Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T18:31:55.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Future challenges and opportunities in aerodynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

A. Kumar  and
J. N Hefner
A. Kumar
Affiliation:
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, USA
J. N Hefner
Affiliation:
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Investments in aeronautics research and technology have declined substantially over the last decade, in part due to the perception that technologies required in aircraft design are fairly mature and readily available. This perception is being driven by the fact that aircraft configurations, particularly the transport aircraft, have evolved only incrementally over the last several decades. If, however, one considers that the growth in air travel is expected to triple in the next 20 years, it becomes quickly obvious that the evolutionary development of technologies is not going to meet the increased demands for safety, environmental compatibility, capacity, and economic viability. Instead, breakthrough technologies will be required both in traditional disciplines of aerodynamics, propulsion, structures, materials, controls and avionics as well as in the multidisciplinary integration of these technologies into the design of future aerospace vehicles concepts. The paper discusses challenges and opportunities in the field of aerodynamics over the next decade. Future technology advancements in aerodynamics will hinge on our ability to understand, model and control complex, three-dimensional, unsteady viscous flow across the speed range. This understanding is critical for developing innovative flow and noise control technologies and advanced design tools that will revolutionise future aerospace vehicle systems and concepts. Specifically, the paper focuses on advanced vehicle concepts, flow and noise control technologies, and advanced design and analysis tools.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 104 , Issue 1038 , August 2000 , pp. 365 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2000 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Loewy, Robert G. Recent trends in US aeronautics research and technology. Committee on strategic assessment of US aeronautics, National Academy of Sciences Report, 1999.Google Scholar
2. Liebeck, R.H., Page, M.A. and Rawdon, B.K. Evolution of the revolutionary blended wing body subsonic transport. Transportation beyond 2000: Technologies needed for engineering design. NASA CP-10184, pp 431-460, 1996.Google Scholar
3. Pfenninger, W. Laminar flow control, laminarisation. AGARD-R-654, Special course on concepts for drag reduction, 1997.Google Scholar
4. Grasmeyer, J.M. Multidisciplinary design optimisation of a STRUTBRACED WING AIRCRAFT. MS thesis. Department of Aerospace Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1998.Google Scholar
5. Morris, S.J. Advanced aerodynamic configurations and their integration into the airport environment. NASA TM-109154, 1994.Google Scholar
6. Pfenninger, W. and Vemuru, C.S. Design aspects of long-range supersonic LFC aircraft with highly swept wings. Aerospace technology conference and exposition, Anaheim, CA, SAE technical paper 88-1397, 1988.Google Scholar
7. Transportation beyond 2000: technologies needed for engineering design. NASA CP-10184, pp 431- 460, 1996.Google Scholar
8. Bushnell, D.M. Frontiers of the ‘responsibly imaginable’ in (civilian) aeronautics. AIAA Paper 98-0001, 1998.Google Scholar
9. Yaros, S.F. et al. Synergistic airframe-propulsion interactions and integrations. NASA TM-207644, 1998.Google Scholar
10. Joslin, R.D. Overview of laminar flow control. NASA TP-1998-208705, 1998.Google Scholar
11. Joslin, R.D. Aircraft laminar flow control. Annual review of fluid mechanics, 1998 30, pp 1–29.Google Scholar
12. Braslow, A.L. A history of suction-type laminar flow control with emphasis on flight tesearch. NASA Monographs in aerospace history. No 13, 1999.Google Scholar
13. Saric, W.S., Carrillo, R.B., and Reibert, M.S. Leading-edge roughness as a transition control mechanism. AIAA Paper 98-0781, 1998.Google Scholar
14. Lin, J.C. Control of turbulent boundary-layer separation using micro-vortex generators. AIAA Paper 99-3404, 1999.Google Scholar
15. Saddoughi, S. Preliminary results of the ‘on-demand’ vortex generator experiments. Annual research briefs. NASA/Stanford University Center for Turbulence Research. 1995.Google Scholar
16. Ho, C.M. and Tai, Y.C. Review: MEMs and its applications for flow control. J Fluids Eng., 1996 118, (3), pp 437–447.Google Scholar
17. Amitay, M., Smith, B.L., and Glezer, A. Aerodynamic flow control using synthetic jet technology. AIAA Paper 98-0208, 1998.Google Scholar
18 Seifert, A. and Pack, L. Oscillatory excitation of unsteady compressible flows over airfoils at flight Reynolds numbers. AIAA Paper 99-0925, 1999.Google Scholar
19. Seifert, A. and Pack, L. Sweep and compressibility effects on active separation control at high Reynolds numbers. AIAA Paper 2000-0410, 2000.Google Scholar
20. Wygnanski, I. Boundary layer and flow control by periodic addition of momentum, AIAA Paper 97-2117, 1997.Google Scholar
21. McLean, J.D., Crouch, J.D., Stoner, R.C., Sakurai, S., Seidel, G.E., Feifel, W.M., and Rush, H.M. Study of the application of separation control by unsteady excitation to civil transport aircraft. NASA CR-209338, 1999.Google Scholar
22. Ganz, U.W. et. al Boeing 18-inch fan rig broadband noise test. NASA CR-208704, 1998 Google Scholar
23. Anderson, B. A. and Wygnanski, I. Noise reduction by interaction of flexible filaments with an underexpanded supersonic jet. AIAA Paper 99-0080, 1999.Google Scholar
24. Macaraeg, M.G. Fundamental investigations of airframe noise. AIAA PAPER 98-2224, 1998.Google Scholar
25. Raj, P. Aircraft Design in the 21st century: Implications for design methods. AIAA Paper 98-2895, 1998.Google Scholar
26. Usher, J.M. (Ed) Integrated Product and Process Development: Methods, Tools, and Technologies. John Wiley and sons, January 1998.Google Scholar
27. Goldhammer, M.I. and Steinle, Frank W. Design and validation of advanced transonic wings using CFD and very high Reynolds number wind tunnel testing. ICAS Paper 90-2.6.2, 17th ICAS Conference, 1990.Google Scholar
28. DeLoach, R. Improved quality in aerospace testing through the modern design of experiments. AIAA Paper 2000-0825, 2000.Google Scholar
29. Campbell, R.L. Efficient viscous design of realistic aircraft configuration. AIAA Paper 98-2539, 1998.Google Scholar
30. AST integrated wing design, McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, Technical Progress Report, 1996.Google Scholar
31. Krist, S.E., Bauer, S.X.S. and Campbell, R.L. Viscous design of the TCA configuration aerodynamics performance workshop, HSR annual airframe review, February 1998.Google Scholar
32. Naik, D.A., Krist, S.E., Campbell, R.L., Vatsa, V.N., Buning, P.G. and Gea, L.M. Inverse design of nacelles using multi-block Navier-Stokes codes. AIAA Paper 95-1820, 1995.Google Scholar
33. Carle, A., Fagan, M. and Green, L.L. Preliminary results from the application of automated adjoint code generation to CFL3D. AIAA Paper 98-4807, 1998.Google Scholar
34. Squire, W. and Trapp, G. Using complex variables to estimate derivatives of real functions. AIAA Paper 99-3136, 1999.Google Scholar
35. Reuther, J., Jameson, A., Alonso, J.J., Rimlinger, J.J. and Saunders, D. Constrained multi-point aerodynamic shape optimisation using an adjoint formulation and parallel computers. AIAA Paper 97-0103, 1997.Google Scholar
36. Anderson, W.K. and Venkatakrishnan, V. Aerodynamic design optimisation on unstructured grids with a continuous adjoint formulation. AIAA Paper 97-0643, 1997.Google Scholar
37. Zang, T.A. and Green, L.L. Multidisciplinary design optimisation techniques: Implications and opportunities for fluid dynamics research. AIAA Paper 99-3798, 1999.Google Scholar
38. Giesing, J. and Barthelemy, J.F.M. Summary of Industry MDO Applications and needs. AIAA Paper 98-4944, 1998.Google Scholar
39. Xiao, Q., Seus, R.H. and Rhodes, G.S. Multidisciplinary wing shape optimisation with uncertain parameters. AIAA Paper 99-1601, 1999.Google Scholar
40. Kowal, M.T. and Mahadevan, S. Uncertainty-based multidisciplinary optimisation. AIAA Paper 98-4915, 1998.Google Scholar
41. Rubbert, P.E. On the pursuit of value with CFD. Frontiers of computational fluid dynamics 1998, World Scientific, Singapore, pp 417–427, 1998.Google Scholar
42. Brandt, A. Multigrid Techniques: 1984 Guide with applications to fluid dynamics. GMD-Studies 85, GMD-FIT, 1985.Google Scholar
43. Ta’asan, S. Canonical-variables multigrid method for dteady - State Euler equations. ICASE Report 94 -14, 1994.Google Scholar
44. Roberts, T.W., Swanson, R.C. and Sidilkover, D. An algorithm for ideal multigrid convergence for the steady Euler equations. Computers and fluids, 1999 28, (4-5), pp 427–442,.Google Scholar
45. Thomas, J.L., Diskin, B., and Brandt, A. Distributed relaxation multigrid and defect correction applied to the compressible Navier-Stokes equations. AIAA Paper 99-3334, 1999.Google Scholar
46. Sidilkover, D. Factorisable schemes for the equations of fluid flow. ICASE Report 99-20, 1999.Google Scholar
47. Malik, M.R. Stability theory for laminar flow control design. Viscous drag reduction in boundary layers, (Eds) Bushnell, D.M. and Hefner, J.N. AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics. 1990 123, pp 3–46.Google Scholar
48. Gatski, T.B. and Rumsey, C.L. Linear and nonlinear eddy viscosity models. Closure strategies for modelling turbulent and transitional flows, (Eds) Launder, B.E. and Sandham, N.D., Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
49. Giles, M.B. and Pierce, N.A. Improved lift and drag estimates using adjoint Euler equations. AIAA Paper 99-3293, 1999.Google Scholar
50. Venditti, D.A. and Darmofal, D.L. A multilevel error estimation and grid adaptive strategy for improving the accuracy of integral outputs. AIAA Paper 99-3292, 1999.Google Scholar
51. Mehta, U.B. Credible computational fluid dynamics simulations. AIAA J, 1998 36, (5), pp 665–667.Google Scholar
52. Saric, W. and Reshotko, E. Review of flow quality issues in wind tunnel testing. AIAA Paper 98-2613, 1998.Google Scholar
53. Owen, F.K. Wind tunnel flow quality: Retrospect and prospect. AIAA Paper 2000-0288. 2000.Google Scholar
54. Hemsch, M.J. Development and status of data quality assurance program at NASA Langley Research Center - Toward national standards. AIAA Paper 96-2214, 1996.Google Scholar