Difference between revisions of "Multi-Element Airfoils"
Emilyanthony (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Parameterization for optimization== | ==Parameterization for optimization== | ||
| + | |||
When optimizing a multiple degree-of-freedom system like the positioning of elements in a multi-element airfoil, it can be important to have a smartly chosen set of independent variables. For example, if you change the height of only the 2nd element in a 3-element airfoil, you'll likely hurt the overall performance (due to choking a slot gap) even if the optimum position has the 2nd element placed higher - for example, if the entire multi-element airfoil should be moved higher. This method isn't impossible to optimize, just very inefficient to do so. Instead of defining the element locations globally, defining them relative to each other lets us use meaningful independent variables like slot gap and slot overlap. For adjusting angles of attack, I prefer to define the angle for each element individually. When defining angles relative to each other, increasing the angle of the 1st element will rotate the entire multi-element airfoil. While specifying the relative angles can speed up the initial optimization, it isn't efficient for fine-tuning, which is where most of ones time is spent. | When optimizing a multiple degree-of-freedom system like the positioning of elements in a multi-element airfoil, it can be important to have a smartly chosen set of independent variables. For example, if you change the height of only the 2nd element in a 3-element airfoil, you'll likely hurt the overall performance (due to choking a slot gap) even if the optimum position has the 2nd element placed higher - for example, if the entire multi-element airfoil should be moved higher. This method isn't impossible to optimize, just very inefficient to do so. Instead of defining the element locations globally, defining them relative to each other lets us use meaningful independent variables like slot gap and slot overlap. For adjusting angles of attack, I prefer to define the angle for each element individually. When defining angles relative to each other, increasing the angle of the 1st element will rotate the entire multi-element airfoil. While specifying the relative angles can speed up the initial optimization, it isn't efficient for fine-tuning, which is where most of ones time is spent. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 11: | ||
Given the variables | Given the variables | ||
| − | + | * Global anchor position, <math>x_{anchor}</math> and <math>z_{anchor}</math> | |
| + | |||
| + | * Element angle of attack, <math>\alpha_i</math> | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Element cord, <math>c_i</math> | ||
| + | * Slot gap height and overlap, <math>h_i</math> and <math>l_i</math> (Be aware that this will not be the true slot gap due to element thickness) | ||
| − | + | * Element pivot position, <math>x_{pivot,i}</math> and <math>z_{pivot,i}</math> (This is eyeballed as the location on an element that is closest to the trailing edge of the preceding element, which allows us to adjust element angles without altering the true slot gap in the process)<br />Now to position the multi-element airfoil, starting from the back: | |
| − | + | For each element downstream of the anchor element, starting at the back (elements j = N to <math>i_{anchor}</math>+1): | |
| − | + | 1. Rotate elements (N to j) by <math>(\alpha_j-\alpha_{j-1}</math>) about <math>(x_{anchor,j}, 0, z_{anchor,j})</math> | |
| + | 2. Translate elements (N to j) by <math>(c_{j-1} - l_j, 0, h_j)</math> | ||
| − | 1. Translate elements (1 to k) by ( | + | |
| + | Now, for each element upstream of the anchor element, starting at the front (elements k = 1 to <math>i_{anchor}</math>-1): | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | 1. Translate elements (1 to k) by <math>(l_{k+1}-c_k, 0, -h_{k+1})</math> | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2. Rotate elements (1 to k) by <math>(\alpha_k-\alpha_{k+1})</math> about <math>(x_{anchor,k+1}, 0, z_{anchor,k+1})</math> | ||
| Line 28: | Line 41: | ||
| − | 1. Translate the multi-element airfoil such that the anchor point is at the origin | + | 1. Translate the multi-element airfoil such that the anchor point is at the origin |
| + | |||
| + | 2. Rotate the multi-element airfoil by <math>\alpha_{anchor}</math> | ||
| + | |||
| + | 3. Translate the multi-element airfoil by <math>(x_{anchor}, 0, z_{anchor})</math> into its final position | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[File:1.mp4|left|middle|thumb|Example of anchoring by the front element]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| − | |||
| + | [[File:Rear Anchor.mp4|left|middle|thumb|Example of anchoring by the rear element]] | ||
| − | [ | + | [[Category:Body_and_Aero]] |
Latest revision as of 18:06, 30 May 2024
Parameterization for optimization
When optimizing a multiple degree-of-freedom system like the positioning of elements in a multi-element airfoil, it can be important to have a smartly chosen set of independent variables. For example, if you change the height of only the 2nd element in a 3-element airfoil, you'll likely hurt the overall performance (due to choking a slot gap) even if the optimum position has the 2nd element placed higher - for example, if the entire multi-element airfoil should be moved higher. This method isn't impossible to optimize, just very inefficient to do so. Instead of defining the element locations globally, defining them relative to each other lets us use meaningful independent variables like slot gap and slot overlap. For adjusting angles of attack, I prefer to define the angle for each element individually. When defining angles relative to each other, increasing the angle of the 1st element will rotate the entire multi-element airfoil. While specifying the relative angles can speed up the initial optimization, it isn't efficient for fine-tuning, which is where most of ones time is spent.
Below is how to set up this parameterization:
Given elements i = 1 to N, import them all into your software of choice, whether you're optimizing them in CFD, or recreating the final design in CAD. All elements must start with their leading edge on the coordinate system origin, and with zero angle of attack.
First, pick an element to act as the 'anchor' for the multi-element airfoil. Your anchor element will define the one point that you have global control over, usually for something like placing the leading or trailing edge near a bounding box in the regulations.
Given the variables
- Global anchor position, and
- Element angle of attack,
- Element cord,
- Slot gap height and overlap, and (Be aware that this will not be the true slot gap due to element thickness)
- Element pivot position, and (This is eyeballed as the location on an element that is closest to the trailing edge of the preceding element, which allows us to adjust element angles without altering the true slot gap in the process)
Now to position the multi-element airfoil, starting from the back:
For each element downstream of the anchor element, starting at the back (elements j = N to +1):
1. Rotate elements (N to j) by ) about
2. Translate elements (N to j) by
Now, for each element upstream of the anchor element, starting at the front (elements k = 1 to -1):
1. Translate elements (1 to k) by
2. Rotate elements (1 to k) by about
Finally, for the entire multi-element airfoil:
1. Translate the multi-element airfoil such that the anchor point is at the origin
2. Rotate the multi-element airfoil by
3. Translate the multi-element airfoil by into its final position