 26.00 -72.5 29.00 -354.2 SB6
0.12 26.00 -72.8 29.00 -355.4 SB6
-0.12 27.00 -79.5 29.00 -388.4 SB6
-0.06 27.00 -78.5 29.00 -383.5 SB6
0.00 27.00 -78.5 29.00 -383.5 SB6
0.06 27.00 -79.5 29.00 -388.4 SB6
0.12 27.00 -78.8 29.00 -384.7 SB6
dp/dx
Wind Tunnel Star Board side | Data set SB5 | (Flow Direction >>)
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

-345.0
-350.0
Pressure (datum: Atm) [Pa]
-355.0
-360.0
y = -12.215x - 353.74
-365.0 R2 = 0.3214
26.00
-370.0
27.00
-375.0 y = -16.286x - 385.98
R2 = 0.4
-380.0
-385.0
-390.0
-395.0
x [m]
197
Starboard side of wind tunnel
dp/dx
Wind Tunnel Star Board side | Data set SB6 | (Flow Direction >>)
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

-345.0
-350.0
-355.0
-360.0 y = -8.1422x - 353.45
-365.0 R2 = 0.2222
26.00
-370.0
27.00
-375.0 y = 4.0711x - 385.7
R2 = 0.0238
-380.0
-385.0
-390.0
-395.0
x [m]
Port Side of wind tunnel
-0.12 26.00 -71.0 29.18 -346.8 PS6
-0.06 26.00 -71.5 29.18 -349.3 PS6
0.00 26.00 -71.5 29.18 -349.3 PS6
0.06 26.00 -72.0 29.18 -351.7 PS6
0.12 26.00 -72.0 29.18 -351.7 PS6
-0.12 27.00 -77.5 29.17 -378.6 PS6
-0.06 27.00 -77.5 29.17 -378.6 PS6
0.00 27.00 -77.5 29.17 -378.6 PS6
0.06 27.00 -78.0 29.17 -381.0 PS6
0.12 27.00 -78.0 29.17 -381.0 PS6
-0.12 26.00 -71.0 29.25 -346.8 PS7
-0.06 26.00 -71.5 29.25 -349.3 PS7
0.00 26.00 -71.5 29.25 -349.3 PS7
0.06 26.00 -72.0 29.25 -351.7 PS7
0.12 26.00 -72.0 29.25 -351.7 PS7
-0.12 27.00 -77.5 29.29 -378.6 PS7
-0.06 27.00 -77.5 29.29 -378.6 PS7
0.00 27.00 -77.5 29.29 -378.6 PS7
0.06 27.00 -78.0 29.29 -381.0 PS7
0.12 27.00 -78.0 29.29 -381.0 PS7
198
Port Side of wind tunnel
dp/dx
Wind Tunnel Port Side | Data set PS6 | (Flow Direction >>)
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

-345.0
-350.0
-355.0
y = -20.355x - 349.77
-360.0 R2 = 0.8929
26.00
-365.0
27.00
-370.0 y = -12.213x - 379.57
-375.0 R2 = 0.75
-380.0
-385.0
x [m]
dp/dx
Wind Tunnel Port Side | Data set PS7 | (Flow Direction >>)
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

-345.0
-350.0
-355.0 y = -20.354x - 349.77

-360.0 R2 = 0.8929
26.00
-365.0
27.00
-370.0
y = -12.212x - 379.56
-375.0 R2 = 0.75
-380.0
-385.0
x [m]
199
Appendix N. Y-Z Plane Velocity Profile.
Y-Z Plane Velocity Profile
Measurement Positions
Position S-CL
x-position 718mm from start of Wind tunnel Test Section
y-position -39.5mm from Wind Tunnel Centre Line (Starboard side, orthogonal right hand rule)
Position P-CL
y-position 57.5mm from Wind Tunnel Centre Line (Port side, orthogonal right hand rule)
Position S-WT
y-position -220.5mm from Wind Tunnel Centre Line (Starboard side, orthogonal right hand rule)
Position P-WT
y-position 220.5mm from Wind Tunnel Centre Line (Port side, orthogonal right hand rule)
Pitot static tube EMF0093

Tubes' length 1000mm
Thermometer Simple ambient temperature type
200
60
50
Distance from Floor [cm]
40
Position S-CL
Position P-CL
30
Position S-WT
Position P-WT
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
U velocity [m/s]
With constant power input to Wind Tunnel Suction Fan (Invertor Frequency set at 28 Hz), the vertical velocity
profile obtained on the right and left of the tunnel centre line is approximately contant across the middle (4 to 56
cm from the floor). At each position, the variation can be attributed mainly to the tunnel's condition (screen
cleanliness or floor smoothness) and little to changing ambient temperate as readings were taken.
Temperature vs Reynolds Number

Based on Chord 0.175m
29.8
R2 = 0.029
29.6
Temperature [degC]
29.4
Position S-CL
2
R = 0.3493 Position P-CL
29.2
R2 = 0.426 Position S-WT
Position P-WT
29.0
28.8
R2 = 0.048
28.6
208000 209000 210000 211000 212000 213000 214000 215000 216000
Re Number
At each position, Reynolds Number is not affected by temperature in a large way. Therefore variation in
Reynolds number is mainly due to variations in speed in the vertical direction.
201
Velocity vs Re Number
based on chord 0.175m
20.0 R2 = 0.9992
R2 = 0.9966
19.8
Velocity [m/s]
Position S-CL
19.6 R2 = 0.9996
Position P-CL
R2 = 0.9959
Position S-WT
19.4
Position P-WT
19.2
19.0
208000 209000 210000 211000 212000 213000 214000 215000 216000
Re Number
The variation of Reynolds number corresponds very proportionately to variation in wind speed within the position.
The variations are about -2% to +2% of the mean freestream speed. The fact that the curves do not coincide
indicates the speeds depend on ambient temperature. Higher ambient temperatures result in faster speeds for
the same Reynolds Number. Power input to suction fan has to be adjusted downward when temperature rises to
achieve the similar speeds.
Velocity vs Temperature
20.0
19.8
Velocity [m/s]
19.6 Position S-CL

Position P-CL
Position S-WT
19.4
Position P-WT
19.2
19.0
28.7 28.8 28.9 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 29.7 29.8
Temperature [degC]
At each position, changes in ambient temperature also give similar spread in velocities across the tunnel.
Therefore the interpaly between Power input, temperature and achieved speed is not straightforward. Ideally, a
test should be concluded within a reasonably short durations so that the effects of variations in temperature are
minimised.
202
location S-CL
Distance Invertor Freq Pitot Static Temperature Speed Re Number Linear Variation
[cm] from Floor Up [Hz] [mm] [mm] [degC] Calculated [m/s] Region % from Mean
2 28 148.0 189.0 29.2188 18.539 201073
6 28 145.0 190.0 29.2292 19.423 210644 yes -0.70%
10 28 145.0 189.0 29.2396 19.206 208281 yes -1.81%
14 28 144.5 189.5 29.2429 19.424 210631 yes -0.70%
18 28 144.0 189.5 29.2286 19.531 211811 yes -0.15%
22 28 144.0 189.5 29.2214 19.530 211818 yes -0.16%
24 28 143.0 189.5 29.3929 19.749 213969 yes 0.96%
28 28 144.0 190.0 29.3857 19.643 212823 yes 0.42%
32 28 144.0 190.0 29.3714 19.642 212836 yes 0.42%
36 28 144.0 189.5 29.3643 19.535 211683 yes -0.13%
40 28 144.0 189.0 29.3571 19.427 210524 yes -0.68%
44 28 143.5 189.5 29.3571 19.642 212850 yes 0.41%
48 28 143.5 189.0 29.3571 19.535 211690 yes -0.13%
52 28 143.0 189.0 29.3571 19.642 212850 yes 0.41%
48 28 144.0 190.0 29.5256 19.647 212690 yes 0.44%
52 28 144.0 190.5 29.5128 19.753 213855 yes 0.98%
56 28 144.0 190.0 29.5000 19.646 212714 yes 0.44%
location P-CL
[cm] from Floor Up [Hz] [mm] [mm] [degC] Calculated [m/s] Region % from mean
56 28 143.0 190.0 28.8133 19.837 215674 yes 1.78%
52 28 144.0 190.0 28.8267 19.625 213355 yes 0.70%
48 28 144.0 189.5 28.8400 19.519 212179 yes 0.15%
44 28 144.0 191.0 28.8667 19.839 215623 yes 1.79%
40 28 144.5 190.5 28.8667 19.627 213317 yes 0.70%
36 28 144.5 189.5 28.9048 19.413 210949 yes -0.39%
32 28 145.0 191.0 28.8810 19.627 213303 yes 0.71%
28 28 144.0 190.5 28.8810 19.733 214459 yes 1.25%
24 28 145.0 190.0 28.8952 19.413 210958 yes -0.39%
20 28 145.0 190.5 28.8952 19.520 212127 yes 0.16%
16 28 145.5 190.0 28.9143 19.305 209765 yes -0.94%
12 28 145.5 189.5 28.7857 19.193 208703 yes -1.52%
8 28 145.5 190.0 28.8000 19.302 209872 yes -0.96%
4 28 146.0 190.0 28.8143 19.194 208677 yes -1.52%
2 28 146.0 190.0 28.8286 19.194 208663 yes -1.52%
1 28 151.0 190.0 28.8429 18.071 196437
203
location S Wing Tip

4 28 144.0 191.0 29.6923 19.865 214830 yes 0.62%
8 28 144.5 190.5 29.6923 19.652 212532 yes -0.46%
12 28 145.0 191.0 29.6923 19.652 212532 yes -0.46%
16 28 144.0 191.0 29.6978 19.865 214824 yes 0.62%
20 28 144.5 191.0 29.7033 19.759 213673 yes 0.08%
24 28 144.5 190.5 29.7088 19.653 212516 yes -0.45%
28 28 144.0 191.0 29.7143 19.865 214808 yes 0.62%
56 28 144.0 190.0 29.5333 19.647 212683 yes -0.48%
52 28 144.0 190.5 29.5881 19.755 213783 yes 0.07%
48 28 144.0 191.0 29.6429 19.863 214877 yes 0.61%
44 28 144.0 190.0 29.6552 19.651 212567 yes -0.46%
40 28 144.0 190.0 29.6676 19.651 212555 yes -0.46%
36 28 144.0 191.0 29.6799 19.864 214841 yes 0.62%
32 28 144.0 190.0 29.6799 19.652 212544 yes -0.46%
location P Wing Tip

32 28 145.5 191.0 29.5000 19.539 211555 yes 0.01%
36 28 146.0 191.0 29.4643 19.430 210423 yes -0.55%
40 28 145.5 191.0 29.4286 19.537 211622 yes 0.00%
44 28 145.5 190.5 29.4214 19.429 210463 yes -0.55%
48 28 145.0 191.0 29.4143 19.643 212796 yes 0.54%
52 28 145.0 191.0 29.4143 19.643 212796 yes 0.54%
56 28 144.0 191.0 29.4071 19.856 215103 yes 1.63%
28 28 145.5 190.0 29.5000 19.323 209217 yes -1.10%
24 28 145.5 191.0 29.5000 19.539 211555 yes 0.01%
20 28 145.5 190.5 29.5000 19.431 210389 yes -0.54%
16 28 145.5 191.0 29.5000 19.539 211555 yes 0.01%
12 28 145.5 191.0 29.4286 19.537 211622 yes 0.00%
8 28 145.5 191.0 29.4286 19.537 211622 yes 0.00%
4 28 149.5 191.0 29.4286 18.658 202106 -4%
204
Measurement Positions
Location SB
y-position measured from Wind Tunnel Starboard wall (Starboard side, orthogonal right hand rule)
z-position 30mm below Wind Tunnel Centre Line
Location PS
y-position measured from Wind Tunnel Port Side Wall (Port side, orthogonal right hand rule)
z-position 30mm below Wind Tunnel Centre Line
Pitot static tube EMF0093

Tubes' length 1000mm
Thermometer Simple ambient temperature type
location SB
[cm] from PS wall in [Hz] [mm] [mm] [degC] Calculated [m/s] Region % from mean
95 28 134.0 183.5 29.0000 20.209 219470 yes 1.96%
90 28 134.0 182.5 29.0000 20.001 217207 yes 0.91%
85 28 135.0 183.0 29.0000 19.896 216067 yes 0.38%
80 28 135.0 182.0 29.0000 19.684 213768 yes -0.69%
75 28 136.0 183.0 29.0000 19.684 213768 yes -0.69%
70 28 136.0 182.5 29.0000 19.577 212609 yes -1.22%
65 28 135.0 183.5 29.0000 20.001 217207 yes 0.91%
60 28 135.0 182.5 29.0000 19.790 214920 yes -0.15%
55 28 134.0 182.5 28.8974 19.945 216737 yes 0.63%
50 28 135.0 181.0 28.8462 19.411 211004 yes -2.06%
location PS
[cm] from PS wall in [Hz] [mm] [mm] [degC] Calculated [m/s] Region % from mean
5 28 144.0 190.0 28.2000 19.606 213953 yes 0.10%
10 28 144.0 189.5 28.2000 19.499 212787 yes -0.44%
15 28 144.0 191.0 28.2000 19.818 216266 yes 1.18%
20 28 144.0 190.5 28.2000 19.712 215113 yes 0.64%
25 28 144.0 190.0 28.2000 19.606 213953 yes 0.10%
30 28 144.0 190.5 28.2000 19.712 215113 yes 0.64%
35 28 144.5 189.0 28.2000 19.284 210436 yes -1.54%
40 28 144.5 189.5 28.2000 19.392 211615 yes -0.99%
45 28 144.0 190.0 28.5000 19.615 213666 yes 0.15%
50 28 144.0 190.0 28.5000 19.615 213666 yes 0.15%
205
100
90
Distance from PS wall [cm]
80
70
60
location SB
50
location PS
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
U velocity [m/s]
With constant power input to Wind Tunnel Suction Fan (Invertor Frequency set at 28 Hz), the horizontal velocity
profile obtained between the tunnel walls approximately contant across the middle (5 to 95 cm from the Port Side
wall). The variation can be attributed mainly to the tunnel's condition (screen cleanliness, clamping of the pitot
static tube that reduces vibration or that photographs of manometer pitot and static readings are not taken
together) and little to changing ambient temperate as readings were taken.
Temperature vs Reynolds Number

Based on Chord 0.175m
29.2
29.0
Temperature [degC]
28.8
R2 = 0.1611
location SB
28.6
location PS
28.4
28.2
R2 = 8E-06
28.0
209000 210000 211000 212000 213000 214000 215000 216000 217000 218000 219000 220000
Re Number
At each position, Reynolds Number is not affected by temperature in a large way. Therefore variation in
Reynolds number is mainly due to variations in speed in the vertical direction.
206
Velocity vs Re Number
based on chord 0.175m
20.4
20.2
20.0
Velocity [m/s]
R2 = 0.9993
location SB
19.8
location PS
19.6
R2 = 0.991
19.4
19.2
210000 211000 212000 213000 214000 215000 216000 217000 218000 219000 220000
Re Number
The variation of Reynolds number corresponds very proportionately to variation in wind speed within the position.
The variations are about -2% to +2% of the mean freestream speed. The fact that the curves do not coincide
indicates the speeds depend on ambient temperature. Higher ambient temperatures result in faster speeds for
the same Reynolds Number. Power input to suction fan has to be adjusted downward when temperature rises to
achieve the similar speeds.
Velocity vs Temperature
20.2
20.0
Velocity [m/s]
19.8
location SB
location PS
19.6
19.4
19.2
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Temperature [degC]
At each position, changes in ambient temperature also give similar spread in velocities across the tunnel.
Therefore the interpaly between Power input, temperature and achieved speed is not straightforward. Ideally, a
test should be concluded within a reasonably short durations so that the effects of variations in temperature are
minimised.
207
Appendix O. Wind Speed and Effect of Tube Length.
Examinng the effects of tubing length on manometer reading.
Invertor Freq Difference in water levels [cm]

[Hz] Pitot Short tube Static Short tube Pitot Long tube Static Long tube
33 4.55 12.00 4.55 12.10
31 4.05 10.60 4.05 10.65
29 3.55 9.20 3.55 9.30
27 3.15 7.95 3.15 8.05
25 2.75 6.70 2.75 6.85
23 2.35 5.60 2.40 5.75
21 2.05 4.65 2.05 4.75
19 1.70 3.70 1.70 3.85
17 1.45 3.00 1.40 3.15
15 1.15 2.25 1.15 2.40
13 0.90 1.70 0.90 1.80
11 0.65 1.10 0.65 1.25
Speed Measurement comparing

Short (160mm) and Long (1530mm) tubings
14
12
Pitot and Static Readings [cm]
10
Pitot Short tube

8
Static Short tube
Pitot Long tube
6
Static Long tube
4
0
10 15 20 25 30 35
Fan Motor Invertor Frequency [Hz]
Conclusion
1.53m tube produces no obvious difference in mean pressure values from the 0.16m tubes.
208
Appendix P. Approximating the Leading Edge Pressure reading from Pitot Reading.
Run Inverter Water rise height [mm] q, dynamic ratio of

no. Frequency nose pitot static pressure [mm] nose pressure / pitot pressure Uncorrected Cp
1 26Hz 28.83 31.50 71.50 40.00 0.915 1.07
1 27hz 30.85 33.00 78.50 45.50 0.935 1.05
2 26Hz 28.38 30.00 72.50 42.50 0.946 1.04
2 27Hz 30.38 31.50 78.00 46.50 0.964 1.02
3 26Hz 30.73 30.50 71.50 41.5 1.008 0.98
3 27Hz 30.50 32.50 77.50 45.00 0.938 1.04
These pressures are slightly higher than pitot pressure at the locaiton x/c = 0.0 or nose of airfoil.
Based on average of ratios, except 26Hz pressure 3 run, nose water rise = 0.94 of pitot water rise. This
implies a CP value greater than 1 at the nose, which exceeds the stagnation Cp = 1.
Notes: background information.

The PVC tube lengths and diameters are different
pitot 600mm Approximately 2.1mm diameter
pressure taps 1500mm Approximately 1.6mm diameter
The metal tubes forming the pressure tap at the nose is differernt from the rest of the pressure taps.
nose 1.8mm diameter
other taps 1.3mm diameter
Possible explanations.
The dynamic pressures need to under go blockage correction to increase it slightly to above original levels so
that Cp reduces to a max of 1. However blockage correction must give a maximum of 7% increase in q.
Since q was determined upstream of the model, the actual q at the model's position in the tunnel is larger than
the measured q.
Without further correction to the measured values, a pressure value is suggested at the nose of the model.
This does not affect the cl and cd readings by large amounts since the area change caused by the small
changes in Cp(x/c 0.0) are small.
209
Appendix Q. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Pressure.
Coefficient of Pressure - Upper surface

AoA x/c Reynolds
[deg] h/c 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 number
0 1.00 1.012 -0.654 -1.052 -0.916 -0.796 -0.677 -0.544 -0.411 -0.269 202580
0 0.80 1.014 -0.640 -1.031 -0.916 -0.778 -0.640 -0.514 -0.387 -0.250 203101
0 0.60 1.014 -0.623 -1.030 -0.915 -0.788 -0.661 -0.528 -0.395 -0.245 202246
0 0.40 1.013 -0.619 -1.054 -0.928 -0.791 -0.653 -0.522 -0.390 -0.298 203827
0 0.30 1.013 -0.627 -1.048 -0.912 -0.775 -0.639 -0.513 -0.388 -0.206 203654
0 0.20 1.014 -0.639 -1.053 -0.892 -0.772 -0.651 -0.513 -0.375 -0.213 203636
0 0.10 1.013 -0.611 -1.021 -0.850 -0.742 -0.634 -0.503 -0.372 -0.202 203745
0 0.05 1.013 -0.606 -0.992 -0.822 -0.725 -0.628 -0.497 -0.367 -0.207 203590
2 1.00 1.015 -0.775 -1.099 -0.868 -0.775 -0.682 -0.509 -0.335 -0.173 202785
2 0.80 1.015 -0.808 -1.157 -0.924 -0.813 -0.703 -0.557 -0.411 -0.202 202785
2 0.60 1.014 -0.818 -1.162 -0.932 -0.822 -0.712 -0.556 -0.400 -0.215 203988
2 0.40 1.015 -0.808 -1.158 -0.925 -0.814 -0.704 -0.553 -0.401 -0.203 202450
2 0.30 1.015 -0.769 -1.138 -0.884 -0.775 -0.665 -0.521 -0.377 -0.181 203787
2 0.20 1.014 -0.745 -1.109 -0.859 -0.751 -0.643 -0.489 -0.336 -0.165 205200
2 0.10 1.014 -0.734 -1.075 -0.802 -0.728 -0.654 -0.489 -0.324 -0.177 205145
2 0.05 1.015 -0.743 -1.064 -0.788 -0.713 -0.639 -0.483 -0.328 -0.202 204061
4 1.00 1.016 -1.070 -1.300 -0.978 -0.793 -0.609 -0.425 -0.333 -0.149 202326
4 0.80 1.016 -1.136 -1.369 -1.021 -0.902 -0.783 -0.581 -0.378 -0.175 203576
4 0.60 1.015 -1.085 -1.303 -0.971 -0.842 -0.713 -0.525 -0.336 -0.147 204691
4 0.40 1.016 -1.063 -1.291 -0.948 -0.819 -0.691 -0.502 -0.313 -0.136 204348
4 0.30 1.016 -1.063 -1.269 -0.948 -0.819 -0.691 -0.490 -0.290 -0.136 204275
4 0.20 1.017 -1.092 -1.303 -0.975 -0.843 -0.710 -0.505 -0.299 -0.153 204357
4 0.10 1.016 -0.994 -1.223 -0.902 -0.774 -0.645 -0.433 -0.221 -0.113 204467
4 0.05 1.016 -0.954 -1.171 -0.873 -0.756 -0.638 -0.426 -0.214 -0.117 204467
6 1.00 1.012 -1.286 -1.477 -1.108 -0.922 -0.735 -0.539 -0.342 -0.128 202732
6 0.80 1.010 -1.252 -1.426 -1.088 -0.903 -0.717 -0.522 -0.328 -0.137 207193
6 0.60 1.010 -1.228 -1.401 -1.056 -0.856 -0.689 -0.461 -0.306 -0.105 208943
6 0.40 1.009 -1.215 -1.385 -1.044 -0.846 -0.659 -0.470 -0.280 -0.071 209886
6 0.30 1.010 -1.220 -1.394 -1.068 -0.843 -0.663 -0.469 -0.275 -0.050 207432
6 0.20 1.011 -1.192 -1.378 -1.040 -0.838 -0.635 -0.430 -0.225 -0.022 207478
6 0.10 1.010 -1.153 -1.338 -1.023 -0.826 -0.630 -0.407 -0.185 -0.039 207515
6 0.05 1.010 -1.146 -1.297 -0.939 -0.760 -0.592 -0.383 -0.173 -0.061 208095
8 1.00 1.011 -1.488 -1.534 -1.131 -0.867 -0.631 -0.396 -0.235 -0.056 203097
8 0.80 1.009 -1.429 -1.474 -1.092 -0.845 -0.609 -0.373 -0.204 -0.052 205557
8 0.60 1.008 -1.389 -1.455 -1.056 -0.812 -0.578 -0.345 -0.179 -0.073 206879
8 0.40 1.012 -1.445 -1.491 -1.104 -0.831 -0.575 -0.318 -0.159 -0.074 204532
8 0.30 1.012 -1.447 -1.458 -1.077 -0.799 -0.545 -0.290 -0.117 -0.100 202974
8 0.20 1.013 -1.432 -1.467 -1.060 -0.781 -0.513 -0.246 -0.094 -0.123 202504
8 0.10 1.013 -1.362 -1.408 -0.989 -0.733 -0.466 -0.198 -0.070 -0.098 202612
8 0.05 1.011 -1.291 -1.313 -0.909 -0.639 -0.403 -0.168 -0.066 -0.094 206165
210
Coefficient of Pressure - Lower surface

AoA x/c
[deg] h/c 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0 1.00 1.012 -0.229 -0.292 -0.262 -0.261 -0.230 -0.213 -0.196 -0.140 -0.009
0 0.80 1.014 -0.227 -0.284 -0.270 -0.255 -0.227 -0.204 -0.181 -0.135 -0.032
0 0.60 1.014 -0.222 -0.282 -0.268 -0.254 -0.225 -0.203 -0.180 -0.146 -0.031
0 0.40 1.013 -0.201 -0.258 -0.242 -0.227 -0.195 -0.175 -0.155 -0.115 0.011
0 0.30 1.013 -0.155 -0.201 -0.185 -0.169 -0.138 -0.129 -0.121 -0.081 0.033
0 0.20 1.014 -0.139 -0.208 -0.192 -0.176 -0.144 -0.124 -0.104 -0.087 0.029
0 0.10 1.013 -0.048 -0.162 -0.152 -0.142 -0.122 -0.102 -0.082 0.037 0.049
0 0.05 1.013 0.071 -0.179 -0.163 -0.148 -0.116 -0.091 -0.065 0.032 0.055
2 1.00 1.015 -0.080 -0.173 -0.161 -0.150 -0.127 -0.127 -0.127 -0.034 0.012
2 0.80 1.015 -0.120 -0.190 -0.181 -0.172 -0.155 -0.149 -0.143 -0.097 0.020
2 0.60 1.014 -0.134 -0.179 -0.175 -0.172 -0.166 -0.154 -0.141 -0.095 0.009
2 0.40 1.015 -0.110 -0.169 -0.166 -0.164 -0.158 -0.147 -0.135 -0.089 0.022
2 0.30 1.015 -0.066 -0.123 -0.117 -0.112 -0.100 -0.077 -0.054 -0.030 0.050
2 0.20 1.014 -0.052 -0.097 -0.077 -0.068 -0.040 -0.028 -0.017 0.052 0.086
2 0.10 1.014 0.073 -0.040 -0.043 -0.045 -0.051 -0.017 0.017 0.063 0.074
2 0.05 1.015 0.143 0.029 0.020 0.000 -0.029 0.006 0.041 0.064 0.075
4 1.00 1.016 0.174 -0.011 -0.039 -0.034 -0.057 -0.058 -0.058 -0.058 -0.058
4 0.80 1.016 0.126 -0.031 -0.051 -0.046 -0.060 -0.072 -0.084 -0.061 -0.027
4 0.60 1.015 0.162 0.008 -0.012 -0.007 -0.021 -0.021 -0.021 -0.021 0.036
4 0.40 1.016 0.185 0.030 0.029 0.028 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.059
4 0.30 1.016 0.185 0.076 0.081 0.085 0.093 0.082 0.071 0.082 0.082
4 0.20 1.017 0.200 0.088 0.090 0.091 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.117 0.106
4 0.10 1.016 0.254 0.168 0.161 0.153 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.162 0.151
4 0.05 1.016 0.319 0.210 0.206 0.202 0.194 0.182 0.171 0.194 0.183
6 1.00 1.012 0.246 0.082 0.079 0.074 0.065 0.006 -0.054 -0.038 0.037
6 0.80 1.010 0.235 0.111 0.103 0.094 0.077 0.021 -0.035 -0.024 0.044
6 0.60 1.010 0.250 0.128 0.120 0.111 0.095 0.039 -0.016 -0.005 0.050
6 0.40 1.009 0.292 0.149 0.138 0.132 0.116 0.094 0.072 0.094 0.083
6 0.30 1.010 0.287 0.163 0.152 0.135 0.107 0.096 0.085 0.096 0.096
6 0.20 1.011 0.315 0.191 0.183 0.175 0.158 0.141 0.124 0.135 0.124
6 0.10 1.010 0.310 0.231 0.225 0.220 0.208 0.186 0.163 0.163 0.163
6 0.05 1.010 0.341 0.274 0.263 0.263 0.252 0.229 0.207 0.218 0.196
8 1.00 1.011 0.409 0.202 0.179 0.156 0.110 0.061 0.012 0.006 0.040
8 0.80 1.009 0.414 0.212 0.189 0.167 0.122 0.091 0.060 0.054 0.043
8 0.60 1.008 0.421 0.221 0.196 0.171 0.121 0.102 0.082 0.077 0.065
8 0.40 1.012 0.444 0.250 0.230 0.210 0.170 0.138 0.107 0.112 0.101
8 0.30 1.012 0.461 0.265 0.250 0.236 0.207 0.169 0.132 0.126 0.103
8 0.20 1.013 0.464 0.278 0.269 0.260 0.243 0.205 0.167 0.162 0.138
8 0.10 1.013 0.466 0.339 0.333 0.327 0.316 0.290 0.264 0.258 0.224
8 0.05 1.011 0.473 0.383 0.381 0.378 0.373 0.353 0.334 0.351 0.317
211
l/d vs AoA
10
9 1.00
0.80
8 0.60
0.40
l/d
0.30
7
0.20
0.10
6 0.05
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]
cd vs AoA
0.12
0.11
1.00
0.10 0.80
0.60
0.09
0.40
cd
0.08 0.30
0.20
0.07 0.10
0.05
0.06
0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]
212
cl vs AoA
0.90
0.80
1.00
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.40
0.60
cl
0.30
0.20
0.50
0.10
0.40 0.05
0.30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]
l/d vs h/c
10
0
8 2
l/d
4
7 6
8
5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
h/c
213
cl vs h/c
0.90
0.80
0.70 0
2
0.60
cl
4
6
0.50 8
0.40
0.30
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
h/c
cd vs h/c
0.12
0.11
0.10
0
0.09 2
cd
4
0.08 6
8
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
h/c
214
CP upper AoA 0 deg
x/c
-1.1
-1.0
-0.9
1.00
-0.8 0.80
-0.7 0.60
0.40
-0.6
0.30
-0.5 0.20
-0.4 0.10
0.05
-0.3
-0.2
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
-0.1
CP lower AoA 0 deg
x/c
-0.4
-0.3
1.00
0.80
-0.2 0.60
0.40
0.30
-0.1 0.20
0.10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05
0.0
0.1
215
CP upper AoA 2 deg
x/c
-1.2
-1.1
-1.0
1.00
-0.9
0.80
-0.8
0.60
-0.7 0.40
-0.6 0.30
-0.5 0.20
0.10
-0.4
0.05
-0.3
-0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
-0.1
CP lower AoA 2 deg
x/c
-0.200
-0.100 1.00
0.80
0.60
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.40
0.000
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.100 0.05
0.200
216
CP upper AoA 4 deg
x/c
-1.4
-1.3
-1.2
-1.1
1.00
-1.0
0.80
-0.9
0.60
-0.8
0.40
-0.7
0.30
-0.6
0.20
-0.5
0.10
-0.4
-0.3 0.05
-0.2
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.0
CP lower AoA 4 deg
x/c
-0.100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

0.000
1.00
0.80
0.100 0.60
0.40
0.30
0.200 0.20
0.10
0.05
0.300
0.400
217
CP upper AoA 6 deg
x/c
-1.6
-1.5
-1.4
-1.3
-1.2 1.00
-1.1 0.80
-1.0 0.60
-0.9
0.40
-0.8
-0.7 0.30
-0.6 0.20
-0.5 0.10
-0.4 0.05
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.0
CP lower AoA 6 deg
x/c
-0.100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

0.000
1.00
0.80
0.100 0.60
0.40
0.30
0.200 0.20
0.10
0.05
0.300
0.400
218
CP upper AoA 8 deg
x/c
-1.6
-1.5
-1.4
-1.3
-1.2 1.00
-1.1 0.80
-1.0 0.60
-0.9
0.40
-0.8
-0.7 0.30
-0.6 0.20
-0.5 0.10
-0.4 0.05
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.0
CP lower AoA 8 deg
x/c
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.000
0.100 1.00
0.80
0.200 0.60
0.40
0.30
0.300 0.20
0.10
0.400 0.05
0.500
219
Appendix R. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Force.
AoA % change Relative uncertainty Reynolds

[deg] h/c CL CD CL CD L/D CD CL L/D number
0 1.00 0.3724 0.0222 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.06% 1.95% 0.67% 202571
0 0.90 0.3618 0.0220 -2.85% -0.86% -2.01% 2.11% 1.93% 0.87% 203663
0 0.80 0.3709 0.0226 -0.41% 1.80% -2.16% 2.12% 1.95% 0.84% 202066
0 0.70 0.3732 0.0220 0.22% -1.13% 1.36% 2.11% 1.95% 0.83% 202183
0 0.60 0.3723 0.0214 -0.03% -3.87% 3.99% 2.09% 1.92% 0.82% 203445
0 0.50 0.3792 0.0210 1.83% -5.52% 7.77% 2.11% 1.95% 0.82% 202309
0 0.40 0.3832 0.0227 2.89% 2.28% 0.60% 2.07% 1.93% 0.76% 203818
0 0.30 0.3911 0.0220 5.03% -0.96% 6.05% 2.07% 1.93% 0.75% 203754
0 0.20 0.4035 0.0178 8.34% -19.85% 35.18% 2.06% 1.96% 0.67% 202372
0 0.10 0.4045 0.0231 8.63% 3.68% 4.77% 2.07% 1.93% 0.75% 203436
0 0.05 0.4260 0.0255 14.38% 14.54% -0.13% 2.10% 1.95% 0.78% 202427
1 1.00 0.4937 0.0302 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
1 0.90 0.4847 0.0303 -1.83% 0.36% -2.18%
1 0.80 0.4906 0.0306 -0.63% 1.38% -1.98%
1 0.70 0.4958 0.0320 0.42% 6.01% -5.28%
1 0.60 0.5023 0.0315 1.74% 4.57% -2.71%
1 0.50 0.4997 0.0296 1.21% -1.75% 3.02%
1 0.40 0.5038 0.0291 2.05% -3.50% 5.75%
1 0.30 0.5137 0.0287 4.06% -4.66% 9.15%
1 0.20 0.5231 0.0285 5.96% -5.56% 12.20%
1 0.10 0.5265 0.0284 6.65% -5.70% 13.09%
1 0.05 0.5312 0.0271 7.60% -10.05% 19.61%
2 1.00 0.4693 0.0336 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.99% 1.93% 0.50% 202980
2 0.90 0.4664 0.0340 -0.61% 0.92% -1.52% 1.99% 1.93% 0.50% 202880
2 0.80 0.4709 0.0350 0.33% 4.10% -3.62% 1.99% 1.93% 0.49% 202880
2 0.70 0.4746 0.0346 1.13% 2.84% -1.66% 1.99% 1.93% 0.50% 202880
2 0.60 0.4754 0.0339 1.30% 0.87% 0.42% 2.02% 1.95% 0.52% 202840
2 0.50 0.4827 0.0342 2.84% 1.58% 1.24% 2.01% 1.95% 0.48% 202948
2 0.40 0.4898 0.0337 4.36% 0.20% 4.16% 2.01% 1.95% 0.49% 202939
2 0.30 0.4963 0.0324 5.74% -3.61% 9.70% 2.01% 1.95% 0.50% 202994
2 0.20 0.5060 0.0317 7.82% -5.70% 14.34% 2.02% 1.95% 0.52% 202939
2 0.10 0.5127 0.0317 9.24% -5.70% 15.84% 2.02% 1.95% 0.52% 202994
2 0.05 0.5113 0.0309 8.95% -8.21% 18.70% 2.03% 1.95% 0.56% 202994
3 1.00 0.5731 0.0396 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
3 0.90 0.5713 0.0398 -0.33% 0.44% -0.76%
3 0.80 0.5700 0.0399 -0.54% 0.90% -1.43%
3 0.70 0.5775 0.0405 0.77% 2.23% -1.43%
3 0.60 0.5683 0.0389 -0.84% -1.80% 0.98%
3 0.50 0.5878 0.0395 2.55% -0.11% 2.67%
3 0.40 0.5866 0.0381 2.35% -3.64% 6.22%
3 0.30 0.5813 0.0370 1.42% -6.65% 8.65%
3 0.20 0.6026 0.0369 5.14% -6.84% 12.86%
3 0.10 0.6078 0.0365 6.05% -7.75% 14.97%
3 0.05 0.6144 0.0351 7.21% -11.32% 20.89%
4 1.00 0.6481 0.0503 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.97% 1.94% 0.35% 202960
4 0.90 0.6471 0.0507 -0.15% 0.66% -0.80% 1.97% 1.94% 0.36% 202960
4 0.80 0.6497 0.0515 0.26% 2.33% -2.03% 1.97% 1.94% 0.35% 202932
4 0.70 0.6473 0.0507 -0.12% 0.78% -0.90% 1.97% 1.94% 0.36% 203703
4 0.60 0.6467 0.0491 -0.21% -2.56% 2.41% 1.99% 1.96% 0.35% 202530
4 0.50 0.6548 0.0488 1.04% -3.10% 4.27% 1.99% 1.96% 0.37% 202602
4 0.40 0.6598 0.0485 1.80% -3.76% 5.78% 1.99% 1.96% 0.37% 202530
4 0.30 0.6677 0.0476 3.03% -5.37% 8.87% 1.99% 1.96% 0.36% 202620
4 0.20 0.6789 0.0469 4.76% -6.78% 12.38% 1.99% 1.96% 0.36% 202620
220
AoA % change Relative uncertainty Reynolds

[deg] h/c CL CD CL CD L/D CD CL L/D number
4 0.10 0.6856 0.0456 5.79% -9.47% 16.85% 2.0% 2.0% 0.4% 202620
4 0.05 0.6934 0.0437 6.99% -13.27% 23.36% 2.0% 2.0% 0.4% 202620
5 1.00 0.6239 0.0450 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
5 0.90 0.6251 0.0458 0.19% 1.60% -1.39%
5 0.80 0.6238 0.0456 -0.02% 1.26% -1.26%
5 0.70 0.6282 0.0458 0.69% 1.63% -0.92%
5 0.60 0.6320 0.0456 1.29% 1.17% 0.13%
5 0.50 0.6373 0.0448 2.14% -0.61% 2.77%
5 0.40 0.6434 0.0443 3.13% -1.53% 4.73%
5 0.30 0.6501 0.0435 4.20% -3.43% 7.90%
5 0.20 0.6595 0.0424 5.71% -5.78% 12.19%
5 0.10 0.6652 0.0418 6.62% -7.24% 14.94%
5 0.05 0.6662 0.0401 6.79% -10.92% 19.88%
6 1.00 0.7475 0.0611 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.01% 1.98% 0.37% 201980
6 0.90 0.7475 0.0620 0.01% 1.50% -1.47% 2.01% 1.98% 0.36% 201962
6 0.80 0.7485 0.0628 0.13% 2.94% -2.73% 2.00% 1.97% 0.33% 202116
6 0.70 0.7472 0.0613 -0.03% 0.44% -0.47% 2.00% 1.97% 0.33% 202270
6 0.60 0.7423 0.0598 -0.70% -2.00% 1.33% 1.98% 1.95% 0.32% 203448
6 0.50 0.7553 0.0599 1.04% -1.94% 3.04% 2.00% 1.97% 0.33% 202270
6 0.40 0.7610 0.0600 1.81% -1.80% 3.68% 1.98% 1.95% 0.31% 203530
6 0.30 0.7664 0.0601 2.53% -1.50% 4.09% 1.98% 1.95% 0.32% 203530
6 0.20 0.7782 0.0599 4.11% -1.84% 6.07% 1.98% 1.95% 0.32% 203530
6 0.10 0.8056 0.0595 7.77% -2.54% 10.58% 2.01% 1.98% 0.33% 202614
6 0.05 0.8212 0.0572 9.86% -6.26% 17.20% 2.01% 1.98% 0.33% 202523
7 1.00 0.8019 0.0698 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
7 0.90 0.8042 0.0712 0.29% 1.91% -1.59%
7 0.80 0.8047 0.0716 0.35% 2.50% -2.10%
7 0.70 0.8010 0.0702 -0.11% 0.49% -0.60%
7 0.60 0.8078 0.0702 0.74% 0.55% 0.19%
7 0.50 0.8135 0.0703 1.45% 0.62% 0.83%
7 0.40 0.8202 0.0701 2.28% 0.33% 1.94%
7 0.30 0.8251 0.0691 2.89% -1.02% 3.95%
7 0.20 0.8349 0.0691 4.12% -1.04% 5.21%
7 0.10 0.8428 0.0681 5.10% -2.54% 7.85%
7 0.05 0.8492 0.0655 5.90% -6.18% 12.88%
8 1.00 0.8353 0.0803 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.94% 1.93% 0.24% 203296
8 0.90 0.8428 0.0820 0.90% 2.02% -1.10% 1.94% 1.93% 0.22% 203296
8 0.80 0.8383 0.0817 0.36% 1.70% -1.32% 1.94% 1.93% 0.23% 203296
8 0.70 0.8432 0.0819 0.95% 1.98% -1.01% 1.94% 1.93% 0.23% 203296
8 0.60 0.8500 0.0815 1.76% 1.47% 0.29% 1.94% 1.93% 0.23% 203459
8 0.50 0.8536 0.0808 2.19% 0.56% 1.62% 1.95% 1.93% 0.24% 203450
8 0.40 0.8575 0.0805 2.66% 0.15% 2.51% 1.94% 1.93% 0.23% 203523
8 0.30 0.8699 0.0812 4.15% 1.07% 3.04% 1.94% 1.93% 0.23% 203477
8 0.20 0.8823 0.0817 5.63% 1.68% 3.88% 1.94% 1.93% 0.22% 203496
8 0.10 0.8960 0.0813 7.27% 1.24% 5.96% 1.94% 1.93% 0.22% 203841
8 0.05 0.9154 0.0791 9.60% -1.59% 11.36% 1.97% 1.95% 0.23% 202657
221
CL vs h/c
1.00
0.90
0.80
0
0.70 2
CL
4
0.60 6
8
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
h/c
CD vs h/c
0.09
0.08
0.07
0
0.06
2
CD
0.05 4
6
0.04
8
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
h/c
222
L/D vs h/c
24
22
20
0
18
2
L/D
16 4
6
14
8
12
10
8
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
h/c
CL vs AoA
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.80
0.80
0.70 0.60
0.60 y = 0.0518x + 0.2072 0.40
CL
0.30
0.50
0.20
0.40 0.10
0.05
0.30
OGE
0.20
0.10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]
223
CD vs AoA
0.09
0.08
1.00
0.07 0.80
0.60
0.06
0.40
CD
0.05 0.30
0.20
0.04
0.10
0.03 0.05
OGE
0.02
0.01
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]
L/D vs AoA
24
22
1.00
20 0.80
0.60
18
0.40
L/D
16 0.30
0.20
14
0.10
12 0.05
OGE
10
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]
224
% Increase in CL (points) and Relative Uncertainty (lines) vs h/c

16%
14%
12%
10% 0
2
Percentage
8%
4
6%
6
4% 8
2% Relative Uncertainty in CL
0%
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
-2%
-4%
h/c
% Increase in CD (points) and Relative Uncertainty (lines) vs h/c

20%
15%
10%
5% 0
2
Percentage
0% 4
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
-5% 6
8
-10% Relative Uncertainty in CD
-15%
-20%
-25%
h/c
225
% Increase in L/D (points) and Relative Uncertainty (lines) vs h/c

40%
35%
30%
25% 0
2
Percentage
20%
4
15%
6
10% 8
5% Relative Uncertainty in L/D
0%
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
-5%
-10%
h/c
226
Appendix S. Uncertainty in Force Measurements
The following rules were use to determine the uncertainty in force

measurements. These rules were based on the Evaluation of Measurement
data Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM)
[reference 36], which was based on the International Organisation of
Standardisation Guide to the expression of uncertainty in Measurement 1995
edition.
For the quantity A, the uncertainties were represented in the following ways.
Absolute uncertainty -

Relative uncertainty - A =

For readings with the standard deviation available, the standard uncertainty
was calculated from the standard deviation according the following equation,

=
N
where is the standard deviation and N is the number of samples.
For readings with the only tolerances available a a , the standard

uncertainty was calculated from the tolerances according to the following
equation,
a
=
n
where a is the tolerance and n is determined by the distribution assumed for
the samples.
For measurements where each reading had an equal probability of

occurrence, which was a rectangular distribution, n = 3.
For measurements where readings had a higher probability of occurrence

near the mean, which was a triangular distribution, n = 6.
In this work, n = 3 as the rectangular distribution has gives a more

conservative estimate of uncertainty.
According to the Laws of propagation of uncertainty in the GUM, the following

rules were used.
For independent quantities, the following simplified rules apply.
Addition and Subtraction absolute uncertainties added.
Using
=
Uncertainty of X is
= 2 + 2
Multiplication and Division relative uncertainties added.
Using
227
Appendix S. Uncertainty in Force Measurements

= or =

Uncertainty of X is
2 2

= +

Powers
Using
= n
Uncertainty of X is
nA
=
A
The expanded uncertainty was obtained by the following,
Expanded uncertainty of X = k
where k is the coverage factor. The coverage factor is taken as 2 for a

significance level of 95%.
228
Appendix T. Preparation of Wind Tunnel Test Section
The floor of the wind tunnel test section had several layers of old paint.
However, the surface was not smooth. The entire floor was sanded down
gradually with sandpaper on a hand-held buffing machine. The grit reduced in
stages from 180 to 280 to 400 to 600 to 800 to 1000. Eventually, an almost
reflective surface finish was achieved on the remaining layers of paint. The
floor was made of three large wooden panels but they are not aligned till flat
and flush at the lines of joining. Since sanding the entire tunnel floor till it
became flat was not feasible, the surfaces near the lines of joining were
sanded down by a larger amount to blend one panel smoothly to another.
The cut out within the first half of the tunnel was made of Perspex and joined
to the rest of the tunnel floor by wood filler. The wood filler was sanded down
to blend the adjacent surfaces too. However this cut out was located a few
mm off the centerline of the tunnel. The floor edges along the side did not
extend to the tunnel walls. Layers of masking tape were applied to fill in the
gap.
This wind tunnel test section wall comprised of four panels on each side.
Each panel composed of a large, approximately 10mm thick Perspex sheet
mounted to a wooden frame by screws. Since the wooden frame did not place
the Perspex sheet flush to the adjacent panel's sheet, slips of paper were
used as shims to bring the Perspex sheets approximately flush to each other.
The gap introduced between the Perspex sheet and wooden frame was
covered by electrical insulation tape. Once the panels were mounted into the
tunnel walls, the remaining gap between panels and tunnel walls were sealed
also by application of electrical insulation tape.
The tunnel ceiling comprised two large Perspex sheets secured by screws to
the frame. Both sheets were adjusted such that the joining line matched and
both sheets blended one to the next. Due to the size and stiffness of the
panels and wooden frame, a few mis-aligned screw holes were not used, as
the repair was too difficult.
Other holes were covered with transparent plastic sheets and taped down
with scotch tape. When operating the tunnel, the other side of each hole was
covered to reduce the volume of trapped air behind the plastic sheet. Less
trapped air caused less bulging, when lower-pressure regions existed inside
the tunnel during operation.
229
Appendix U. Preparation of Model
To verify the sectional shape of the wing, a template was created from a 200
point CAD drawing. A hundred discrete points defined the upper surface, with
more points concentrated within x/c 0 to 0.3 to more accurately define this
highly curved portion of the upper surface. The same process was used on
the lower surface. This template was transferred to paper and the paper
cutouts were glued to the wing tips while re-shaping the model.
When the model was received, the sections shape was oversized at various
portions by at most 1 mm. The parts of the model were carefully sanded down
to almost the profile of the paper cutout. Next the gaps in the grains on the
surface were filled in with dark wood filler and sanded down in preparation for
spray painting. Matt white paint was used to fill even smaller gaps on the
model surface. The spray painted surface was sanded down, ending with grit
1200 sandpaper to give the model a near reflective finish.
The simple hinges below the wing were replaced with two pieces of plastic
with holes. These attach to the model by screws fastened into the model.
Another price of plastic with internal threads was glued into the point of
attachment with Araldite, a glue and filler.
The rest of the hinge mechanism was attached by means of 2mm diameter
pins. This hinge mechanism pivots the model on its trailing edge. Angle of
attack adjustments did not change the h/c value with this hinge mechanism.
The upper half was secured to the lower half by screws and the
corresponding internal threads were initially cut into wood. Since wooden
threads cannot withstand repetitive fastening and unfastening, space was cut
within the model to hold a block of plastic that holds the internal threads for
the fastening screws.
230
Appendix V. Preparation of other Equipment
Supports Below Test Section

A support structure was assembled below the wind tunnel to hold the vertical
traverse mechanism for the flat plate. This structure was made from 40mm
square profile aluminum bars. The horizontal bars were aligned to the wind
tunnel floor, while the vertical ones were aligned to the wind tunnel pillars. To
give this structure some stiffness, the vertical bars were secured to both the
wind tunnel floor and the ground. It was not practical to increase the stiffness
by using heavier and stronger materials. During wind tunnel operation, the
suction fan motor transmitted a small obvious amount of vibration to the
ground. This vibration was felt on the wooden frame of the test section and
the installed supports.
The vertical traverse mechanism consists of three individually adjustable car

jacks that supported a horizontal rectangular frame. In turn, four bars of
NACA 0012 cross section connect the rectangular frame outside to the
elevated ground inside the tunnel. Since the model stayed put relative to the
tunnel floor and ceiling, the elevated ground was adjusted vertically to the
desired ground clearance between itself and the model.
Cross-section of Support Bars

A NACA 0012 cross section was selected for the support bars to reduce their
interference to the flow inside the wind tunnel. The airfoil shape has a small
amount of drag and caused no shedding vortices in steady flow.
Model Support
In this work, the model came from a previous project and was supported from
beneath. The supports must be rigid to transmit drag, lift and moment to the
load cell. It must connect rigidly to the model and load cell. Tubes from
pressure taps were also routed through the support. The support had to stay
clear of the tunnel walls to give correct readings on the load cell. The external
shape was streamlined with NACA 0012 cross section, to eliminate separated
flow from the supports. The support surface was smoothened by sanding.
Simply taping holes have reduced the drag contribution by half. The
mechanism to set the angle of attack was also shielded within the support.
Supporting the model from below is not ideal as the supports possibly
disrupted the flow below the model. The flow accelerated locally around the
supports. Using a narrow symmetrical support with airfoil shape cross section
mitigated this.
Alternative positions to mount the support were the upper surface from x/c 0.5
to 1.0 or sting support from the trailing edge. Mounting at the top on the rear
half of the model placed the support in a region of airflow that does not vary
much as the ground approached. Having the supports slanted and exiting the
wind tunnel at a position aft of the model ensured that if excessive air leaked
into the wind tunnel, it did not affect the flow about the model.
Manometer
The bank of manometers was repaired to a state where all tubes responded
relatively together to changing reservoir water level. Each tube had a short
section made of glass at the top. All 40 glass tubes were clamped into a
holder. Due to age and the clamping, most tubes developed minute cracks.
Once these glass tubes and adjacent stiffened rubber tubes were
painstakingly replaced, water level in all tubes rose and fell together.
231
Appendix W. Formulas
The following formulas were used to determine the coefficients and their
relative uncertainties.
For the quantity A,

Absolute uncertainty -

Relative uncertainty - A =

Common variables
Planform area
Dimensions were measured with a vernier rule with the smallest division
0.05mm.
S = bc
Uncertainty
S = ( b )2 + ( c )2
Density
A simple quadratic curve was fitted to the water and air density values for the
temperature range that the experiments were conducted in. Temperature was
recorded in degree Celsius and the coefficients were considered accurate.
Air density = 0.00001T2 - 0.0046T + 1.2913

Water density = -0.0047T2 - 0.0191T + 1000.5
AIR = AAIRT 2 + BAIRT + C AIR
Uncertainty
2 2
2 4 2T T
AIR = AAIR T + BAIRT
T T
The uncertainty for water density was determined in this similar way.
Dynamic Pressure
1
q= AIRU 2 = PSTAGNATION PSTATIC = hWATER g
2
where h was the difference in water level heights read on the manometer.
Uncertainty
2
h
2
q
= + WATER
q h WATER
and
h = hSTATIC hPITOT
2 2
h = hSTATIC + hPITOT
2 2
h hSTATIC + hPITOT
=
h hSTATIC hPITOT
where the smallest division was 1mm on the manometer.
Force measurements
The absolute uncertainty in force measurements was defined by
232

F =
N
where F-force, -standard deviation and N-number of samples.
Drag
Since a small drift occurred when establishing the drag forces baseline and
this drift was reasonably assumed linear with time when the time interval was
small, the following formula was used.
t m t1
DBL = DBL1 + (DBL 2 DBL1 )
t 2 t1
where D-drag, t-time, BL-baseline, m-measurement, 1-before, 2-after.
Uncertainty
2 2
DBL 2 + DBL1
D D BL1 =
BL 2
DBL 2 DBL1
tm2 + tl2
t t1 =
m
tm t1
t22 + t12
t t1 =
2
t2 t1
t t tm t1
m 1 (DBL 2 DBL1 ) = ( D BL 2 D BL1 ) + ( ) + ( )
2
t m t1
2
t 2 t1
2
(DBL 2 DBL1 )
t2 t1 t2 t1
2
t t
DBL = D 2
BL1 + m 1 (DBL 2 DBL1 )
t2 t1
Drag experienced by the wing was given by

D = Dm DBL DS
where S-supports.
Uncertainty
D = Dm2 + DBL
2
+ DS2
where DS was mean absolute uncertainty for drag on supports. Each DS
reading was obtained in the same way as DBL.
Since the load cell gave a slightly different value of Drag force, the corrected
drag force is given by
DCORRECTED = AD D DBuoyancy
where AD is the correction factor. However, since the load cell correction
factor is almost 1.0, the load cell was considered to give an accurate reading
directly. No correction factor is needed for the drag force. Buoyancy
correction was applied after load cell correction. To simplify the analysis, the
buoyancy correction was assumed to have no uncertainty. As the buoyancy
correction is a small quantity compared to the measured drag.
233
The drag force was then

DCORRECTED = D DBuoyancy
Uncertainty
DCORRECTED = D
Coefficient of drag
DCORRECTED DCORRECTED
CD = 2
=
2 U S
1
qS
Uncertainty
C = D2
D CORRECTED
+ q2 + S2
Lift
Since a small drift occurred when establishing the lift forces baseline and this
drift was reasonably assumed linear with time when time between readings
was small, the following formula was used.
tm t1
LBL = LBL1 + (LBL 2 LBL1 )
t2 t1
where L-drag, t-time, BL-baseline, m-measurement, 1-before, 2-after
Uncertainty
L2BL 2 + L2BL1
L L BL1 =
BL 2
LBL 2 LBL1
tm2 + tl2
t t1 =
m
tm t1
t22 + tl2
t t1 =
2
t2 t1
t t tm t1
m 1 (LBL 2 LBL1 ) = ( LBL 2 L BL1 ) + ( ) + ( )
2
t m t1
2
t 2 t1
2
(LBL 2 LBL1 )
t2 t1 t2 t1
2
t t
LBL = L 2
BL1 + m 1 (LBL 2 LBL1 )
t2 t1
Lift experienced by the wing is given by

L = Lm LBL
Uncertainty
L = L2m + L2BL
234
Since the load cell gave a slightly different value of lift force, the corrected
drag force is given by
LCORRECTED = AL L
where AL is the correction factor. Since this correction factor is close to 1.0,
the load cells output can be considered accurate and no correction factor
needed.
The corrected Lift force was then

LCORRECTED = L
Uncertainty
LCORRECTED = L
Coefficient of lift
LCORRECTED LCORRECTED
CL = 2
=
2 U S
1
qS
Uncertainty
C = L2
L CORRECTED
+ q2 + S2
Lift / Drag
Since aerodynamic efficiency was represented by L/D. The relative
uncertainty of L/D was given by
L / D = L2
CORRECTED
+ D2 CORRECTED
which improved slightly since the relative uncertainty of dynamic pressure
was not required.
235
Appendix X. Corrections to Data
Pressure Taps at the Leading and Trailing edge

There was no pressure tap at the leading edge of the wing when all the
readings were taken. At the end data collection, an additional tap was
inserted at the leading edge. The metal tube in this tap was of diameter
1.8mm, while the existing tubes are of 1.3mm diameter. Three test runs were
carried out at = 0O. These show that the rise in water height from the
leading edge is 0.94 of the pitot reading rise in water height. This pressure
reading was inserted into pressure readings of each run. While it is direct to
obtain stagnation point movement from pressure readings at the leading
edge, changes in upper surface suction was used to determine change in
circulation. This also indicates the stagnation point movement and simplified
the construction since no pressure taps were needed at the wings leading
edge. Further details are in the appendix for leading edge pressure
measurement.
Adjustment to Measured Static Pressure on Pitot tube

As the pitot static tube was incorrectly positioned ahead of the flat plate, the
measured static pressure was corrected using dp/dx. The correction
effectively shifted the pitot static tube downstream by 0.36m, resulting in lower
static pressure readings.
Corrections to Pressure measurements

1. Static pressure corrected using dp/dx.
2. Dynamic pressure corrected using blockage correction.
Corrections to Force measurements

1. Static pressure corrected using dp/dx.
2. Dynamic pressure corrected using blockage correction.
3. Lift force corrected using loadcell calibration.
4. Drag force corrected using loadcell calibration.
5. Drag force corrected again using buoyancy correction.
Buoyancy correction
Downstream pressure gradient was determined from both walls of the tunnel.
While maximum practical effort was expanded to seal the tunnel walls, leaks
were present on the starboard wall. The obtained pressure gradient was not
linear and its magnitude did not reduce with increasing Reynolds number. The
pressure gradient from the portside wall was linear and responded to
changing Reynolds number of the flow. This value of pressure gradient was
taken to represent the pressure gradient of the entire free stream region,
which in turn was used for buoyancy correction.
Due to temperature changes, the power required to produce a flow in the test
section with Reynolds Number as close to 200000 varied between power
inputs indicated by 26hz to 27hz on the control panel of the wind tunnel
controller. It was not practical to find times where temperature varied between
27 to 32OC to determine the pressure gradient. Since temperature caused
power inputs to vary, varying power input was used to select the pressure
gradient. Running the wind tunnel at 26hz and 27hz produced two distinct
values of streamwise pressure gradient. Further details are in the appendix
for pressure gradient. The required pressure gradient was obtained by linear
interpolation based on the frequency of the power input.
236

Groun Effect On A Lift Generating Body (KOHFH) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Groun Effect On A Lift Generating Body (KOHFH) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this thesis is my original work

This thesis has also not been submitted for any

The author wishes to express appreciation to the late Associate Professor

workshop, especially to Mr James Ng for machining the small parts of the

SUMMARY .................................................................................................. VII

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................... VIII

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................... IX

LIST OF SYMBOLS..................................................................................... XII

1.1 Mechanism of Ground Effect................................................................. 1

1.2 History .................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Literature Review .................................................................................. 7

1.3.1 Analytical Methods ......................................................................... 8

1.3.1.1 Flat Ground, Image Method, 3D .............................................. 8

1.3.1.2 Wavy Ground, Image Method, 3D ......................................... 13

1.3.2 Computational Methods ............................................................... 14

1.3.2.1 RANS, Moving Ground, 2D ................................................... 14

1.3.2.2 Vortex Lattice Method, 3D ..................................................... 15

1.3.3 Experimental Methods ................................................................. 18

1.3.3.1 Image Method, 3D ................................................................. 18

1.3.3.2 Flat Plate, 3D ........................................................................ 23

1.3.3.3 Flat Plate, 2D, Pressure Distribution...................................... 27

1.3.3.4 Moving Ground, 3D, Pressure Distribution ............................ 34

1.4 Objectives ........................................................................................... 38

1.5 Scope and Organisation of the Thesis ................................................ 39

2.1 Wind Tunnel ....................................................................................... 40

2.1.1 Velocity Profile in the y-z plane .................................................... 41

2.2 Flat Plate ............................................................................................ 42

2.3 Caution in Simulation of the Ground in Ground Effect Experiments .... 43

2.5 Investigated range of and h/c........................................................... 47

2.6 Temperature, Dynamic Pressure and Reynolds Number .................... 47

2.7 Model .................................................................................................. 48

2.8 Measurement of lift ............................................................................. 50

2.9 Measurement of drag .......................................................................... 50

2.10 Measurement of pressure ................................................................. 52

2.11 Load Cell .......................................................................................... 52

2.12 Manometer ....................................................................................... 54

2.13 Challenges in Measurement ............................................................. 55

2.13.1 Drift in Load Cell Datum ............................................................. 55

2.13.2 Downstream Pressure Gradient ................................................. 55

2.13.3 Blockage Effects ........................................................................ 56

3.1. Pressure Distribution.......................................................................... 57

3.1.1 Reynolds number Effect on Aerodynamic Coefficients ................. 57

3.1.2 Aerodynamic Coefficients at Reynolds number of 200000 ........... 60

3.1.3 Pressure Distribution at = 0O and 2O ......................................... 67

3.1.4 Pressure Distribution at = 4O to 8O ............................................ 71

3.2. Lift and Drag ...................................................................................... 77

3.2.1 Datum 3D Lift and Drag ............................................................... 78

3.2.2 Lift and Drag coefficients from Pressure Distribution .................... 80

3.2.3 Effect of on Lift and Drag coefficients vs. h/c............................. 81

3.2.4 Effect of h/c on Lift and Drag coefficient vs. .............................. 84

3.3 Uncertainty ......................................................................................... 86

4.1 Effective camber ................................................................................. 92

4.3 Behaviour of Air below the wing .......................................................... 94

4.4 Ground effect on circulation on a wing ................................................ 95

4.5 Drag .................................................................................................... 96

4.6.1 Effects of a Flat Moving Ground on lift and drag ........................... 98

4.6.2 Effects of a Flat Stationary Ground on lift and drag ...................... 99

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Concluding Remarks......................................................................... 101

5.2 Recommendations ............................................................................ 102

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 104

A Summary of WIG Vehicles ................................................................ 108