Quantitative comparison of 2D and 3D shock control bumps for drag reduction on transonic wings

Deng, Fangfang; Qin, Ning

doi:10.1177/0954410018778815

Cited by 9 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that all three bumps achieved desirable behaviors while 3D wedgeshaped bumps did not perform as well as expected. It is likely due to a mismatched cross-sectional area with that of 2D bumps as shown in our earlier study [23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…The study shows that the strong shock wave on the low-sweep natural laminar flow wing can be effectively controlled by optimized bumps. Deng and Qin [23] compared 2D and 3D bumps in the context of local transonic area rule in a recent work. It was found that one of the crucial parameters of 2D and 3D bumps is their cross-sectional area that can be explained by applying the classical transonic area rule.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vortex-Generating Shock Control Bumps for Robust Drag Reduction at Transonic Speeds

Deng

Qin

2021

AIAA Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vortex-Generating Shock Control Bumps for Robust Drag Reduction at Transonic Speeds

Deng

Qin

2021

AIAA Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the performance of 2D and 3D bumps at design point in terms of drag reduction is comparable [58], the buffet behavior is effected less strongly by 3D bumps [27]. Furthermore, it might be challenging to match the 3D aerodynamic target shape especially at the bump edges with sufficient accuracy.…”

Section: Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to two-dimensional (2D) bumps, the potential of three-dimensional (3D) SCBs for reducing drag and/or delaying buffet onset has been investigated [6,7,22,26,27,[53][54][55][56][57]. A comparison between 2D and 3D bumps is given by Deng and Qin [58]. However, most of the adaptive SCB concepts presented in this review do not focus on 2D or 3D shaped bumps in particular but often the concepts could be used for both applications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Adaptive Shock Control Systems

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drag reduction plays a major role in future aircraft design in order to lower emissions in aviation. In transonic flight, the transonic shock induces wave drag and thus increases the overall aircraft drag and hence emissions. In the past decades, shock control has been investigated intensively from an aerodynamic point of view and has proven its efficacy in terms of reducing wave drag. Furthermore, a number of concepts for shock control bumps (SCBs) that can adapt their position and height have been introduced. The implementation of adaptive SCBs requires a trade-off between aerodynamic benefits, system complexity and overall robustness. The challenge is to find a system with low complexity which still generates sufficient aerodynamic improvement to attain an overall system benefit. The objectives of this paper are to summarize adaptive concepts for shock control, and to evaluate and compare them in terms of their advantages and challenges of their system integrity so as to offer a basis for robust comparisons. The investigated concepts include different actuation systems as conventional spoiler actuators, shape memory alloys (SMAs) or pressurized elements. Near-term applications are seen for spoiler actuator concepts while highest controllability is identified for concepts several with smaller actuators such as SMAs.

show abstract

“…zero sweep, case. Qin et al [31]- [33] proposed and optimized three-dimensional contour bumps for NLF transonic airfoils and wings. They introduced the three-dimensional contour SCBs to an un-swept natural laminar flow wing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shock Control of a Low-Sweep Transonic Laminar Flow Wing

Zhu

Qin

et al. 2019

AIAA Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a combined experimental and computational study of a low-sweep transonic natural laminar flow (NLF) wing with shock control bumps (SCBs). A transonic NLF wing with a relatively low sweep angle of 20° was chosen for this study. To avoid the complexity of the flow introduced by perforated/slotted walls commonly used for transonic wind tunnel tests for reducing the wall interference, both experimental tests and computational simulations were conducted with solid wind tunnel wall conditions. This allows for like-to-like validation of the computational simulation.Optimization of the shock control bumps was first conducted to design the wind tunnel test model with bumps. Two critical parameters of the three-dimensional SCBs for shock control, i.e. bump crest * Professor of Aerodynamics, AIAA Associate Fellow, Corresponding Author.

show abstract

Quantitative comparison of 2D and 3D shock control bumps for drag reduction on transonic wings

Abstract: This is a repository copy of Quantitative comparison of 2D and 3D shock control bumps for drag reduction on transonic wings.

Cited by 9 publications

References 30 publications

Vortex-Generating Shock Control Bumps for Robust Drag Reduction at Transonic Speeds

Vortex-Generating Shock Control Bumps for Robust Drag Reduction at Transonic Speeds

Review of Adaptive Shock Control Systems

Shock Control of a Low-Sweep Transonic Laminar Flow Wing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About