Cargando…
Numerical investigation on the aerodynamic efficiency of bio-inspired corrugated and cambered airfoils in ground effect
This research numerically investigates the flapping motion effect on the flow around two subsonic airfoils near a ground wall. Thus far, the aerodynamic efficiency of the dragonfly-inspired flapping airfoil has not been challenged by an asymmetric cambered airfoil considering the ground effect pheno...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9646766/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36351992 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-23590-2 |
Sumario: | This research numerically investigates the flapping motion effect on the flow around two subsonic airfoils near a ground wall. Thus far, the aerodynamic efficiency of the dragonfly-inspired flapping airfoil has not been challenged by an asymmetric cambered airfoil considering the ground effect phenomenon, especially in the MAV flight range. The analysis is carried out on the basis of an unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-stokes (URANS) simulation, whereby the Transition SST turbulence model simulates the flow characteristics. Dragonfly-inspired and NACA4412 airfoils are selected in this research to assess the geometry effect on aerodynamic efficiency. Moreover, the impacts of Reynolds number (Re), Strouhal number (St), and average ground clearance of the flapping airfoil are investigated. The results indicate a direct relationship between the airfoil’s aerodynamic performance ([Formula: see text] /[Formula: see text] ) and the ground effect. The [Formula: see text] /[Formula: see text] increases by reducing the airfoil and ground distance, especially at [Formula: see text] . At [Formula: see text] , by increasing the St from 0.2 to 0.6, the values of [Formula: see text] /[Formula: see text] decrease from 10.34 to 2.1 and 3.22 to 1.8 for NACA4412 and dragonfly airfoils, respectively. As a result, the [Formula: see text] /[Formula: see text] of the NACA4412 airfoil is better than that of the dragonfly airfoil, especially at low oscillation frequency. The efficiency difference between the two airfoils at St=0.6 is approximately 14%, indicating that the [Formula: see text] /[Formula: see text] difference decreases substantially with increasing frequency. For [Formula: see text] , the results show the dragonfly airfoil to have better [Formula: see text] /[Formula: see text] in all frequencies than the NACA4412 airfoil. |
---|