See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309671838

Biplane configuration analysis

Article  in  UPB Scientific Bulletin, Series D: Mechanical Engineering · January 2016

CITATIONS READS
0 223

4 authors:

Iulian Nicola D. Ţurcanu

Agentia de Cercetare pentru Tehnica si Tehnologii Militare Agentia de Cercetare pentru Tehnica si Tehnologii Militare
15 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tudor Prisecaru Cristian Predoi

Polytechnic University of Bucharest Agentia de Cercetare pentru Tehnica si Tehnologii Militare
111 PUBLICATIONS   198 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modern ways to reduce the pollution and to increase the efficiency of gas turbine cogeneration plants and turbo-compressors for natural gas - MEMOCEN View project

HIDROCOMB - Combustion Chamber with Hydrogen-Natural Gas Mixture Fuel View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Iulian Nicola on 17 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

U.P.B. Sci. Bull., Series D, Vol. 78, Iss. 3, 2016 ISSN 1454-2358

BIPLANE CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS

Iulian NICOLA1, Daniel ŢURCANU2, Tudor PRISECARU3, Cristian PREDOI4

The paper presents a study of the flow around a biplane configuration with
the purpose to determine interaction between the two aerodynamic profiles. In order
to study the effect of interaction between the profiles in a biplane configuration,
experimental measurements were made in a wind tunnel. This paper focus on the
flow around the biplane configurations. Also, the experimental results were
compared with numerical analysis.

Keywords: biplane configuration, flow, laser Doppler system, gap, stagger,

decalage.

1. Introduction

The purpose of the paper is to study the flow around a biplane configuration
in order to identify a solution for the design of a drone used for capturing
multispectral images. According to its usage, the drone must be able to carry the
payload and to fly at low speed, but in the same time to be able to develop speed
of 10 m/s.
The study of the flow around the biplane configuration was done both
numerical and experimental using laser Doppler method.
With respect to other similar papers, the novelty of this paper consists in
studying the biplane configuration using laser Doppler method in combination
with numerical analysis and results from efforts measurements.
The experimental determination of the flow around the aerodynamic profile
has been done using the laser Doppler method. This method is well suited for
velocity measurement having a very high precision, approximately of the
wavelength of the laser beam, and it does not influence the measurement process,
being a non-intrusive method.

1
Postdoctoral researcher, University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, Romania, e-mail:
iuliannicola@yahoo.com;
2
Postdoctoral researcher, University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, Romania, e-mail:
turcanued@yahoo.com;
3
Prof., The Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Mechatronics, University POLITEHNICA of
Bucharest, Romania, e-mail: tudor.prisecaru@upb.ro;
4
PhD student, University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, Romania, e-mail: cpredoi@acttm.ro.
10 Iulian Nicola, Daniel Turcanu, Tudor Prisecaru, Cristian Predoi

According to Doppler theory, the frequency of the light scattered by a

particle and received by a detector is given by the following equation [1]:

1
(1)
1

where: c is the velocity of light, fs is the frequency of light reaching the detector, fs
is the frequency of the incoming light, V is the velocity of the particle, and ei and
es are the unit vectors describing the direction of the light.
The Doppler shift is given by the relation [1]:

(2)
1 2

The Doppler shift is directly proportional to the corresponding component of

the velocity of the particle [1]:

2 sin (3)
2
where λ is the wavelength of the laser beam and θ is the angle between the two
laser beams.
Although laser Doppler method has a lot of advantages, it also has some
disadvantages like: the structure of transparent window may produce light
refraction and dislocation within the measured volume caused by homogeneity.
Another disadvantage is concerning seeding in order to assure a good signal to
noise ratio.
In order to overcome this disadvantages, the glass of the window
corresponding to the wind tunnel wall was carefully chosen and the seeding
calculated and verified.

2. Experimental Measurements

In order to study the effect of interaction between two wings mounted

biplane configuration experimental measurements were made for the flow around
the biplane configuration and for the aerodynamically efforts. Experimental
measurements were performed for different biplane configurations and also for
monoplane in order to compare the results.
All measurements were performed for a 2D case in a subsonic wind tunnel
(Prandtl) at a speed of 20 m/s. The two wings are identical: rectangular wings
with NACA0012 profile.
 Biplane configuration analysis 11

2.1 The model and notations

The model consists by two identical rectangular wings with NACA0012

profile. The wing dimensions are: length l = 320 mm and chord c = 107 mm.
The mounting is a wall mounting.

Fig. 1. The biplane configuration parameters

The following geometrical characteristics are define for the biplane

configuration having the same aerodynamic profile [2]:
Gap (h) - the vertical distance between the leading edges of the two
aerodynamic profiles perpendicular to the free stream.
Stagger (d) - distance between the two wing leading edges parallel to the free
stream. The stagger is assumed positive when the upper wing is fore of the lower
wing.
Decalage (ε) - it is assumed positive when the upper wing is at greater
incidence than the lower.
Both gap and stagger are referenced to the chord length of the model.

2.2 Velocity measurements

Fig. 2. Laser Doppler velocity measurement system

The velocity measurements were made using the Laser Doppler velocity
measurement technique.
Measurements are made for a single component of the velocity, parallel with
the direction of the flow. In order to make measurements for two components of
the velocity, two pairs of converging laser beams are needed, and both pairs of
12 Iulian Nicola, Daniel Turcanu, Tudor Prisecaru, Cristian Predoi

laser beams most converge in the same point, the measurement point.
Measurements for two component of the velocity couldn’t be made in the vicinity
of the profiles because of the convergence angle. So, in order to better describe
the flow near the profiles, only one component of the velocity was measured, the
component which has the same direction with the flow. But also, near the profiles,
the measurements errors are larger because of the profiles vibratory motion.
For the biplane configuration, the flow velocities around the profiles was
measured for the following configurations:
Table 1
Studied biplane configuration for gap and stagger
Biplane Gap Stagger Decalage Incidence
Obs.
configuration (G) (S) (ε) angle
1 1.5 0 0 0o and 5o No interaction between
· the two wings (like 2
monoplanes)
2 0.5 0 0 0o and 5o To view the influence of
· gap
3 0.5 -0.5 · -3o 0o and 5o To view the influence of
· stagger and decalage

The measurements were made in a plane perpendicular on the two wings and
located at the middle of the wings in order to have a bi-dimensional flow. For the
definition of measurements points, a measurement mesh points was defined. The
measurement mesh is smoother near the profiles for a better observation of the
flow. The most difficult measurements were near the leading edge because of the
convergence of the laser beams.

3. Numerical Analysis

Besides the experimental results [3], a numerical analysis has been

undertaken using Flow Simulation module from SolidWoks.
There was made an external analysis of the profile excluding internal
cavities.
The analysis was made under gravity conditions.
The numerical analysis was made under the following conditions: the fluid
used was the air at 101325 Pa pressure and 293.2 K temperature; the walls were
considered adiabatic and with no roughness; the flow was considered to be
laminar.
The velocity of the flow was set at 20 m/s on X axis in order to have a good
comparison with the experimental data and in order to simulate the angle of
incidence of 5o the aerodynamic angles were used (0.0872 rad angle of attack).
The result resolution was set at maximum and the simulation was a 2D
simulation on XY plane.
 Biplane configuration analysis 13

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. Configuration 1
4.1.1. 0o incidence angle
The results from the flow velocity measurement and numerical analysis are
presented in the image below (figure 3). The flow around the two profiles is
similar as a flow around a monoplane configuration in both experimental data and
numerical analysis. There are no mutual influence between the two profiles. Also
the velocity field is symmetrical for the two profile. The velocities are the same
for intrados and extrados for the two profiles resulting a zero lift at this angle of
incidence. The stagnation phenomena can be seen at the front of the leading edge.
Also, at the rear of the wing, the wake is very well defined.
During experimental measurement, because of the wing vibrations, the
measurement error is grater near the profiles. When the flow passes between the
two profiles, because of the profiles thickness, the velocity of the flow increases
and when the thickness of the profiles is getting smaller, the velocity of the flow
decreases.

a b

c
Fig. 3. The field of velocities for the configuration 1 at zero incidence (a – velocity on X axis,
experimental measurement; b – velocity on X axis, numerical analysis; c – velocity on Y axis,
numerical analysis)
14 Iulian Nicola, Daniel Turcanu, Tudor Prisecaru, Cristian Predoi

4.1.2. 5o incidence angle

For an angle of incidence of 5o, the influence of the biplane is presented in
the figure from below. It can be seen that the flow velocities under the upper
profile are greater than under the lower wing. Also the stagnation phenomena is
more pronounced for the lower profile.
Another conclusion is that the lift given by the lower profile is greater than
the one of the upper profile. In this case, for an incompressible flow, the increase
of the flow velocity generate an increase of the dynamic pressure and decrease of
the static pressure, resulting the lift. As the difference between the velocities in
the upper part of a profile is greater than in the lower part of a profile, the lift
increases. In this case, the differences between the velocities in the upper and
lower parts of the profiles is grater for the lower profile resulting a greater lift. In
conclusion, the influence of the biplane configuration is more benefic for the
lower profile than for the upper profile.

a b

c
Fig. 4. The field of velocities for the configuration 1 at 5o incidence (a – velocity on X axis,
experimental measurement; b – velocity on X axis, numerical analysis; c – velocity on Y axis,
numerical analysis)
 Biplane configuration analysis 15

4.2. Configuration 2

4.2.1. 0o incidence angle

Comparison of figure 5 and figure 3 show that in the case of a smaller gap,
the flow velocities between the two wing increases. In figure 3a (1.5 · gap), the
maximum velocity is approx. 23 m/s, while in the case of a 0.5 · gap, the
maximum velocity is approx. 26 m/s. Also, in this case, the flow around each
profile is no more symmetric. Although, at this angle of incidence, the lift of the
system is zero, the lift of the lower wing is positive and the lift of the upper wing
is negative.
In the experimental measurement, the difference in the velocities of the flow
between the lower and upper part of each profile is approx. 3.5-4 m/s. For a gap of
1.5 · there were no differences between the velocities of the flow.
Regarding the numerical analysis, the results are the same with the remark
that the difference between velocities between the two profiles and the external
part of the biplane configuration are smaller. Also the vertical component of the
velocity between the two profiles is zero.

a b

c
Fig. 5. The field of velocities for the configuration 2 at zero incidence (a – velocity on X axis,
experimental measurement; b – velocity on X axis, numerical analysis; c – velocity on Y axis,
numerical analysis)
16 Iulian Nicola, Daniel Turcanu, Tudor Prisecaru, Cristian Predoi

4.2.2. 5o incidence angle

At this angle of incidence, in both experimental measurement and numerical
analysis, both profiles presents a positive lift but the lift of the lower profile is
greater than the lift of the upper profile. The difference of the velocity of the flow
between the upper and lower part of the lower profile is approx. 7 m/s, greater
than in the case of the upper profile (in the experimental data). The influence of
the biplane configuration is greater than in the case of a 1.5 · gap.
In the numerical analysis the difference of the velocity of the flow between
the upper and lower part of the lower profile is approx. 2.7 m/s, also greater than
in the case of the upper profile.

a
b

c
Fig. 6. The field of velocities for the configuration 2 at 5o incidence (a – velocity on X axis,
experimental measurement; b – velocity on X axis, numerical analysis; c – velocity on Y axis,
numerical analysis)

4.3. Configuration 3

4.3.1. 0o incidence angle

In this case the upper profile is in front of the lower profile and it can be seen
that the stagnation of the flow is grater for the upper profile because of the
decalage of -3o.
The difference of the velocities from the upper and lower part of the profile
is greater for the upper profile, but the velocity in the upper part is smaller than
 Biplane configuration analysis 17

the velocity in the lower part of the upper profile, resulting a negative lift.
Although the incidence angle is zero, the lower profile has a small lift given by
the biplane configuration. The resulting lift of the configuration is negative.

b
a

c
Fig. 7. The field of velocities for the configuration 3 at zero incidence (a – velocity on X axis,
experimental measurement; b – velocity on X axis, numerical analysis; c – velocity on Y axis,
numerical analysis)

4.3.2. 5o incidence angle

In this configuration, the stagnation phenomena is more pronounced for the
lower profile. For both of the profiles the velocity is grater in the upper part of the
profile than in the lower part. This difference is grater for the lower profile.
18 Iulian Nicola, Daniel Turcanu, Tudor Prisecaru, Cristian Predoi

a b

c
Fig. 8. The field of velocities for the configuration 3 at 5o incidence (a – velocity on X axis,
experimental measurement; b – velocity on X axis, numerical analysis; c – velocity on Y axis,
numerical analysis)

Both experimental velocity and efforts measurement combined with

numerical analysis for all configurations, show a positive influence for one profile
and negative for the other.
The conclusions stated above are sustained also by the following tables.
Table 2
Results from efforts measurements
Configuration Slope of the Position of the Drag coefficient
lift center (from the at zero incidence
coefficient leading edge) angle (Cx min)
Monoplane 6,535 0.26 · 0.011 0.8658
Measured (0.114)
Monoplane 6,28 0.25 ·
literature
Configuration 1 (0.227) 0.029 1.8158
at 0o incidence
Gap of 0.068
0,25 ·
Stagger of 1.37 ·
0.25 ·
Gap of 0,5 · -ε=-3o: 0.031; 1.3962, 1.585,
- ε=+3o:0.051; 1.6557, (stagger
- ε=0: 0.037 0.25 · - 0.5 ·
)
 Biplane configuration analysis 19

Table 3
Maximum and minimum velocity in the flow resulted from numerical simulation
Configuration Angle of Vx min Vx max Vy min Vy max
incidence (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s)
Monoplane 0o -1.153 23.957 -11.734 11.734
5o -4.803 24.583 -5.753 15.183
Config 1 0o 0 22.834 -9.39 9.488
5o -3.316 25.044 -6.758 16.149
Config 2 0o -4.015 24.218 -13.891 14.014
5o -4.885 25.139 -7.761 20.297
Config 3 0o -2.372 24.91 -11.977 13.559
5o -8.696 24.372 -7.224 14.884

Table 4
The resulted efforts form numerical simulation
Configuration Angle of Force Force Y Friction Torque X Torque Y
incidence X (N) force X (Nm) (Nm)
(N) (N)
Monoplane 0o 0.005 -6.463e-4 0.003 -2.542e-5 -2.139e-4
o
5 0.003 0.052 0.002 0.002 -1.262e-4
Config 1 0o 0.009 -0.002 0.005 3.634e-6 1.387e-5
o
5 0.006 0.136 0.005 -2.039e4 8.724e-6
Config 2 0o 0.011 0.017 0.005 -2.491e-5 1.637e-5
o
5 0.012 0.07 0.005 -1.042e-4 1.787e-5
o -4
Config 3 0 0.01 -1.7e 0.005 2.546e-7 1.427e-5
o
5 0.01 0.069 0.005 -1.03e-4 1.476e-5

5. Conclusions

A biplane configuration analysis show that the mutual interaction of

aerodynamic profiles modifies the aerodynamic characteristics of the system.
The interactions are greater if the profiles are closer to each other. In all
cases, the interaction is positive for a profile and negative for the other.
The results obtained during experimental measurement in the wind tunnel
and those of the numerical analysis are the same. The only difference between the
experimental measurement and the numerical analysis consists in the values of the
velocity of the flow. This can be due to the precision making a 20 m/s current
flow in the wind tunnel and the approximations made for the numerical analysis.
Also the results from experimental and numerical analysis are the same with
the literature [4-7].
 20 Iulian Nicola, Daniel Turcanu, Tudor Prisecaru, Cristian Predoi

Acknowledgement

The work has been funded by the Sectoral Operational Programme Human
Resources Development 2007-2013 of the Ministry of European Funds through the
Financial Agreement POSDRU/159/1.5/S/132397.

REFERENCES
[1]. S. Ristić, “Laser Doppler Anemometry and its Application in Wind Tunnel Tests”, Scientific
Technical Review, Vol. LVII,No.3-4, 2007, p. 64.
[2]. Aaron Altman, “Unique stealth unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) houck aircraft design
program”, University of Dayton, Final Report, AIR FORCE RESEARCH
LABORATORY, November 2008.
[3]. João Sousa Alves, “Experimental and CFD Analysis of a Biplane Wells Turbine for Wave
Energy Harnessing”, Master Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology.
[4]. C. Thipyopas, “Optimisation aérodynamique de configurations de microdrones à voilure fixe :
effet biplan, voilure souple et interaction aéropropulsive”, PhD thesis presented at
L’ECOLE NATIONALE SUPERIEURE DE L‘AERONAUTIQUE ET DE L’ESPACE,
No. 486, 2007.
[5]. W. S. Diehl, “Relative loading on biplane wings”, Report National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics. Report no. 458, 275.
[6]. R. Fuchs, L. Hopf, “Aerdynamik”. Richard Carl Schmidt & Co., 1922.
[7]. M. Munk, “Generale Biplane Theory”, NACA TR no. 151, 1922.

View publication stats