Aircraft Viscous Drag Reduction Using Riblets

Progress in Aerospace Sciences 38 (2002) 571600
Aircraft viscous drag reduction using riblets

P.R. Viswanath*
Experimental Aerodynamics Division, National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore 560 017, India
Abstract
The last two decades have seen considerable research activity on the use of riblets for viscous drag reduction.
Experimental results concerning the performance of 3 M riblets on airfoils, wings and wing-body or aircraft
congurations at different speed regimes are reviewed; these applications bring in additional effects like pressure
gradients and three dimensionality. In addition to drag reduction, aspects of altered ow features due to riblets are
discussed based on detailed wind tunnel measurements at low speeds. The available results obtained from wind tunnels
as well as ight tests rmly establish the effectiveness of riblets from low speed to moderate supersonic Mach numbers.
With optimized riblets, skin friction drag reduction in the range of 58% have been measured on 2D airfoils at low
incidence and in mild adverse pressure gradients; strong evidence exist at low speeds to indicate that riblets are more
effective in adverse pressure gradients. On wings of moderate sweep relevant to transport aircraft, riblets remain
effective providing drag reduction comparable to 2D airfoils, as long as the local angle between the surface streamlines
and riblet orientation is relatively small (o101). Limited data available on wing-body congurations show that total
drag reduction of about 23% is likely. Certain suggestions for future research are outlined.
r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572
2. Some general remarks on the experimental evaluation of drag reduction due to riblets . . . 574
3. Airfoils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574
3.1. Airfoils at low speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574
3.2. NAL studies on airfoils at low speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576
3.3. Low-speed studies on NACA 0012 and GAW-2 airfoils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577
3.3.1. Selection of riblets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577
3.3.2. Drag performance with incidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577
3.3.3. Boundary layer development on the NACA 0012 airfoil . . . . . . . . . . . . 579
3.3.4. Turbulence intensity proles on the NACA 0012 airfoil . . . . . . . . . . . . 580
3.3.5. Reynolds shear stress proles on the NACA 0012 airfoil and quadrant analysis 581
3.4. Airfoils at transonic speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583
4. Swept wings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585

4.1. NAL studies on a swept wing with GAW-2 prole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
4.1.1. Selection of riblets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587
4.1.2. Drag performance with incidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587
*Tel.: +91-80-522-4024; fax: +91-80-522-3942.

E-mail addresses: vish@ead.cmmacs.ernet.in (P.R. Viswanath).
0376-0421/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 6 - 0 4 2 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 4 8 - 9
572 P.R. Viswanath / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 38 (2002) 571600
Nomenclature /u0 v0 S r.m.s. value of Reynolds shear stress compo-

nent in the streamwise direction
c airfoil/wing chord u* friction velocity
CD sectional drag coefcient=drag force/(qN*c) u+ u/u *
DCD CD rib - CD smooth x distance along the airfoil chord, from the
Cf skin friction coefcient leading edge
DCf Cf rib - Cf smooth y distance normal to tunnel axis
Cp static pressure coefcient y+ yu * /n
Cpb base pressure coefcient, (pbpN)/qN z distance in the spanwise direction
f frequency, Hz a angle of attack
h riblet height b clauser pressure gradient parameter=(d*/tw)
h+ (hu * )/n (dp/dx)
p wall static pressure b+ (y/tw) (dp/dx)
pN freestream static pressure d boundary layer thickness
qN freestream dynamic pressure d* boundary layer displacement thickness
Rec reynolds number based on chord tw wall shear stress
s riblet spacing j local angle between surface streamline and
s+ (su * )/n riblet orientation (see Fig. 28), also referred
u local mean velocity in streamwise direction to as riblet yaw angle
UN freestream velocity n kinematic viscosity
Ue boundary layer edge velocity
/u0 S r.m.s. value of velocity uctuation in the
streamwise direction
4.1.3. Assessment of riblet yaw angle effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587

4.1.4. Boundary layer properties ahead of the trailing edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588
5. Flight investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589
6. Wing-body and aircraft congurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591
7. Riblets at supersonic speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592
8. Effect of riblets on lift characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593
9. Base drag reduction on airfoils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593
10. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598
1. Introduction around the globe concerning development of new

techniques for skin friction drag reduction [3,6] and
Research on drag reduction methodologies relevant to attempts have progressed broadly in two directions:
ight vehicles has received considerable attention during methods for delaying laminar-turbulent boundary layer
the past 23 decades [16]. In the context of a civil or transition and methods for altering or modifying the
commercial transport aircraft, depending on the size, turbulent structure of a turbulent boundary layer.
viscous or skin friction drag accounts for about 4050% Passive techniques which have been extensively investi-
of the total drag under cruise conditions; the pay off is gated for turbulent drag reduction include riblets
generally high even with a small level of drag reduction and large eddy break-up (LEBU) devices. This
[7]. There has been continuous and focussed activity review is concerned with riblets for transport aircraft
P.R. Viswanath / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 38 (2002) 571600 573
investigators, e.g. [8,18,22]. Because of the relatively

small groove dimensions (particularly with 3 M riblets),
measurements in the close vicinity of the grooves have
been generally difcult. In the recent years, measure-
ments of both mean velocity and some turbulence
statistics in the grooves have become available [23,24]
by using machine-cut riblets (of much higher dimensions
Fig. 1. Sketch of riblet geometry (taken from [7]). than 3 M); these results show that wall shear stress is
increased near groove peaks and appreciably reduced in
the valley and it has been suggested [23,24] that net drag
applications. Over the years, extensive research on reduction could result despite increased wetted area.
riblets has been carried out at the NASA Langley Over the years, excellent review papers covering aspects
Research Centre (USA) and ONERA/CERT (France). of drag reduction and ow structure due to riblets have
Riblets, which are micro-grooves on the surface and been published (Walsh [8] and Coustols and Savill [9])
aligned to the freestream direction (Fig. 1), have been and the most recent being that of Coustols [10].
studied most extensively [810] and the results from Realistic applications involve pressure gradients, three
these studies have been sufciently promising and dimensionality in addition to other factors and drag
encouraging that the concept has been evaluated in reduction under these conditions have been addressed,
ight tests. Several international meetings have ad- but not in sufcient detail. The boundary layer on an
dressed the subject of riblets, both from the view point airfoil is subjected to combined inuence of streamwise
of basic uid mechanics as well as practical applications. pressure gradients and surface curvature unlike the ow
Riblets with symmetric v-grooves (height equal to on a at plate; wing sweep introduces three-dimension-
spacing) with adhesive backed lm manufactured by ality and spanwise gradients in addition. Despite
the 3 M company (USA) have been widely investigated technological interest, the effort that has been devoted
in most earlier work and the results have revealed to understanding the effectiveness of riblets in detail in
enormous consistency with regard to the degree of drag the presence of these additional effects has been rather
reduction as well as certain aspects of ow structure [8]. limited. There have been investigations substantiating
Maximum viscous drag reduction in the range of 48% drag reduction capabilities of riblets in pressure gradi-
has been measured on a variety of two-dimensional ents [2527]. The application of riblets on 2D airfoils at
ows with zero or mild pressure gradients [8]; encour- zero or low incidence has revealed viscous drag
aged by these results, studies evaluating the effectiveness reduction comparable to zero-pressure gradient ows,
of riblets at transonic speeds as well as in ight [1114] e.g. [11,28,29]. Very encouraging results have been
have been reported. A large body of data generated reported from wind tunnel tests on Do-228 aircraft
using 3 M riblets reveal [8] that optimum drag reduction model at low speeds [30] and Airbus A-320 wing-body
occurs in the range of h+(=hu*/n) of 815. Some of the model at transonic Mach numbers [11]. The ight
earlier studies, e.g. Refs. [15,16], at low speeds have experiments at relatively high Reynolds numbers on a
focussed attention on optimizing riblets geometry and T-33 [12] and Learjet airplanes [13] have provided
drag reduction as high as 10% have been reported; considerable support to wind tunnel observations on
however, their sensitivity to Mach number, incidence, riblets effectiveness. In view of the strong interest on the
yaw, etc., are not known at the present time. development of small transport aircraft in our labora-
In zero-pressure gradient ows, the effects of riblets tory, we initiated about 10 years ago, an active research
appear to be conned to the near-wall region (y+o70). programme on riblets with emphasis on assessing their
Despite world-wide research during the last 15 years, effectiveness on aircraft components. Systematic experi-
detailed mechanisms by which riblets reduce the wall mental investigations on several airfoils and wings
shear stress are not clearly understood even in a zero- covering aspects of drag reduction and ow features
pressure gradient boundary layer ow. Several mechan- due to riblets have been performed and results from
isms have been suggested which include: weakening of many of these studies have been published [29,3138].
the bursting process near the wall [17], signicant This paper is a review of experimental results
retardation of the ow in the groove valley dominated concerning the performance of 3 M riblets on airfoils,
by viscous effects [10,18], an increase in the sublayer wings and wing-body combinations in different speed
thickness [19,20], inhibition or restriction of spanwise regimes; aspects of riblet effectiveness in pressure
motion of longitudinal vortices [1921]; it is likely that gradients and three-dimensionality are discussed. In
many of the above ow features have their subtle role in addition to drag reduction, aspects of altered ow
altering the wall shear stress. Certain reduction in features due to riblets are discussed based on detailed
turbulence intensity and Reynolds shear stress in the wind tunnel measurements at low speeds. Results from
wall region have also been reported by some of the ight experiments (at relatively high Reynolds numbers)
at subsonic, transonic and low supersonic Mach there is enormous consistency in the available data
numbers are included. Effect of riblets on other design concerning the effectiveness of riblets in different speed
parameters like lift characteristics are discussed based on regimes and ight experiments.
limited data available. Finally, certain suggestions for
future research are outlined.
3. Airfoils
2. Some general remarks on the experimental evaluation It is relevant and appropriate to briey review early
of drag reduction due to riblets work on riblets in pressure gradients at low speeds
before moving over to airfoil applications. In most
Three different approaches have been employed in studies, the magnitude of the pressure gradient is often
literature for the determination of viscous drag reduc- described by the Clauser pressure gradient parameter b
tion arising from riblets. These are: (i) direct measure- [=(d*/tw)(dp/dx)]. While b can vary along the riblet
ment of wall shear stress using a skin friction balance; surface , it has been convenient to dene an average
(ii) use of 2D boundary layer momentum integral (MI) value of b over the riblet surface (the averaging
technique and (iii) use of an internal strain gauge procedure used may vary in different studies); the
balance (e.g. for bodies of revolution, wing-body average value of b so dened is to be understood as a
conguration). representative value for the given ow condition.
Direct measurement of wall shear stress using an Sometimes, the boundary layer momentum thickness,
accurate skin friction drag balance has been performed y; is used in place of d and the pressure gradient
in several investigations and error bands have been parameter is dened here as b (see nomenclature).
estimated. The use of 2D MI involves measurement of Choi [39] investigated the effects of longitudinal
velocity proles in the boundary layer, both ahead and pressure gradients on a at plate with machined riblets
immediately downstream of the test surface, for the (1.5 mm high and 2.5 mm pitch) for two values of
smooth as well as in the presence of riblets; this is pressure gradient parameter b of 3.1 and 0.16 at low
usually accomplished using a pitot rake. The mean skin speeds; the emphasis in the study was on the structure of
friction (over the test surface) is determined by calculat- near-wall turbulence but not on drag reduction. Based
ing the change in boundary layer momentum thickness on measurements of mean velocity, streamwise turbu-
y across the test surface. This method can provide lence intensity, wall shear stress uctuations, he sug-
satisfactory results provided the test surface is long gested that the effectiveness of riblets in reducing skin
enough to cause sufcient change in y: The application friction may remain under pressure gradients. The
of MI for ows with streamwise pressure gradients experiments carried out by Pulvin and Truong [25] in a
involves the important assumption that the pressure channel ow showed maximum viscous drag reduction
eld is virtually unaltered in the presence of riblets. of about 6% (h+B13) for mild pressure gradients
There is reasonable evidence (e.g. on airfoils at low jbjo0:1; while the drag reduction was much lower at
speeds) that changes in pressure distribution due to higher b (0.201.90). Nieuwstadt et al. [27] measured
riblets are negligible as long as the boundary layer is drag reduction using a skin friction balance over a range
attached and far from separating. Several studies have of b of 0.41.5 at low speeds ; they used machined v-
utilized the MI technique for the determination of the groove riblets (cut from PVC pipe) of size h=s=0.64
total drag of a 2D body (the classical wake survey and 0.36 mm. They observed skin friction drag reduction
method); this again involves measurement of velocity in the range of 47% (for h=0.36 mm) over the range of
proles in the wake (typically at 12 chord downstream b explored; the corresponding h+ range was 1013.
of the trailing-edge) for the smooth body as well as with These results provided support concerning the effective-
riblets. While the skin friction drag reduction can be ness of riblets in adverse pressure gradients; further-
obtained from total drag reduction (with the assumption more, an indication of a slight increase in drag reduction
that pressure drag does not change), estimate of at higher b was noted as well [27].
percentage skin friction drag reduction would require
knowledge of the pressure drag of the body. The use 3.1. Airfoils at low speeds
of an internal strain gauge balance for the measurement
of total drag of a body is relatively straight forward; of Relevant experimental details and test conditions of
course the balance output has to be properly corrected earlier investigations performed on airfoil, wings and
for internal forces, if any, to obtain the net drag force. wing-body congurations are summarized in Table 1.
Viscous drag reduction in percentage can be inferred Coustols and Cousteix [28] presented results of drag
from additional information on pressure drag. reduction on a LC100D airfoil using 3 M riblets at low
As we shall see in later sections, despite the use of the speeds. Riblet sheets of h=0.152 and 0.076 mm were
three different techniques for drag reduction assessment, tested. With riblets covering only the airfoil upper
Table 1
Experimental details
Author Airfoil Chord (m) Rec MN h (mm) a1 L1 Remarks
Airfoil
[28] LC 100D 0.40 5.37.95 105 0.152, 0.076 06 Skin friction drag reduction inferred from
measured total drag reduction (wake survey)
[40] NACA 0012 0.152 2.5 105 0.152, 0.076, 0.023 0 Total drag reduction measured (wake survey)
[11] CAST 7 0.20 3.3 106 (at 0.650.76 0.017, 0.023, 0.033, 0 Skin friction drag reduction inferred from
MN=0.76) 0.051 measured total drag reduction (wake survey)
[29] ADA-S1 0.15 3.0 106 0.600.76 0.018, 0.033 0.5 to 1.0 Skin friction drag reduction estimated from
[32] NACA 0012 0.60 1 106 0.152, 0.076 06 Skin friction drag reduction estimated from
[33] NACA 0012 0.60 1 106 0.152 6 12 Skin friction drag reduction estimated from
[35] GAW-2 0.60 1 106 0.076 0 12 Total drag reduction measured (wake survey)
[54] GAW-2 0.60 1 106 0.152, 0.076 06 Skin friction drag reduction inferred from
measured total drag reduction (wake survey) ;
base drag reduction also measured
Swept wing
[46] ONERA D 0.20 2.654.25 105 0.152, 0.076, 0.051 0 22.5 Skin friction drag reduction inferred from
[37] GAW-2 0.45 0.75 106 0.114 06 25 Skin friction drag reduction inferred from
Wing-body
[11] AIRBUS 320 mac.0.381 3.9 106 (at 0.300.82 0.023 2 to 3 28 Total drag reduction measured (balance)
MN=0.70)
P.R. Viswanath / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 38 (2002) 571600
[30] Do228 0.508 (centre 1.373.09 106 0.076 5 to 20 Total drag reduction measured (balance)
section)
575
Fig. 2. Catalog of NAL experiments.
(or suction) surface, drag measurements were made generally lacking, even for a gross understanding of how
using wake survey over an incidence range of 061. They the ow is altered.
reported total drag reduction of about 2% at a 01 and Systematic investigations with 3 M riblets were under-
21, and no drag reduction at higher a; the corresponding taken in our laboratory, both at low speeds and
viscous drag reduction was estimated to be about 7%. transonic speeds, on several airfoils and wings which
The poor performance of riblets at higher a was are sketched in Fig. 2; certain broad experimental details
attributed partly to possible effects of boundary layer are given in Table 1. The experiments and analysis were
separation. Caram and Ahmed [40] studied the near and relatively detailed on the NACA 0012 airfoil [3133]
intermediate wake region of a NACA 0012 airfoil at covering an incidence range of 0121. The studies on the
zero incidence. They reported total drag reduction of GAW(2) airfoil [34,35] were undertaken primarily to
13.3% for h=0.152 mm and lower reduction for other conrm certain new ndings observed on the NACA
sizes (2.7% and 7.3% for h=0.076 and 0.023 mm, 0012 airfoil. Riblet effectiveness at transonic speeds was
respectively); the total drag reduction of 13.3% and assessed on a ADA-S1 supercritical airfoil [29].
7.3% which imply higher viscous drag reduction are In all the airfoil and wing congurations tested, the
much larger than the levels measured in zero or mild boundary layers on the upper and lower surfaces were
pressure gradient ows in literature; furthermore, the tripped near the leading edge and the total drag was
non-monotic variation of drag reduction with h+ raises measured (both with and without riblets) using the well-
some doubts on the accuracy of these measurements. known wake survey method; two-dimensionality of the
mean ow was rst established using the 2D momentum
3.2. NAL studies on airfoils at low speeds integral equation technique. In all the cases, the riblets
were applied typically over a streamwise distance of
The limited data base from early studies on airfoils at about 80% chord on both upper and lower surfaces. In
zero and low incidence and ows subjected to mild cases, where the surface pressure distributions were
adverse pressure gradients suggested that viscous drag measured, viscous drag reduction has been estimated
reduction comparable to those observed in zero pressure based on total drag reduction and knowledge of pressure
gradient ows was likely. However, the available drag at each a: The reference or baseline conguration
information on airfoils was inadequate to provide for drag reduction assessment was always the smooth
answers to many important issues: for example, effect airfoil (without riblets) in the presence of the same
of airfoil incidence on the performance of riblets, boundary layer trip used with riblets. Furthermore,
method for choosing optimum h+ for airfoil applica- unlike in some of the earlier studies in literature, the
tions, etc. Furthermore, information on boundary layer smooth airfoil was not covered with plain plastic lm
properties on airfoils in the presence of riblets was (about 0.1 mm thick) to compensate for the riblet
backing lm while making drag comparisons; as a result,

the measured drag reduction with riblets may be seen to
be slightly conservative.
3.3. Low-speed studies on NACA 0012 and GAW-2

airfoils
The experiments on NACA 0012 airfoil [3133] were

performed in two phases using the same airfoil model
having a chord of 0.60 m. In the rst phase, measure-
ments covered an incidence range of 061, and in
addition to drag determination, measurements of mean
velocity, turbulence intensity and Reynolds shear stress
proles were made in the boundary layer at selected
locations on the airfoil; the second phase of experiments
included primarily drag measurements in the incidence
range of 8121 essentially to assess the drag reduction
characteristics upto stall.
3.3.1. Selection of riblets

The selection of riblets was based on the correlation of
viscous drag reduction with h+ which is now fairly well
established for 3 M riblets under zero-pressure gradient
boundary layer ows (Fig. 3); the data reveal that
maximum drag reduction occurs in the h+ range of
about 815 with the zero drag reduction cross over point
around h+B20. A turbulent boundary layer code [41]
based on the lag entrainment method of Green was
utilized along with the measured pressure distributions
on the airfoil to determine the streamwise variation of
h+ at different a; such results have been utilized to Fig. 4. Surface pressure distributions on NACA 0012 airfoil
(taken from [32]).
choose the optimum riblet height for a given ow
condition.
Fig. 4 shows a sample of surface Cp distributions [32], as noted earlier by Coustols and Schmitt [11] on a
both with and without riblets, measured on the NACA supercritical airfoil at transonic speeds. As a conse-
0012 airfoil model at a 01 and 61; the effect of riblets quence, the values of pressure drag were essentially the
on surface pressures was observed to be indeed small, same (within a few percent) at a given a with generally
no denite trend due to riblets.
The variation of h+ on the airfoil upper surface for
the two extreme cases, namely, at a 0 and 61 are
presented in Fig. 5 for three values of riblet height. The
variations of h+ are well within the optimum range of
h+ for h=0.152 mm; on the other hand, h+ variations
for the riblet height of 0.114 and 0.076 mm, although not
within the optimum range, are still in the drag reduction
range (Fig. 3). All the detailed measurements on the
NACA 0012 were carried out with h=0.152 mm [32].
3.3.2. Drag performance with incidence

Results of percentage total drag reduction (normal-
ized by the drag value for the smooth airfoil at each a)
for the optimized riblets from Phase I and II experi-
ments and the estimated values of percentage viscous
drag reduction (DCf/Cf) are shown in Fig. 6; the
Fig. 3. Drag performance of riblets : D and Ds are drag of riblet variation of the Clauser pressure gradient parameter
and smooth surface (taken from [8]). (b) for the airfoil upper surface is also included in the
above gure. Since in general, b varies along the airfoil

chord, what is presented above is an average (or
representative) value for each a estimated mid-way in
the adverse pressure gradient region (0.4px/cp0.95)
with the values of d and tw calculated from the lag
entrainment boundary layer code [41].
The total drag reduction increased initially with
incidence from about 7% at a 01 to 13% at a 61;
beyond which there was a gradual decrease to virtually
no drag reduction around a 101; the maximum skin
friction drag reduction was as high as 16% at a 61 and
the corresponding value of b was about 1.06. The above
observation, for the rst time, was suggestive that drag
reduction due to riblets can increase with incidence
unlike earlier ndings where the trend with a was
opposite. At higher a (X61), although b increased
monotically with a; drag reduction fell gradually due
to the progressive deceleration of the upper surface
boundary layer leading eventually to separation. By
Fig. 5. Variations of h+ on upper surface, NACA 0012 airfoil measuring the mean velocity proles just ahead of the
(taken from [32]). trailing edge (x/c=0.964) on the airfoil upper and lower
surfaces (an example at a 41 shown in Fig. 7),
Sundaram et al. [31,32] demonstrated that the airfoil
suction side contributed signicantly to the increased
drag reduction with a, providing strong evidence that
riblets can be more effective in adverse pressure
gradients.
In order to conrm that the initial trend of increased
drag reduction with a was not a feature associated with
Fig. 6. Variations of drag reduction and Clauser parameter

with incidence. Fig. 7. Mean velocity prole at x/c=0.964, NACA 0012 airfoil.
the symmetric airfoil section (NACA 0012) used and to adverse pressure gradients [42]; these results also suggest
study the behaviour of riblets on a cambered airfoil, that the increased effectiveness is not limited to v-
additional experiments [3435] were carried out on a grooves with h=s.
GAW-2 airfoil in the same wind tunnel, instrumentation The possible role of convex surface curvature on
and similar test conditions; only total drag measure- riblet effectiveness on the NACA 0012 results was
ments were made for the riblet size of 0.076 mm. The discussed by Sundaram et al. [32]. The surface curvature
results, included in Fig. 6, showed the same qualitative is identical on the upper and lower surfaces because
behaviour as the NACA 0012; maximum total reduction of symmetry; however, the curvature effects will in
of 10% occurred at a 61 with a value of b around 1.50. general be different due to differing boundary layer
It is interesting that both the airfoils tested reect peak growth. The combined effects of streamwise convex
drag reduction around a 61 which is essentially a surface curvature and mild pressure gradients on
feature associated with the test conditions of the the airfoil lower surface was found to be small from
experiments and Reynolds number in particular; at the point of view of drag reduction as seen from Fig. 7.
higher Reynolds numbers, the maximum drag reduction Furthermore, on the airfoil upper surface, the effective
may be expected to shift to a higher a: Signicant streamline curvature is likely to be smaller because
retardation of the near-wall ow arising from progres- of streamline divergence due to adverse pressure
sively increasing adverse pressure gradient with a may be gradients. Sundaram et al. [32] indicated that the
expected to limit the maximum effectiveness of riblets on adverse pressure gradient on the airfoil upper surface
an airfoil. was a dominant factor resulting in increased viscous
Additional support to the main nding of increased drag reduction on a riblet surface. It would be of
drag reduction in adverse pressure gradients is provided signicant value to assess riblet effectiveness on a convex
by the experimental results of Debisschop and Nieuw- wall in a zero pressure gradient ow in future experi-
stadt [42] on a at plate boundary layer with imposed ments.
adverse pressure gradients at low speeds. A specially
designed skin friction drag balance was used in the
experiments. For both v-groove (h=s) and trapezoidal 3.3.3. Boundary layer development on the NACA 0012
groove (h=0.5 s) riblets (manufactured from PVC airfoil
pipes), skin friction drag reduction in the range of 12 Sundaram et al. [32] examined the effects of riblets on
13% (corresponding h+ being 1016 for v-groove) was mean ow development in the boundary layer on the
observed at a value of b=2.20 (Fig. 8). They also airfoil. Velocity proles, measured at two x/c values of
concluded that the effectiveness of riblets increases in 0.25c and 0.50c on the airfoil upper surface at a 41; are
shown in Fig. 9 [32]. The velocities are higher (for
y+X20) with riblets and an increased intercept in the
log-law associated with the thickening of the sublayer is
seen; this is a feature well known in zero pressure
gradient ows [8,19,20]. Boundary layer proles mea-
sured just ahead of the trailing edge (x/c=0.964) on the
upper surface at a=01, 41 and 61 are displayed in
Fig. 10. The proles at a=01 and 41 showed features
similar to those discussed above except that the values of
A and B in the log-law were slightly different. At a=61
on the other hand, a decreased intercept with riblets
(from 4.93 to 2.10) was observed with the slope A
remaining the same: for this case, the lower intercept
was caused not by an increase in Cf or tw (as one may
guess), but from lower mean velocities for y+p200 as
may be seen from Fig. 11 (in contrast to higher velocities
observed generally); the lower mean velocities are
obviously a result of higher adverse pressure gradient.
The wall friction velocity is still lower with riblets at
a=61 (Fig. 12) and is associated with maximum viscous
drag reduction on the NACA 0012 airfoil. In the
Fig. 8. Evolution of relative skin friction vs pressure gradient; experiments of Debisschop and Nieuwstadt [42] an
open symbols, experiments by Nieuwstadt et al, 1993; closed increased intercept was observed at b=2.20 for which
symbol, Debisshop and Nieuwstadt 1996 (taken from a skin friction drag reduction of about 13% with
Debisshop and Nieuwstadt, 1996). v-grooves was recorded.
Fig. 10. Mean velocity proles on upper surface at x/c=0.964,

NACA 0012 airfoil.
Fig. 9. Mean velocity proles on upper surface at a=41,

NACA 0012 airfoil (taken from [32]).
3.3.4. Turbulence intensity profiles on the NACA 0012

airfoil
Streamwise turbulence intensity /u0 S and Reynolds
shear stress /u0 v0 S proles were measured, both with
and without riblets, on the airfoil upper surface at
x/c=0.964 so that one could observe the cumulative
effects of riblets over the airfoil surface. Results of /u0 S
proles at a 01 and 61 corresponding to b 0:20 and
1.06 are shown in Fig. 13a (results at a 21 and 41 may
be seen in Ref. [32]); the inuence of riblets is not
conned just to the near-wall region with increase in b
(e.g. upto y+B300 at a 61). On the riblet surface, a
reduction in /u0 S in the range of 1015% was observed
[32] for y+p100 at a 01; 21 and 41, while such a Fig. 11. Mean velocity proles on upper surface at x/c=0.964,
reduction was limited to y+B40 at a 61; furthermore, and a=61, NACA 0012 airfoil.
an increase in /u0 S in the mid-part of the boundary
layer was observed at a 61; possibly indicating the
effect of larger b for this case. Typical spectra of u0 above features of u0 uctuation suggest that the inuence
uctuation measured near the wall (y+B20) at a 01 of riblets in adverse pressure gradients (for bo1.06) are
and 61 showed (Fig. 13b) reduced energy levels at low qualitatively similar to those observed in zero pressure
frequencies (below 200 Hz) on the riblet surface. The gradient boundary layer ows [8,19].
3.3.5. Reynolds shear stress profiles on the NACA 0012 the boundary layer thickness (B0.4d); the maximum
airfoil and quadrant analysis reduction was about 10% and occurred at y=dB0:10:
Normalized turbulent shear stress proles at x/ Similar level of reduction in /u0 v0 S in the wall region
c=0.964 on the airfoil upper surface at a 01 and 61 due to riblets has been measured by Walsh [22] and
are presented in Fig. 14; only a marginal reduction in / Suzuki and Kasagi [18] in zero pressure gradient ows.
u0 v0 S values was seen on the riblet surface at a 01: At Quadrant analysis of u0 v0 signals was performed [38]
a 61 (bB1.06), a noticeable reduction in /u0 v0 S on the with a view to gain some understanding of the relative
riblet surface was observed and over a large fraction of contribution of sweep and ejection events to the mean
Reynolds stress under the inuence of riblets at a 01
and 61; the measurements were made at selected y
locations in the boundary layer, the closest to the wall
being at y+B60. The results of percentage stress
(normalized by the mean turbulent shear stress) and
the time or duration associated with the four quadrants
at a 01 and 61 are presented in Figs. 15 and 16,
respectively. At a 01 (b=0.20), the duration of sweep
and ejection events are even closer in the wall region
under the inuence of riblets; the contribution to the
mean stress from sweep events seems slightly higher
while a small reduction from ejection events is notice-
able. The total stress from Q2 and Q4 motions is only
weakly reduced by riblets.
With an increased adverse pressure gradient at a 61
(bB1:06), the changes due to riblets both in percentage
duration and contributions Q2 and Q4 events are more
Fig. 12. Variation of friction velocity on upper surface at signicant. The equalization of the duration associated
x/c=0.964, NACA 0012 airfoil. with sweep and ejection motions are more spectacular
Fig. 13. Streamwise turbulent intensity proles and power spectral density of u0 on upper surface at x/c=0.964, NACA 0012 airfoil
(taken from [32]).
and extends to a greater distance from the wall contributions from Q2 and Q4 events on the riblet
(yB0:30d). A reversal in the contribution from sweep surface are normalized by the mean turbulent shear
and ejection events is clearly seen on the riblet surface; stress values on the smooth wall (Fig. 14) in order to
the contribution from sweep (Q4) events is enhanced by assess absolute changes, the following inference can be
about 10%, while a similar decrease is seen for the drawn: the contribution from sweep events will drop to
ejection (Q2) events for yo3 mm (corresponding y+ (nearly) the same level as the unribbed case, while the
being around 250). The total stress from Q2 and Q4 contribution of ejection events will show a further
(normalized by mean shear stress) remains about the decrease of about 510% (depending on the y position).
same (about 120%) as on the smooth wall. If the These results unambiguously suggest that, under high
drag reduction conditions, the ejection events are
appreciably inhibited by riblets and the reduction in
the mean Reynolds shear stress is caused essentially by
the lower contribution from ejection motion. The above
observations also indicate that a certain modication of
coherent motion (as discussed above) near the wall is a
key factor inuencing high skin friction drag reduction
from riblets. The Q1 and Q3 events are only altered to
a small extent by riblets.
In the light of the above observations, it is informative
to take stock of results obtained from quadrant analysis
on riblet surfaces in zero pressure gradient ows. Pulles
et al. [43] found that fractional contribution to Reynolds
stress from second quadrant (Q2) was reduced and
fourth quadrant (Q4) increased at y+=38; they
suggested that ejection was weaker and sweep stronger
on the grooved surface. The results from direct
numerical simulation of Choi et al. [44] have revealed
that riblets mitigate the positive Reynolds shear stress
producing events (Q2 and Q4) in drag reducing
congurations. The measurements of Benhalilou et al.
Fig. 14. Turbulent shear stress proles on upper surface at [45] made on v-grooves (s+=34, h+=17) have shown
a=01 and 61, x/c=0.964, NACA 0012 airfoil. that, close to ridge plane, contributions to the Reynolds
Fig. 15. Quadrant analysis of u0 v0 signals on upper surface at a=01, x/c=0.964, NACA 0012 airfoil.
Fig. 16. Quadrant analysis of u0 v0 signals on upper surface at a=61, x/c=0.964, NACA 0012 airfoil.
stress from ejection and sweep events are larger and number range of 0.300.815 and the Reynolds number
more frequent above the ridge (than over the smooth based on the riblet length (=550 mm) varied between
wall), while they are reduced above the valley. 3.818.7 106. 3 M riblets with h=0.023, 0.033, 0.051
In summary, available results from quadrant analysis and 0.076 mm were tested and they reported maximum
indicate that riblets modify the ejection (Q2) and sweep skin friction drag reduction of 78% (Fig. 17) and the
+
(Q4) events, while rst- and third-quadrant events are corresponding h w range was 1015 (hw =riblet height
nearly unchanged. These results imply that riblets do scaled w.r.t. inner variables of the turbulent boundary
+
alter the organized motion that is associated with layer at the wall; hw =average of hw over riblet length).
streamwise vortices near the wall; the changes seem The above results of Squire and Savill [26] and Coustols
more pronounced in adverse pressure gradients resulting and Schmitt [11] reveal that the effectiveness of riblets at
in relatively higher skin friction drag reduction. transonic Mach numbers is about as good as at low
speeds for zero and mild adverse pressure gradient
3.4. Airfoils at transonic speeds conditions.
Coustols and Schmitt [11] presented results of riblet
It is useful to review the results under zero and mild performance on a CAST 7 airfoil at zero incidence in the
pressure gradients at transonic speeds before addressing Mach number range of 0.650.76. 3 M riblets with
the performance of riblets on airfoils. Squire and Savill h=0.017, 0.023, 0.033 and 0.051 mm were applied
[26] were possibly the rst to study the effectiveness of between 15% and 100% chord length and pitot surveys
3 M riblets of varying sizes at a subsonic and transonic in the wake were utilized to measure the airfoil total
Mach number. They carried out tests in a wind tunnel at drag. Total drag reduction of about 3.3% was observed
relatively high Reynolds numbers and Mach numbers of for h=0.023 mm, while drag increases were found for
0.88 and 0.50. Skin friction reduction due to riblets was riblets with h=0.033 and 0.051 mm (Fig. 18); the results
determined by plotting the ratio of the change in y along for h=0.017 mm were about the same as at h=0.023 mm
the riblet surface to the corresponding change along the [11]. The above total drag reduction for h=0.023 mm
same length of smooth surface. Maximum skin friction implied a viscous drag reduction of about 7.58%
drag reduction of about 5% was observed for the zero occurring in the range of h
w of 1216 (hw is the mean
+
pressure gradient ow at both Mach numbers; the value of integrated hw parameters evaluated along the
corresponding mean h+ range was 1020. Riblet manipulated surface on pressure and suction sides).
performance in adverse pressure gradients at b 0:25 These results showed the effectiveness of riblets on a
was about the same as at b 0; while riblets were not transonic airfoil at zero incidence.
effective at b 0:50: Transonic evaluation of drag reduction on a ADA-S1
On a cylindrical body at zero incidence Coustols and supercritical airfoil over an incidence range of 0.51 to
Schmitt [11] made drag measurements in the Mach +1.01 was reported by Viswanath and Mukund [29].
Fig. 17. Synthesis of drag data, - - - - low-speed results (taken from [11]).
Fig. 18. Synthesis of drag measurements, CAST 7 aerofoil (taken from [11]).
Fig. 19 shows a sample of pressure distributions and reduction while a drag increase can be expected from
the corresponding h+ variations for h=0.018 and h=0.033 mm. Measurements of total drag from wake
0.033 mm; it would appear that riblets with survey method did conrm the above expectations
h=0.018 mm is a good choice for optimum drag [29]. Total drag measured for the optimized riblet
Fig. 20. Percentage total drag reduction with incidence;

h=0.018 mm, ADA-S1 airfoil.
Fig. 19. Aerofoil characteristics: (a) static pressure distribu-

tions; (b) h+ variations, ADA-S1 airfoil.
(h=0.018 mm), as a percentage of the drag of the

smooth airfoil, presented in Fig. 20 indicated a total
drag reduction of 36%; the corresponding skin
friction drag reduction was estimated to be about
612%. Notwithstanding a small degree of scatter in
the data (Fig. 20), the trend of increasing drag reduction
with a; which implied increasing adverse pressure
gradients on the airfoil upper surface was evident. The
wake pitot proles presented in Fig. 21, once again,
indicated that a larger contribution to drag reduction
resulted from the airfoil upper surface with increasing Fig. 21. Wake pitot proles (Poy and PoN are pitot pressure in
adverse pressure gradient. These results are consistent wake and freestream), ADA-S1 airfoil.
with those recorded on a CAST 7 airfoil and demon-
strate that transonic effectiveness of optimized riblets
can be about as good as those at low speeds over a range 4. Swept wings
of incidence relevant in cruise applications. As we shall
see in Section 5, ight measurements do provide Wing sweep results in three-dimensional boundary
additional support on the performance of riblets at layers and very few studies exist examining the effec-
transonic speeds. tiveness of riblets in some detail. In addition to the
presence of crossow boundary layer, the riblet yaw The performance of riblets on an ONERA-D airfoil
angle effect could get pronounced with wing incidence. section, innitely swept at 22.51 (Fig. 22) and zero
We shall discuss some of these aspects based on the incidence was reported by Coustols [46]: 3 M riblets of
available data. h=0.152, 0.076 and 0.051 mm were used with grooves
Mclean et al. [12] reported estimates of (average) skin aligned parallel to the freestream direction and the
friction drag reduction from ight experiments on a T- manipulated area was about 85%. Maximum total drag
33 jet trainer in the Mach number range of 0.350.70; reduction of 33.5% was recorded (Fig. 23) for h w
the wing had a sweep of about 91 and 3 M riblets with (average value of h w over the manipulated length on
groove heights of 0.033 and 0.076 mm were applied only aerofoil upper surface) o10 in the chord Reynolds
on the wing upper surface covering a streamwise number range of 2.654.25 105 (the vertical lines in
distance of about 76% chord. Based on the estimates Fig. 23 refer to the experimental uncertainty); the
of momentum thickness (obtained from measured corresponding skin friction drag reduction was esti-
velocity proles), they inferred viscous drag reduction mated to be in the range of 56%. Coustols recognized
upto 6% in the h+(=s+) range of 1015. We shall that the above level of drag reduction was some what
discuss these results in detail in Section 5. lower than generally reported in 2D ows; his analysis
showed that the riblet yaw angle (j) was quite small (less
than 101 over 90% chord) suggesting that the grooves
must be effective.
4.1. NAL studies on a swept wing with GAW-2 profile
Sundaram et al. [36,37] presented detailed results of

riblet performance on a swept wing (Fig. 24) at low
speeds. The above experiments were made on a swept
wing with a chord of 0.45 m and spanning the
1.5 m 1.5 m low-speed wind tunnel; the wing model
having a 13.6% thick GAW-2 prole had a sweep of 251
and the trailing edge (blunt with a thickness of 0.5%
chord) was modied [36] to a sharp trailing edge to
avoid ow complexity due to separation at the base.
Riblet lms were aligned parallel to the freestream and
applied between 13% and 96% chord on both upper and
lower surfaces. All the measurements were made at a
Fig. 22. ONERA D aerofoil covered with riblet lm (taken chord Reynolds number of 0.75 106 covering an
from [46]). incidence range of 061.
Fig. 23. Variations of total drag coefcient, ONERA D aerofoil (taken from [46]).
Fig. 25. Variation of h+ on upper surface, GAW-2 airfoil

(taken from [37]).
Fig. 24. Surface pressure distributions on swept wing, GAW-2

airfoil (taken from [37]).
4.1.1. Selection of riblets

Measured surface pressure distributions at a 01 and
61 are presented in Fig. 24 which shows again that the
effect of riblets on surface pressure is small. Boundary
layer calculations [41] were made using the measured
streamwise Cp distributions on the wing upper surface.
Fig. 25 shows computed variation of h+ on wing upper
surface for three values of h (0.152, 0.114, 0.076 mm) at
a 01 and 61. Riblet lms with h=0.114 mm was chosen
as a good choice for all the measurements [36,37].
4.1.2. Drag performance with incidence

Fig. 26 shows results of percentage total drag and
viscous drag reduction (DCf/Cf) with incidence; the
normalizing factor for total drag reduction at each a is
the total drag of the smooth airfoil without riblets.
Estimate of b calculated using an average pressure
gradient (as dened in Section 3.3.2) at each a is also Fig. 26. Variations of drag reduction and Clauser parameter
included in Fig. 26. Total drag reduction of 6% and skin with incidence on swept wing, GAW-2 airfoil.
friction drag reduction of 8% observed at a 01 are in
good agreement with the drag reduction that has been
observed on 2D airfoils and in zero pressure gradient 4.1.3. Assessment of riblet yaw angle effects
ows. With an increase in a; both total and viscous drag On a swept wing, two factors that may inuence the
reduction decreased progressively, which is in sharp performance of riblets are the crossow boundary layer
contrast with the observation made on 2D airfoils and the associated yaw angle (j) between surface
(Fig. 6). streamlines and groove direction. Sundaram et al.
Fig. 28. Streamwise variation of riblet yaw angle on swept

wing, GAW-2 airfoil (taken from [37]).
examining j effects alone, e.g. Refs. [8,11,12,46], is of

some help. It is now generally known that both the
magnitude of drag reduction and the value of h+ upto
which drag reduction is retained is sensitive to j; a
Fig. 27. Flow features on upper surface of swept wing, GAW-2 useful guideline that emerges is that drag reduction may
airfoil (taken from [37]). be limited to jp15201, although the level of drag
reduction may be considerably lower than the optimum
(corresponding to jB01). The (max) skin friction drag
reduction of about 8% measured at a 01 is infact
[36,37] carried out extensive surface ow visualisation consistent with other measurements (Coustols [46],
studies and samples of features of surface streamlines on Mclean et al. [12]) and observed values of j which are
the wing upper surface at a 01 and 61 shown in much less than 151 (Fig. 28). It has been argued by
Fig. 27; the photographs clearly indicate noticeable Sundaram et al. [37] that a major factor responsible for
deviation of surface streamlines from freestream (or the degraded performance of riblets at higher a (41 and
groove direction) as incidence is increased. Quantitative 61) is the larger streamwise extent and larger values of j
estimates of j inferred from ow visualization studies in the adverse pressure gradient region on the wing
[36,37] are plotted against x/c at different a (Fig. 28). At upper surface, which contributes appreciably to drag
a 01 and 21, jo101 over a large fraction of the chord reduction (like on airfoils).
but increases to about 151 towards the trailing edge; at It is to be recognized that even a broad understanding
a 41 and 61, j increases rapidly beyond x/c=0.60 and of riblet effectiveness in a three-dimensional boundary
has a value of about 271 at a 61 near the trailing edge. layer does not exist, and there is need to isolate different
On the wing lower surface, although jp101, a large part effects. It would be very informative to investigate the
of the wing chord (beyond x/c=0.30) is affected by j effectiveness of riblets with sweep alone in the absence of
effects including a reversal of surface ow direction any streamwise pressure gradient (e.g. swept at plate at
beyond x/c=0.75. zero incidence) in future experiments.
On a swept wing, j effects are associated with
crossow boundary layer as well as streamwise pressure 4.1.4. Boundary layer properties ahead of the trailing
gradients and it is a complex task to separate out their edge
effects on riblet drag reduction. In this context, available Sundaram et al. [37] presented the measurements
information on 2D and axisymmetric congurations of streamwise mean velocity, /u0 S and /u0 v0 S proles
made at x/c=0.960 on both upper and lower surfaces of lower surface (Fig. 30). Reduction in turbulent shear
the swept wing at zero incidence, which are displayed in stress values due to riblets (about 67%) in the wall
Figs. 29 and 30. As in 2D airfoil ows, riblets result in region of the upper surface can be observed whereas no
higher velocities in the boundary layer on the wing such reduction is seen on the wing lower surface
upper surface (Fig. 29) while the effects are much weaker (Fig. 30).
on the lower surface; these results indicate again that the A useful guideline that emerges is that, as long as j
wing upper (or suction) surface is the major contributor values are relatively small (o101), moderate wing sweep
to the observed drag reduction. The results of /u0 S may not adversely affect the performance of riblets. The
show a (max) reduction of about 8% due to riblets on results of /u0 S and /u0 v0 S proles under the inuence
the wing upper surface with negligible change on the of riblets (discussed above) show features qualitatively
similar to those on 2D airfoil ows at low speeds.
While certain broad conclusions on the effect of
moderate wing sweep on riblet performance emerge
from low-speed results, there is a denite need to
investigate in detail transonic effects (including aspects
of shock waveboundary layer interaction) on a trans-
port aircraft wing from the point of view of applications.
5. Flight investigations
The performance of 3 M riblets has been assessed at

relatively high Reynolds numbers in ight tests as well.
McLean et al. [12] at Boeing reported results of skin
friction drag reduction with riblet lms glued over a
partspan on the upper surface of one wing of a T-33 jet
trainer (Fig. 31); the wing sweep was about 91. The tests
were made in the ight Mach number range of 0.350.70
and the Reynolds number per ft varied from 1.45 to
4.43 106; the lift coefcient varied from 0.08 to 0.43.
3 M riblet lms with a height of 0.0013 in (0.033 mm)
and 0.003 in (0.076 mm) were used and their coverage on
the test surface extended from 7% to 83% local chord of
the wing. Boundary layer pitot rake measurements
(located at 83% chord), with and without riblets, were
utilized to determine the change in momentum thickness
Fig. 29. Mean velocity proles on swept wing at x/c=0.96 and and therefore the reduction in the mean skin friction
a=01, GAW-2 airfoil (taken from [37]). drag over the test surface.
Fig. 30. Streamwise turbulent intensity and Reynolds shear stress proles on swept wing at x/c=0.96, a=01, GAW-2 airfoil
(taken from [37]).
Fig. 31. Test surface and instrumentation on T-33 airplane

(taken from [12]).
Fig. 33. Measured y ratios compared with NASA Cf ratios

(taken from [12]).
replaced the riblets aft of x/c=0.50, which was

approximately the location where the adverse pressure
gradients began on the T-33 wing under most ight
conditions [12]. The measured skin friction drag reduc-
tion with riblet height of 0.0013 in were appreciably
lower (about 23%) than those observed with riblets
extending all the way upto x/c=0.83 (Fig. 33), providing
explicit evidence that riblets are quite effective in adverse
pressure gradients. In a different ight, the riblets were
oriented at 151 to the ight direction and the results
showed considerably lower drag reduction (about 3%),
suggesting a relatively stronger degradation of riblet
Fig. 32. Typical boundary layer rake data behind riblet and effectiveness due to yaw angle under ight conditions.
reference surfaces (taken from [12]). Flight results reported by Walsh et al. [13] at NASA
Langely provide further support concerning effective-
ness of riblets at high Reynolds numbers. The tests were
Fig. 32 shows the alteration of the mean velocity made with 3 M riblet lms glued to the fuselage of a
prole due to riblets (measured at x/c=0.83) at a ight modied Learjet Model 28/29 twin-engine business jet
Mach number of 0.70. The mean velocity prole in the in the Mach number range of 0.300.70; the correspond-
presence of riblets is slightly fuller away from the wall ing Reynolds number range was 1.02.75 106/ft.
with a lower velocity gradient, @u=@y; at the surface; this Riblets with h=0.0013 in (0.033 mm) and 0.003 in
feature of riblets is typical and has been noticed in wind (0.076 mm) were tested (same geometry as those used by
tunnel measurements as well, e.g. Ref. [19,32]. Typical McLean et al.).
results from two ights showed maximum skin friction The performance of riblets was assessed at two
drag reduction of about 67% in the s+(averaged over locations on the aircraft fuselage (Fig. 34), which
x/c between 0.07 and 0.83) range between 1015 provided nearly zero pressure gradient conditions and
(Fig. 33); the performance of riblets with h=0.0013 ow angularity. Riblet lms were glued to the test panel
and 0.003 in was very similar. (of length 5.83 ft and width 1 ft located 6.2 ft aft of
McLean et al. made a ight assessment of two aircraft nose) and boundary layer pitot rake measure-
important aspects, namely, inuence of adverse pressure ments along with 2D momentum integral balance were
gradients and of yaw angle (j) on the effectiveness of employed to infer mean skin friction reduction over
riblets. In one of the ights, a smooth plastic lm the test surface. Local skin friction measurements were
conditions) and wing tests including adverse pressure

gradients, and the optimum s+ (=h+) range being 10
15; these results are in very good agreement with large
body data obtained in wind tunnel studies at relatively
lower Reynolds numbers. The ight results of McLean
et al. have provided additional support regarding the
Fig. 34. Streamlines calculated using the VSAERO panel effectiveness of riblets in adverse pressure gradients and
method (taken from [13]). an assessment of likely degradation in riblet perfor-
mance arising from riblet yaw angle effects.
6. Wing-body and aircraft congurations
As we have discussed, the available data on airfoils at

subsonic and transonic speeds and swept wing at low
speeds indicate that skin friction drag reduction in the
range of 58% are achievable for the optimized riblets at
zero or low a: On cylindrical bodies, measurements of
Coustols and Schmitt [11] at relatively high Reynolds
numbers have shown (max) skin friction reduction of
about 78% for the optimized riblets at zero incidence
(friction drag force on this model contributed to about
96% of total drag) and over a range of Mach numbers
between 0.30 and 0.81. On a wing-body or transport
Fig. 35. Drag balance and pitot rake data compared. D and Ds aircraft conguration, the effective viscous drag reduc-
are drag of test surface and smooth reference surface (taken
tion will primarily depend on two factors: area covered
from [13]).
by riblets and whether the riblet geometry is optimized
for the wing and fuselage ows appropriately. Further,
the performance of riblets may be severely affected in
made using two, accurate ush mounted drag balances zones of large three-dimensionality (e.g. around wing-
(located 17 ft from the nose of the aircraft); considerable body junction, wing tip and rear fuselage regions).
care was taken to enhance the accuracy of these Coustols and Schmitt [11] studied the effectiveness of
measurements. The drag data obtained by both balance 3 M riblets on a 1:11 scale of an Airbus A-320 wing-
and pitot rakes (Fig. 35) showed fair agreement and the body model in the Mach number range of 0.300.82 and
maximum skin friction drag reduction of about 6% incidence range of 21 to 31; the (max) Reynolds
observed in the s+ (=h+) range of 1015, is in good number based on the fuselage length of 3.416 m was
conformity with the ight results obtained by McLean about 40 106. Riblet lms with h=0.023 mm were used
et al. (Fig. 33). Further analysis [13] using a panel with grooves aligned to the external freestream direction
method revealed that small degree of ow angularity and the area covered by the grooves was about 66% on
existed in the zone where the balances were located the wing-body conguration; the above groove depth
(Fig. 34) and therefore may have caused some reduction was optimized for the fuselage ow at MN=0.70.
in the riblet effectiveness. Accurate drag measurements were made using an
The likely effects of perforations in the riblet lms internal six-component balance and net total drag
(which is being considered as a possible method of reduction of 1.6% was measured over a range of CL of
allowing for the escape of cabin pressurization air 0.10.60 at a Mach number of 0.70; the corresponding
through rivet holes) on drag reduction have been skin friction drag reduction was estimated to be about
assessed both by McLean et al. [12] and Walsh et al. 4.85%. They suggested that the above value of drag
[13]. Riblets with 0.01 in perforations with centre reduction was not the highest since the groove size had
spacings of 0.25 in were found to give nearly the same not been optimized for wings and further, the wetted
level of drag reduction as the non-perforated lms. area covered by riblets was only about 66%.
In summary, ight evaluation of riblet effectiveness at Van Der Hoven and Bechert [30] reported drag
high Reynolds numbers and Mach numbers in the range measurements using a six-component strain gauge
of 0.300.70 has given strong support to the wind tunnel balance on a 1:4.2 model of DORNIER Do-228
correlations of drag reduction. Maximum skin friction commuter aircraft in the DNW wind tunnel in the
drag reduction of about 6% has been observed both freestream velocity range of 4090 m/s; the correspond-
in fuselage tests (under nearly zero pressure gradient ing Reynolds number based on the wing (centre section)
chord was 1.37 106 and 3.09 106, respectively. Riblet total drag reduction of a little less than 2% in the Mach
lms with h=0.076 mm were chosen which was a number range of 0.770.79, in conformity with their
compromise considering optimum h+ for the fuselage predictions [14]. There results are extremely signicant
and wings and the grooves were aligned parallel to the since they reect benets in actual ight applications.
freestream. Balance measurements (with tripping devices
on the fuselage and wings) showed drag reduction in the
range of 16%. The authors however indicated that drag 7. Riblets at supersonic speeds
reduction of 6% was rather unrealistic because of certain
inaccuracies in the balance measurements; a total drag It is reasonable to expect that effectiveness of riblets
reduction of 23% was considered more reliable. will prevail in the supersonic regime since the micro-
Recently limited tests at transonic speeds have been grooves will be well immersed in the low-speed/subsonic
performed in our laboratory on a wing-body model velocity eld atleast upto moderate supersonic Mach
whose sketch is included in Fig. 2. 3 M riblets with numbers. The potential of using riblets at supersonic
h=0.018 mm was applied on the wing upper surface and speeds has been discussed by Bushnell [6]. Limited wind
h=0.023 mm was used on the wing lower surface and on tunnel investigations including ight test results are
the cylindrical fuselage. Riblets were aligned parallel the available in supersonic ow.
freestream and their coverage on the wing-body was Robinson [47] noticed a reduction in the streamwise
about 90%. Six-component balance measurements were turbulence intensity near the wall and a thickening of the
made over an incidence range of 11 to 1.51. Circular end viscous sublayer due to 3 M riblets at a Mach number of
plates were attached at wing tips primarily to minimize 2.97. Gaudet [48] reported drag reduction results due to
the contribution of induced drag in the drag measure- 3 M riblets at a freestream Mach number of 1.25 and
ments. Preliminary examination of the data at a Mach in the range of Reynolds number of 2.411 106/m.
number of 0.76 suggests a total drag reduction of about Experiments were made on the turbulent boundary layer
34%; detailed analysis of the results is in progress. developing along the wall of the wind tunnel using
Flight evaluation of riblet performance on an Airbus riblets of h=0.051 mm. Maximum local skin friction
A320 aircraft has been reported by Szodruch [14]. About reduction upto 7% was measured using a drag balance.
70% of the aircraft surface was covered with 3 M riblets Coustols and Cousteix [49] assessed the performance
(Fig. 36) and total drag reduction was assessed based on of 3 M riblets on a cone-cylinder body at zero incidence
fuel burn saving in ight tests. These tests revealed a at freestream Mach numbers of 1.60, 2.0 and 2.50; the
test Reynolds number range was 4.9 to 22.3 106/m.
Riblet lms with height of 0.033, 0.051 and 0.076 mm
were investigated and accurate drag measurements were
made using a one-component balance. Typical drag
results for h=0.051 mm are shown in Fig. 37. At MN=
2.0 and 2.5, net drag reduction was observed for all three
values of h; at MN=1.60, some drag increase was
recorded for unit Reynolds numbers >15 106. These
results implied maximum viscous drag reduction upto
about 6% which occurred around a value of h w (average
value of h w along the manipulated length) of 10. It may,
therefore, be noted that the supersonic wind tunnel test
results of skin friction drag reduction in nominally zero
pressure gradient conditions are in good agreement with
the available data at low and transonic speeds.
The ight test results reported by Zuniga et al. [50]
provide additional support regarding the effectiveness of
3 M riblets at supersonic speeds. Riblets with height of
0.003 in (0.076 mm) and 0.0013 in (0.033 mm) were xed
on a F-104G ight test xture (FTF) (Fig. 38), and they
were tested in a design Reynolds number range selected
to provide maximum skin friction drag reduction. The
FTF experimental setup is presented in Fig. 39 and
riblets were applied to the right side test surface only.
Boundary layer rakes were employed to measure the
velocity proles for the smooth and riblet surfaces and
Fig. 36. A-320 no.1 covered with riblet lm (taken from [14]). the average wall skin friction over the test surface was
The above ight results, while providing strong

support to the wind tunnel evaluation of riblet
effectiveness at supersonic speeds, show a trend of
increased viscous drag reduction with Reynolds
number at Mach 1.2 and 1.4 (for h=0.076 mm) and at
Mach 1.2 and 1.3 (for h=0.033 mm); the authors [50]
suggested that such trends are difcult to substantiate
because of the scatter and limited data. It was shown [50]
that drag reduction for h=0.076 mm (as an example)
occurred in h+ range of 915 and therefore in good
agreement with the low-speed correlation of viscous
drag reduction.
8. Effect of riblets on lift characteristics
This aspect is very relevant from an application point

of view. Van Der Hoven and Bechert [30] presented lift
Fig. 37. Variation of viscous drag coefcient of the model characteristics on a 1:4.2 model of Do-228 commuter
(taken from [49]). aircraft model at low speeds which is reproduced in
Fig. 42; the results show clear evidence of a small
increase in lift curve slope (about 1% according to the
authors) over the entire a range of 51 to +201
investigated. This slope increase obviously results
from reduced boundary layer displacement thickness
distributions caused by riblets; essentially riblets lead to
a lower viscous decambering effect on the wing. Such a
benecial effect may be expected to be more pro-
nounced on a transonic wing, where the viscous effects
play a major role. Fig. 43 presents sectional lift
characteristics on the GAW-2 swept wing [38] upto
a 61 at low speeds and the results are in broad
Fig. 38. Flight test xture mounted on F-104G aircraft (taken agreement with the observations on Do-228 model: the
from [50]). lift curve slope is increased by about 1%. The results of
Do-228 also showed that CL(max) and the correspond-
ing stall angle were unaffected by riblets; further there
determined using the 2D momentum integral equation.
was no evidence of premature ow separation or
The chordwise pressure distributions measured on the
hysterisis [30].
FTF revealed a region of strong adverse pressure
gradients in the Mach number range of 1.201.40; these
effects were relatively milder at Mach 1.5 and 1.60. In
9. Base drag reduction on airfoils
essence, the test results on the FTF reect performance
of riblets under conditions, which include effects of
The effectiveness of riblets for viscous drag reduction
adverse pressure gradients as well.
on airfoils and wings have been discussed so far. There
Figs. 40 and 41 show results of average skin friction
have been very few attempts exploring the use of riblets
corresponding to smooth and riblet surfaces for the
in separated ows, either from the point of view of drag
riblet height of 0.076 and 0.033 mm, respectively. The
reduction or separation control. In the context of base
test conditions including Mach number and Reynolds
ow problems, it is generally known [5153] that the
number range and observed (average) skin friction drag
base pressure depends on the development of the free
reduction are summarized below:
shear layer, which in turn is affected by the initial
boundary layer conditions just ahead of the base. It is
Flight test conditions and results [50]
well established that riblets reduce both the displace-
h (mm) MN Re/ft DCf/Cf (%) ment and momentum thicknesses in a boundary layer,
6 e.g. Ref. [8]. Some of the earlier studies have revealed
0.076 1.21.6 23.4 10 48 that the near-wall ow is affected by riblets, which
0.033 1.21.4 3.66 106 415 includes a reduction in streamwise turbulent intensity
Fig. 39. Flight test xture experiment setup (taken from [50]).
(as much as 1020%) and Reynolds shear stress of h+ calculated for the measured pressure distributions
(about 1015%). It was therefore conjectured [54] on the airfoil upper surface showed that riblets with
that the combination of lower mean velocity gradient h=0.076 and 0.152 mm would be optimum at a 01
(@u=@y) close to the wall and reduced levels of /u0 S and and 61 (Fig. 44), respectively, considering viscous drag
/u0 v0 S in the wall region of the approaching reduction. They made measurements of base pressure,
boundary layer (ahead of the blunt base) may model surface pressures and total drag using wake
favourably affect the shear layer development because survey.
the mixing zone is relatively short (comparable to The base pressure coefcient (Fig. 45) for the baseline
trailing-edge thickness) on an airfoil; reduced mixing airfoil (without riblets) was positive at all a indicating a
in the free shear layer could lead to lower velocity base thrust. Interestingly, the base pressure showed an
along the dividing streamline resulting in higher base increase with h in the a range considered and it was as
pressure. high as 50% at a=61 for h=0.152 mm. Although the
With this in background, Channaraju and Viswanath increase in base thrust was large, the base drag
[54] made an assessment of riblets for base drag reduction, however, as a fraction of total drag of the
reduction on a GAW(2) airfoil (See Fig. 2) which has airfoil was only about 0.7% since the base drag
a trailing-edge thickness of 0.5% chord; on a model component of the baseline airfoil was itself small. Even
scale with a chord of 600 mm, the trailing-edge thickness this low level of drag reduction is of engineering value
was 3 mm. Riblet lms with a height of 0.076 and since it is an added benet due to riblets on a blunt
0.152 mm were applied between 0.12c and 0.96c on the trailing-edge airfoil. The increase in base pressure due to
airfoil top and bottom surfaces. Streamwise variations riblets was attributed to be a direct consequence of two
Fig. 40. Average skin-friction coefcient for 0.0030 in riblets compared with unit Reynolds number for Mach 1.21.6
(taken from [50]).
factors: a lower effective base height of the airfoil turbulent skin friction drag reduction on airfoils, wings
(including the boundary layer displacement thickness) and wing-body combinations in different speed regimes;
and altered shear layer development characteristics as these applications bring in issues of riblet performance
discussed above. It would be of signicant engineering in pressure gradients and in the presence of three-
interest to assess base drag reduction from riblets on a dimensionality. Based on the available experimental
supercritical airfoil with a blunt trailing edge at data, certain broad conclusions are drawn, which are
transonic speeds. informative both from the point of view of design
applications as well as ow features associated with
riblets.
10. Concluding remarks The data base generated in wind tunnels and ight
experiments at high Reynolds number rmly establish
Research investigating the performance of riblets for the effectiveness of riblets from low speed to moderate
viscous drag reduction has received considerable atten- supersonic Mach numbers. Taking into account (typical)
tion during the last two decades. Riblet lms with uncertainties in the measured data, the performance of
adhesive backing manufactured by 3 M company, USA riblets may be judged to be about the same across the
have been utilized very widely in riblet research both in Mach number range investigated. With optimized
wind tunnels and in ight tests. In this review, we have riblets, skin friction drag reduction in the range of
addressed primarily the effectiveness of 3 M riblets for 58% are achievable on 2D airfoils at low incidence and
Fig. 42. Lift characteristics on Do-228 model (taken from [30]).
Fig. 41. Average skin-friction coefcient for 0.0013 in riblets

compared with unit Reynolds number for Mach 1.21.4 (taken
from [50]).
in ows with mild adverse pressure gradients; there is

broad consistency amongst different measurements that Fig. 43. Sectional lift characteristics on swept wing, GAW-2
the above level of drag reduction is achieved for h+ in airfoil.
the range of 815, which is in very good agreement with
the large body of data available on zero pressure
gradient ows. The correlation of viscous drag reduction low-speed experiments have shown a trend of increasing
vs h+, well established for zero pressure gradient viscous drag reduction with airfoil incidence initially, in
boundary layer ows, can be a useful guide for choosing contrast with some of the early results in the literature;
the optimum riblet size in pressure gradients. Detailed the increased drag reduction is contributed by the airfoil
2030% of the boundary layer thickness. (iii) Turbulent

intensity /u0 S and Reynolds shear stress proles /u0 v0 S
in the wall region do show a visible reduction due to
riblets in adverse pressure gradient as well. (iv) Under
high drag reduction conditions in adverse pressure
gradients, quadrant analysis of u0 v0 signals indicate that
ejection events near the wall are appreciably inhibited,
thereby affecting turbulent energy production. Further
research investigating the mechanics of riblets in adverse
pressure gradients may be very fruitful since it may
provide a sensitive ow conguration involving large
viscous drag reduction and ow alteration to a sufcient
degree, making it more amenable to accurate measure-
ments and interpretation. It would also be very
informative to assess in some detail typical effects of
riblets on shockwave-turbulent boundary layer interac-
tion on airfoils at transonic speeds.
Detailed experiments on moderately swept wings
Fig. 44. Streamwise variations of h+ on upper surface, GAW-2 relevant to transport aircraft applications are limited
airfoil (taken from [54]). and the available results at low speeds (with riblet
grooves aligned to the freestream direction) indicate that
viscous drag reduction in the range of 58% is likely for
optimized riblets at zero incidence. With increasing a,
the riblet yaw angle (j) effects may become large
(j>151) and degrade the performance of riblets
appreciably. In addition to the crossow boundary
layer, we may in general expect that both the magnitude
of j and its streamwise gradient will be relevant factors
affecting riblet performance in a 3D boundary layer.
The available results strongly suggest that aligning the
riblet grooves along the local surface streamline direc-
tion on a swept wing (e.g. corresponding to cruise
conditions) would be necessary in order to realize
maximum benet in applications. There is a denite
need for detailed studies on a moderate swept wing
(relevant to transport aircraft) at transonic speeds
investigating the mean properties of the boundary layer
Fig. 45. Variation of base pressure coefcient with incidence which would enhance our broad understanding of riblet
(taken from [54]). performance both due to three-dimensionality as well as
other aspects like shockboundary layer interaction;
such attempts would result in improved guidelines for
the practical application of riblets.
suction surface, suggesting increased effectiveness of Limited wind tunnel data available on wing-body or
riblets in adverse pressure gradients; similar observa- aircraft model conguration suggest that a total drag
tions at low speeds have been made in riblet studies on a reduction of 23% can be expected which is very
at plate with imposed adverse pressure gradients. encouraging. In addition to as large a coverage of
With regard to altered ow features arising from riblets as possible, it is essential to optimize riblets for
riblets, the following major observations are made. (i) the wing and fuselage components (corresponding to
As in zero pressure gradients ows, riblets in adverse cruise conditions) in order to realize maximum drag
pressure gradients (bp2.20) do show an increased reduction. Total drag reduction, a little less than 2%,
intercept in the mean velocity prole plotted in log-law has been reported by Szodruch [14] based on fuel
coordinates, suggesting thickening of the sublayer consumption measurements in ight tests in the Mach
(although there may be some exceptions). (ii) In adverse number range of 0.77 0.79 on an Airbus A-320 aircraft
pressure gradients on airfoils, the inuence of riblets is with a riblet coverage of about 70%; these results were
not conned to the near-wall region but could extend found to be extremely consistent with the expectation
well into the boundary layer to a height of as much as from wind tunnel results.
While the drag reduction capability has been demon- References

strated beyond doubt, there are certain important issues
concerning utilization of 3 M riblets in transport aircraft [1] Thomas ASW. Aircraft drag reduction technologya
applications. These include cost of riblet lms, time and summary. Aircraft drag prediction and reduction.
cost of installation and removal of riblet lms, AGARD-R-723, 1985, Paper No. 1.
performance degradation of riblets due to aging and [2] Bushnell DB. Turbulent drag reduction for external ows.
Aircraft drag prediction and reduction. AGARD-R-723,
other operational aspects: excellent discussion of many
1985, Paper No. 5.
of the above issues are contained in the papers by [3] Hirschel EH, Thiede P, Monnoyer F. Turbulence manage-
Hirschel et al. [3] and Lynch and Klinge [55]. Applica- mentapplication aspects. Fluid dynamics of three-
tion of riblets to high speed trains and trucks/buses may dimensional turbulent shear ows and transition.
prove to be very benecial; for these applications, riblet AGARD-CP-438, Paper No. 23, 1988.
geometry can be optimized to provide higher viscous [4] Bushnell DB. Supersonic aircraft drag reduction. AIAA
drag reduction (810%) and the grooves could possibly Paper 90-1596, 1990.
be formed as an integral part of the manufacturing [5] Bushnell DB. Aircraft drag reduction. Special course on
process of the skin so that the economic gain can be skin friction drag reduction. AGARD-R-786, 1992, Paper
substantial. No. 3.
[6] Bushnell DB. Viscous drag reduction in aeronautics.
Suggestions have been made concerning the use
Proceedings of the 19th Congress International Council
of 3D riblets/humplets and limited studies exist examin-
Aeronautical Science. Paper 94-0.1, Anaheim, CA, 1994.
ing the performance of certain 3D riblet geometries [7] Robert JP. Drag reduction: an industrial challenge. Special
including (idealized) biological surfaces for viscous Course on Skin Friction Drag Reduction. AGARD-R-
drag reduction, e.g. [16,5659]; the drag reduction 786, 1992, Paper No. 2.
benets vary considerably and (max) skin friction [8] Walsh MJ. Riblets. In: Bushnell DB, Hefner JN, editors.
drag reduction in the range of 89% have been Progress in astronautics and aeronautics. Washington,
measured at low speeds[16]. A major question is whether DC: AIAA, 1990, p. 20361.
3D riblets can offer viscous drag reduction much [9] Coustols E, Savill AM. Turbulent skin-friction drag
higher than 2D grooves (e.g. 3 M riblets). The choice reduction by active and passive means. Special course on
of 3D riblet geometry can indeed be very wide and skin friction drag reduction. AGARD-R-786, 1992. Paper
No. 8.
systematic work in the future is needed to assess the
[10] Coustols E. Riblets: main known and unknown features.
drag reduction potential of 3D riblets in general
In: Choi KS, Prasad KK, Truong TV, editors. Emerging
and their optimization. It remains to be seen if techniques in drag reduction. Mechanical Engineering
any passive ow control technique or device for skin Publications, UK, 1996. p. 343.
friction drag reduction will prove to be so successful [11] Coustols E, Schmitt V. Synthesis of experimental riblet
that it reaches the nal goal of in-service aircraft studies in transonic conditions. In: Coustols E, editor.
applications. Turbulence control by passive means. Netherlands: Kluver
In this review, we have focussed attention on Academic, 1990. p. 12340.
experimental results concerning riblet performance on [12] McLean JD, George-Falvy DN, Sullivan PP. Flight-test of
airfoils, wing and wing-body congurations. There have turbulent skin friction reduction by riblets. Proceedings of
been several attempts to calculate the ow-eld and International Conference on Turbulent Drag Reduction by
Passive Means, Section 16. London: Royal Aeronautical
assess drag reduction due to riblets, e.g. [44,6062]. The
Society, 1987. p. 117.
article by Pollard [62] may be seen for a review of
[13] Walsh MJ, Sellers WL. Riblet drag reduction at ight
calculation methods. conditions. AIAA Paper 88-2554, 1988.
[14] Szodruch J. Viscous drag reduction on transport aircraft.
AIAA Paper 91-0685, 1991.
[15] Walsh MJ, Lindemann AM. Optimization and application
Acknowledgements of riblets for turbulent drag reduction. AIAA Paper 84-
0347, 1984.
The author is extremely grateful to his colleagues [16] Bruse M, Bechert DW, Th van der Hoeven JG, Hage W,
who, over the years, have contributed to many aspects of Hoppe G. Experiments with conventional and with novel
riblet research at NAL: special thanks are due to Drs. adjustable drag - reducing surfaces. In: So RMC, Speziale
CG, Launder BE, editors. Near wall turbulent ows.
Sundaram S, Subashchandar N, Channa Raju, Rudra
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1993. p. 71938.
Kumar S, and Mr. Mukund R. Valuable suggestions
[17] Schwarz-van Manen AD, Thijssen JHH, Nieuwvett C,
were made by Prof. Roddam Narasimha on an early Prasad KK, Nieuwstadt FTM. The bursting process over
version of this paper to whom the author expresses drag reducing grooved surfaces. In: Gyr A, editor.
grateful thanks. Some aspects of the research reported Proceedings of the IUTAM Symposium on Structure of
here were funded by the Aeronautical Development Turbulence and Drag Redction. Berlin: Springer, 1990.
Agency, Bangalore. p. 5618.
[18] Suzuki Y, Kasagi N. Turbulent drag reduction mechanism [36] Sundaram S, Viswanath PR, Subashchandar N. Studies on
above a riblet surface. AIAA J 1994;32(9):178190. drag reduction using riblets on an innite swept wing.
[19] Choi KS. Near-wall structures of a turbulent boundary National Aerospace Laboratories Report PD-EA-9802,
layer with riblets. J Fluid Mech 1989;208:41758. India, 1998.
[20] Choi KS. Turbulence structure revisited: results and [37] Sundaram S, Viswanath PR, Subashchandar N. Viscous
implications from riblets research. In: So RMC, Speziale drag reduction using riblets on a swept wing. AIAA J
CG, Launder BE, editors. Near wall turbulent ows. 1999;37(7):8516.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1993. p. 699707. [38] Viswanath PR. Riblets on airfoils and wings: a review.
[21] Bechert DW, Bartenwerfer M. The viscous ows on AIAA Paper 99-3402, 1999.
surfaces with longitudinal ribs. J Fluid Mech 1989; [39] Choi KS. Effect of longitudinal pressure gradient on
206:10530. turbulent drag reduction with riblets. In: Coustols E,
[22] Walsh MJ. Drag characteristics of v-groove and transverse editor. Turbulence control by passive means. Dordrecht,
curvature riblets. In: Hough GR, editor. Progress in Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 1990. p. 10921.
astronautics and aeronautics. New York: AIAA, 1980. p. [40] Caram JM, Ahmed A. Effects of riblets on turbulence in
16884. the wake of an airfoil. AIAA 1991;29(11):176970.
[23] Vukoslavcevic P, Wallace JM, Balint JL. Viscous drag [41] Desai SS, Kiske S. A computer program to calculate
reduction using streamwise aligned grooves. AIAA J turbulent boundary layer and wakes in compressible ow
1992;30(4):111922. with arbitrary pressure gradient based on Greens lag-
[24] Park SR, Wallace JM. Flow-eld alteration and viscous entrainment method. Ruhr University. Bericht No. 89/
drag reduction by riblets in a turbulent boundary layer. 1982, Bochum, Germany, 1982.
AIAA Paper 93-3256, 1993. [42] Debisschop JR, Nieuwstadt FTM. Turbulent boundary
[25] Pulvin Ph, Truong TV. Riblets in internal ows with layer in an adverse pressure gradient: effectiveness of
adverse pressure gradients. In: Gyr A, editor. Proceedings riblets. AIAA J 1996;34(5):9327.
of the IUTAM Symposium on Structure of Turbulence [43] Pulles CJA, Krishna Prasad K, Nieuwstadt FTM.
and Drag Reduction. Berlin: Springer, 1990. p. 56976. Turbulence measurements over longitudinal micro-
[26] Squire LC, Savill AM. Drag measurements on planar grooved surfaces. Appl Sci Res 1989;46:197208.
riblet surfaces at high subsonic speeds. Appl Sci Res [44] Choi H, Moin P, Kim J. Direct numerical simulation of
1989;46:22943. turbulent ow over riblets. J Fluid Mech 1993;255:50339.
[27] Nieuwstadt FTM, Wolthers W, Leijdens H, Krishna [45] Benhalilou M, Anseimet F, Fulachier L. Conditional
Prasad K, Schwarz-van Manen A. The reduction of skin Reynolds stress on a v-grooved surface. Phys Fluids
friction by riblets under the inuence of an adverse 1994;6(6):210117.
pressure gradient. Expt Fluids 1993;15:1726. [46] Coustols E. Performance of internal manipulators in
[28] Coustols E, Cousteix J. Experimental investigation of subsonic three-dimensional ows. In: Choi KS, editor.
turbulent boundary layers manipulated with internal Recent developments in turbulence management. Dor-
devices: riblets. In: Gyr A, editor. Proceedings of the drecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 1991. p. 4364.
IUTAM Symposium on Structure of Turbulence and Drag [47] Robinson SK. Effects of riblets on turbulence in a
Reduction. Berlin: Springer, 1990. p. 57784. supersonic boundary layer. AIAA Paper 88-2526, 1988.
[29] Viswanath PR, Mukund R. Turbulent drag reduction [48] Gaudet L. Properties of riblets at supersonic speed. Appl
using riblets on a supercritical airfoil at transonic speeds. Sci Res 1989;46:24554.
AIAA J 1995;33(5):9457. [49] Coustols E, Cousteix J. Performances of riblets in the
[30] Van Der Hoven JG, Bechert DW. Experiments with a 1:4.2 supersonic regime. AIAA J 1994;32(2):4313.
model of a commuter aircraft with riblets in a large wind [50] Zuniga FA, Anderson BT, Bertelrud A. Flight test results
tunnel. In: Choi KS, editor. Recent developments in of riblets at supersonic speeds. NASA Tech. Memo 4387,
turbulence management. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer 1992.
Academic Publishers, 1991. p. 324. [51] Nash JF. A discussion of two-dimensional turbulent base
[31] Sundaram S, Viswanath PR, Rudrakumar S. Studies on ows. Aeronautical Research Council Research Memor-
turbulent drag reduction on a NACA 0012 airfoil using anda 3468, UK, 1965.
riblets. National Aerospace Laboratories Report PD-EA- [52] Chapman DR. An analysis of base pressure at supersonic
9401, India, 1994. velocities and comparison with experiment. NACA Report
[32] Sundaram S, Viswanath PR, Rudrakumar S. Viscous drag 1051, 1951.
reduction using riblets on a NACA 0012 airfoil to [53] Korst HH. A theory of base pressure in transonic and
moderate incidence. AIAA J 1996;34(4):67682. supersonic ow. J Appl Mech 1956;23:593600.
[33] Subashchandar N, Rajeev K, Sundaram S. Drag reduction [54] Channaraju, Viswanath PR. Base drag reduction caused
due to riblets on NACA 0012 airfoil at higher angles of by riblets on a GAW-2 airfoil. J Aircr 1998;35(6):98892.
attack. National Aerospace Laboratories Report PD-EA- [55] Lynch FT, Klinge MD. Some practical aspects of viscous
9504, India, 1995. drag reduction concepts. SAE Technical Paper 912129, 1991.
[34] Subashchandar N, Rajeev K, Sundaram S. Drag reduction [56] Wilkinson SP, Anders JB, Lazos BS, Bushnell DM.
due to riblets on a GAW(2) airfoil. National Aerospace Turbulent drag reduction research at NASA Langley
Laboratories Report PD-EA-9601, India, 1996. progress and plans. Proceedings of International Con-
[35] Subashchandar N, Rajeev K, Sundaram S. Drag reduction ference on Turbulent Drag Reduction by Passive Means.
due to riblets on a GAW(2) airfoil. J Aircr 1999;36(5):8902. London: Royal Aeronautical Society, 1987.
[57] Bechert DW. Experiments on three-dimensional riblets. [60] Launder BE, Li SP. The prediction of riblet behaviour with
Proceedings of International Conference on Turbulent a Low-Reynolds number ke model. Aeronaut J
Drag Reduction by Passive Means. London: Royal 1992;96:3515.
Aeronautical Society, 1987. [61] Pollard A, Savill AM, Tullis S, Wang X. Simulating
[58] Pollard A. Passive and active control of near- turbulent ow over thin element and at valley v-shaped
wall turbulence. Prog Aerosp Sci. 1997;33(11/12): riblets. AIAA J 1996;341(11):22618.
689708. [62] Pollard A. Riblets and other methods of controlling near-
[59] Bechert DW, Bruse M, Hage W. Experiments with three- wall turbulence. In: Choi KS, Prasad KK, Truong TV,
dimensional riblets as an idealised model of shark skin. editors. Emerging techniques in drag reduction. UK:
Expt Fluids 2000;28:40312. Mechanical Engineering Publications, 1996, p. 4576.

Aircraft Viscous Drag Reduction Using Riblets - Viswanath

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aircraft Viscous Drag Reduction Using Riblets - Viswanath

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aircraft Viscous Drag Reduction Using Riblets - Viswanath

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Progress in Aerospace Sciences 38 (2002) 571600

4. Swept wings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585

*Tel.: +91-80-522-4024; fax: +91-80-522-3942.

Nomenclature /u0 v0 S r.m.s. value of Reynolds shear stress compo-

4.1.3. Assessment of riblet yaw angle effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587

5. Flight investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589

6. Wing-body and aircraft congurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591

7. Riblets at supersonic speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592

8. Effect of riblets on lift characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593

9. Base drag reduction on airfoils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593

10. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595

1. Introduction around the globe concerning development of new

investigators, e.g. [8,18,22]. Because of the relatively

Author Airfoil Chord (m) Rec MN h (mm) a1 L1 Remarks

Fig. 2. Catalog of NAL experiments.

backing lm while making drag comparisons; as a result,

3.3. Low-speed studies on NACA 0012 and GAW-2

The experiments on NACA 0012 airfoil [3133] were

3.3.1. Selection of riblets

3.3.2. Drag performance with incidence

above gure. Since in general, b varies along the airfoil

Fig. 6. Variations of drag reduction and Clauser parameter

Fig. 10. Mean velocity proles on upper surface at x/c=0.964,

Fig. 9. Mean velocity proles on upper surface at a=41,

3.3.4. Turbulence intensity profiles on the NACA 0012

Fig. 20. Percentage total drag reduction with incidence;

Fig. 19. Aerofoil characteristics: (a) static pressure distribu-

(h=0.018 mm), as a percentage of the drag of the

4.1. NAL studies on a swept wing with GAW-2 profile

Sundaram et al. [36,37] presented detailed results of

Fig. 25. Variation of h+ on upper surface, GAW-2 airfoil

Fig. 24. Surface pressure distributions on swept wing, GAW-2

4.1.1. Selection of riblets

4.1.2. Drag performance with incidence

Fig. 28. Streamwise variation of riblet yaw angle on swept

examining j effects alone, e.g. Refs. [8,11,12,46], is of

The performance of 3 M riblets has been assessed at

Fig. 31. Test surface and instrumentation on T-33 airplane

Fig. 33. Measured y ratios compared with NASA Cf ratios

replaced the riblets aft of x/c=0.50, which was

conditions) and wing tests including adverse pressure

6. Wing-body and aircraft congurations

As we have discussed, the available data on airfoils at

The above ight results, while providing strong

8. Effect of riblets on lift characteristics

This aspect is very relevant from an application point

Fig. 42. Lift characteristics on Do-228 model (taken from [30]).

Fig. 41. Average skin-friction coefcient for 0.0013 in riblets

in ows with mild adverse pressure gradients; there is

2030% of the boundary layer thickness. (iii) Turbulent

While the drag reduction capability has been demon- References

You might also like