Regarding the design and finite-element analysis of the structure, the CATIA V5 software is commonly used in the aerospace field. To validate the results given by XFLR5, wind tunnel tests were performed on several different airfoils. This software computes airfoil performances as XFoil and lets you choose from three methods to calculate the performance of the wing (LLT, VLM and 3D Panels). In this project, the software used to calculate the coefficients of pressure on the wing is XFLR5 and the software for the design and structural analysis will be CATIA V5.The XFLR5 software allows quick analysis of a wing based on the analysis of its airfoils. To achieve this we will therefore need to combine the software results of calculations about the aerodynamics of a wing with the software results for its design and structural analysis. By applying realistic embedment, we should be able to get much more reliable results. To overcome this problem, we should be able to apply an overall aerodynamic distribution over the entire surface of the wing. This implies that the entire wing will be stronger than necessary so that the structure will not be fully optimized. At this point we design this spar so that it can withstand the lift of the wing on its own. This method particularly works when the wing structure has a main beam. To facilitate analysis, the lift of the wing is distributed on the main wing s spar and its ribs. 1, Manuel Flores Salinas 2, Oscar Carranza Moyao 3 and Ruxandra Mihaela Botez 4 ETS, LARCASE, 1100 Notre Dame West, Montreal, Qc, Canada During the structural study of an aircraft wing, it is difficult to accurately model the aerodynamic forces applied on the wing. (Note that in this case chord length will be significantly larger, so you must decrease the airspeed in XFLR5 analysis to match the Re numbers).1 Aero Structural Modeling of a Wing Using CATIA V5 And XFLR5 Software And Experimental Validation Using The Price-Païdoussis Wing Tunnel David Communier. another rectangular wing (wing-4) with the same area (s) but a shorter aspect ratio of AR= 3.5. But you will see that mean aerodynamic chord "MAC" in tapered wing is almost the same as the chord length in rectangular wing for the taper ratio used, so there is no need to play with airspeed to match the Re numbers). (Note that Re numbers must be the same in comparison. Use a taper ratio of 0.6 and show the wing's planform. tapered wing (wing-3) with the same area (S) and same aspect ratio (AR). rectangular reference wing (ie, wing-l as described above) 2. Problem 2: Similarly, perform the comparative analysis of following wings that use only Clark Y airfoil: 1. Please note that this comparison should be made at the same Re number. Also compare airfoil data with the wing data and comment on results (such as L/D ratios, lift slope - prediction vs. (Note that you must first run a batch analysis of the two airfoils in a relevant range of Re numbers and angle of attacks). Also find the aerodynamic center (a.c.) of both wings by using Cm vs a plots. Keep the Re number at about 300,000 in wing analysis by accordingly choosing the airspeed. Then, perform the following two case studies: Problem 1: Make a comparative analysis of wing-1 and wing-2 by choosing VLM (vortex lattice method) in XFLR5 in terms of Cų vs a, Cp vs Cl, Cm vs a, and L/D vs a graphs. Then, build two wings with this reference wing geometry such that the wing-1 uses Clark Y airfoil and the wing-2 uses another airfoil you will choose from the airfoil database. Note that the planform area of this rectangular reference wing is S = b* c = 5m2 and aspect ratio is AR = b2/S = 5. Aim: Use XFLR5 for wing analysis Consider a reference wing geometry with constant chord length of c = 1m, half wing span of b/2 = 2.5m, zero sweep, zero washout, and zero dihedral angle.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |