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

net/publication/257616854

Aerodynamic Analysis of Variable Cant Angle Winglets for Improved Aircraft

Performance

Conference Paper · September 2013

CITATIONS READS

32 4,879

2 authors:

Abhinivesh Beechook Jian Wang

Coventry University Kingston University London
6 PUBLICATIONS   47 CITATIONS    87 PUBLICATIONS   1,214 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Abhinivesh Beechook on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 th
Proceedings of the 19 International Conference on
Automation & Computing, Brunel University,
London, UK, 13-14 September 2013
Aerodynamic Analysis of Variable Cant Angle
Winglets for Improved Aircraft Performance
A. Beechook1, J. Wang2
1
Department of Aerospace, Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Coventry University
Coventry, United Kingdom
abhinivesh.beechook@coventry.ac.uk,
2
School of Aerospace and Aircraft Engineering, Kingston University
j.wang@kingston.ac.uk
Abstract—Aircraft performance is highly affected by
induced drag caused by wingtip vortices. Winglets, referred
to as vertical or angled extensions at aircraft wingtips, are
used to minimise vortices formation to improve fuel
efficiency. This paper describes a wind tunnel experiment
and a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis,
performed on a rectangular wing prototype (with and
without winglet) of NACA 653218 aerofoil section. The
objectives of the analysis were to compare the aerodynamic
characteristics and to investigate the performance of winglet
at cant angles 0°, 30°, 45° and 60° at various angles of attack
(AOA). The experimental analysis was performed in a
closed-loop wind tunnel at sea-level conditions and free-
stream velocity of 35 m/s. The CFD simulations were
performed at low subsonic flow speed in ANSYS CFX solver
using Finite Volume Method. Spalart-Allmaras turbulence
model and 3-dimensional unstructured tetrahedral mesh
were used to compute the flow around the model. The
aerodynamic characteristics of lift coefficient (CL), drag
coefficient (CD) and lift-to-drag ratio (L/D) were compared
and it was found that each winglet configuration at a
particular AOA had different CL, CD and L/D values,
indicating that fixed winglets do not provide optimum
aircraft performance at different phases of flight.
Keywords-Aerodynamics, CFD, Wind Tunnel, Winglet.
I. INTRODUCTION
The soaring prices of aviation fuel and the
environmental issues the world is currently facing, for
instance global warming, have forced aircraft
manufacturers and commercial airlines to investigate into
ways to enhance the environmental footprint of aviation,
ideally to improve aircraft fuel efficiency during flight.
Aircraft configuration designs yielding reduced fuel
consumption per seat-mile are very much desirable [1].
Winglets application is one of the most noticeable fuel
economic technologies on aircraft. Winglets, defined as
small fins or vertical extensions at the wingtips, improve
aircraft efficiency by reducing the induced drag caused by
wingtip vortices, improving the lift-to-drag ratio (L/D).
Winglets function by increasing the effective aspect ratio
of the wing without contributing significantly towards the
structural loads. The winglet concept was first developed
in the late 1800’s by Frederick W. Lanchester. His
investigations proved that under high lift conditions,
wingtip drag can be reduced by placing a vertical surface
at the wingtip. He patented the concept as ‘endplates’ in
1897. However, his design was not very efficient at cruise
conditions as it created large flow separations, which
generated a very large increase in profile drag. Then, in
1974, Dr. Richard Whitcomb, an Aeronautical Engineer at
the NASA Langley Research Centre, installed small
vertical fins on a Boeing KC-135A aircraft and performed
experiments. The results theorised that an almost vertical
wing-like surface at the tip of the wing could in fact lower
trailing vortices strength, if designed accurately [2].
Conventional winglets provide maximum drag cutback
and improve L/D under cruise conditions only. During
non-cruise conditions, these winglets are less likely to
improve aircraft performance and subsequently, they do
not provide optimal fuel efficiency during take-off,
landing and climb. Non-cruise flight conditions add up to
a significantly large fraction of a flight and therefore,
winglet designs must be optimised to be able to function
during both cruise and non-cruise flight conditions.
Research on conventional winglets improvement methods
have been more dominant compared to any other types of
winglet. In recent years, extensive research has been
ongoing, aiming to improve the design of winglets in
order to boost the aircraft performance during flight, e.g.
spiroid winglets and sharklets. Limited work has been
carried out on winglet designs that can alter the cant angle.
Boeing patented the ‘controllable winglets’ concept in
1997, involving Shape Memory Alloys (SMAs), which
changes shape in response to thermal energy [1]. The use
of multiple winglets on an aircraft wing to recycle much
of the energy dissipated by the trailing vortices was
another innovative idea patented in the US in 2006 [3].
‘Articulating winglets’ is a unique concept of aircraft
having foldable winglets [4]. The main objective behind
these innovative concepts is to maximise aircraft
efficiency and optimise performance at cruise and non-
cruise conditions. Blended winglets [5] were developed to
achieve minimum induced drag during flight. Test results
proved that blended winglets minimise fuel burn and
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by approximately 4% on
the Boeing 737. Spiroid winglets are likely to be more
effective in drag reduction compared to blended winglets
based on a comparable sized aircraft. The ‘spiroid-tipped’
wing concept [6] was patented in the US in 1991. Spiroid
winglets, developed by Aviation Partners, were first seen
on a Gulfstream II [7].
CFD analysis and wind tunnel tests have been used to
determine the aerodynamic characteristics of winglets and
to predict flow behaviour around wingtips. Experimental
and numerical analyses were carried out at The Institute of II. METHODOLOGY
Technology, Atlanta to examine the potential of multiple
winglets for induced drag cut back without increasing the A. Geometry (3-D CAD Modelling)
wingspan[8]. The results proved that the wing induced The wing and winglet geometries were modelled in
drag was reduced and the L/D was improved by 15-30% SolidWorks. The aerofoil used was a 6-digit NACA
for certain multiple winglet configurations in comparison series, NACA 653218, as shown in Figure 1.
to the ordinary wing. The winglets at negative incidence
and twist improved the L/D by re-directing the winglet lift
vector forward, cancelling a portion of the drag formed.
The lift curve slope was improved by the flat plate
winglets at zero incidence, which produced extra lift than
an equivalent area of the wing without winglet. Next,
elliptical and semi-circular winglets [9] at various cant
angles were numerically analysed at various AOA. The
simulations were performed at 40 m/s using FLUENT 6.2
solver with an unstructured tetrahedral mesh. The
comparison of CL, CD and L/D showed that the elliptical
winglet at 45° cant was the most efficient configuration, Figure 1. NACA 653218 Aerofoil Section
improving the lift curve gradient by 8%.
The dimensions of the four winglet configurations
A wind tunnel analysis [10] of different winglet shapes (cant angle 0°, 30°, 45° and 60°) are illustrated in Table I,
(rectangular, circular and triangular) was carried out to with reference to the diagram represented in Figure 2.
demonstrate induced drag reduction for modern aircraft
without increasing the wingspan by using winglets. The
experiment was performed in a closed-loop wind tunnel at
different Reynolds numbers (Re). The results showed that
the triangular winglets were the most efficient at 5°
inclination, reducing the drag by 30.9% as compared to Figure 2. Winglet Dimensions
other studied winglet configurations. Another similar
study [11] investigated the aerodynamic characteristics of TABLE I. WINGLET DIMENSIONS
an aircraft model wing with and without bird feather like
Dimensions
winglet. Wind tunnel tests were performed at different Re Parameter
θ = 0° θ = 30° θ = 45° θ = 60°
on a wing without winglet, wing with horizontal winglet
and wing with 60° cant angle winglet. The results proved Winglet Root Chord (mm) 121 121 121 121
that CD decreased by 25-30% and CL increased by 10-20% Winglet Tip Chord (mm) 60.5 60.5 60.5 60.5
using bird feather like winglet at 8° AOA.
Angled Height, a (mm) 0 55.1 55.1 55.1
Aircraft designer and manufacturer giants, Boeing and
Airbus are working on the development of adjustable Vertical Height, b (mm) 0 27.6 39.0 47.7
winglets during aircraft flight [12]. Boeing’s concept will Horizontal Length, c (mm) 55.1 47.7 39.0 27.6
use SMAs, which allows a shape to recall its form, by the
use of heat energy. Airbus has financed a ‘morphlet’
(morphing winglet) project at the University of Bristol, Figure 3 illustrates the CAD models of wing-winglet
England. Airbus is going for light weight electric motors configurations generated in SolidWorks.
rather than SMAs. A study on the application of variable
cant angle winglets for morphing aircraft control [13,14]
was performed, that involved independently actuated
winglet with adjustable cant angle, fitted at the tip of the
wing. Wind tunnel tests and CFD analysis with a vortex
lattice model was performed and results proved the
concept’s validity. This concept appeared to be a relevant
substitute to conventional control surfaces on an aircraft.
The motivation of this research is to investigate into
the improvement of aircraft performance at various phases
of flight using winglets that can change cant angle. The
main objective of this study is to experimentally perform a
wind tunnel test followed by a numerical CFD analysis on
the baseline wing (without winglet) and the wing with
winglet at cant angle 0°, 30°, 45° and 60°. The tests were
performed on a rectangular wing of 121mm chord length
and 330mm semi-span, at various angle of attack and low Figure 3. Wing-winglet 3-D CAD Models
subsonic flow velocity (Mach<0.2). The aerodynamic
characteristics were compared – CL, CD and L/D.
B. Prototype Manufacture particular case, the mesh consisted of around 2 to 2.5
The wing prototype was manufactured in different million elements, which was very effective in terms of
parts using high density foam material by the CNC computational time as well as the results quality.
machining techniques. The term CNC stands for
Computer Numerical Control, which is a process of
selective removal of material from a billet. Alternatively,
the winglets were manufactured with plaster material
(reinforced with resin) by the rapid prototyping method.
Rapid prototyping is a fast method to produce prototypes
using 3-D printing technologies. The manufactured wing
and winglet prototypes for wind tunnel experimental
testing are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Manufactured Wing and Winglet Prototypes

C. Wind Tunnel Experimental Setup
The experimental analysis was performed in a closed-
loop wind tunnel of test section size of 1.3m × 1.3m. The
model to be tested was placed at mid-height in the wind
tunnel as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 6. Full C-Domain Mesh and Finer Mesh around Wing
The boundary layer thickness, δ for turbulent flow
was calculated to be 3.62 × 10-3 m. The first layer height,
y was calculated to be 8.5 × 10-7 m. Inflation layers were
applied to the meshed geometry to create a layer of
structured grids on the wall surface of the wing and
winglet as shown in Figure 7. Inflation layers with a first
layer height have greater ability to capture the viscous
flow sub-layer that usually arises at a turbulent boundary
layer where viscous stresses are dominant.

Figure 5. Wing-winglet Model in the Wind Tunnel

The experiments were performed at ISA sea level Figure 7. First Layer Height Inflation Layers
conditions and freestream velocity of 35 m/s which gave a
Reynolds number of 2.89 × 105 (turbulent flow). The The boundary conditions were defined for the inlet,
winglet configurations were tested at various angle of outlet and the walls as shown in Figure 8.
attack and the Lift, L and Drag, D values were recorded.
D. CFD Solver Setup
The numerical analysis was ideally a 3 stage process:
pre-processing, computation, and post processing. The
pre-processing stage involved geometry setup and grid
generation (meshing). The computational domain (C-
Domain) was drawn around the 3-D geometry followed
by the mesh generation. 3-D unstructured tetrahedral
mesh with inflation layers was generated around the
geometry using ANSYS Workbench. The mesh element
size close to the wing and winglet was smaller and
moving towards the domain boundary walls, the element
size incrementally increased (Figure 6). A grid
refinement study was performed by running simulations
with different grid resolution, i.e. the number of elements.
This was carried out in order to select an appropriate
range for the number of elements in the mesh. In this Figure 8. Boundary Conditions
 For this study, the Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes B. Drag Coefficient, CD
(RANS) equations coupled with a turbulence model was Figure 10 shows the comparison of drag coefficient
used. The solver (ANSYS CFX) discretizes the RANS values obtained from wind tunnel tests and CFD
equations over the grid elements, producing a set of non- simulations.
linear equations for every variable at each node. The
turbulence model used was Spalart-Allmaras (SA). SA is a
one-equation model, i.e. the model consists of one partial
differential equation, which is used for the velocity
component of the model. SA model solves for the
turbulent viscosity, νt. This is then applied to the
governing RANS equations.
The solver was set to perform the simulations for 500
iterations. At 500 iterations, the solutions were fully
converged.
III. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
The wind tunnel tests and the CFD simulations
provided comparable results. The results from the 3-D
wing with winglet at different cant angles were compared
to the wing without winglets. The analysis focused on the
aerodynamic characteristics, i.e. CL, CD and L/D.
A. Lift Coefficient, CL
Winglets of cant angle 45° produced the highest lift.
The results also indicated that the addition of winglets
improves the lift. CL values for different winglet
configurations vary at various angles of attack, as shown
in Figure 9.

Figure 10. Drag Coefficient, CD (Wind Tunnel and CFD Comparison)

From the wind tunnel results it was observed that the

Figure 9. Lift Coefficient, CL (Wind Tunnel and CFD Comparison)
computed drag coefficient values were too high, which are
very unusual. The simulations CD values were realistic.
The likely reason of the unusual high drag values from
wind tunnel tests may be related to the six components
balance in the wind tunnel. After further investigation, it
was found out that the six component balance in the wind
tunnel was not checked for re-calibration for quite a long
time. In order to fix the inconsistent values of drag
obtained from the wind tunnel, a correction factor was
derived and the drag values were adjusted so that they are
comparable with those obtained from the CFD
simulations.
From figures 9 and 10, the trend in the increase of CL
and CD with increasing angle of attack is valid. With
reference to the lift curves obtained from the wind tunnel
experiments in figure 9, it can be seen that winglet at cant
angle 60° produced the least lift compared to the other
winglet configurations at high angles of attack, e.g. at 12°
AOA, the wind tunnel results show that the winglet at cant
angle 60° produced about 12% less lift than the winglet at
cant angle 45°. The results obtained from CFD
simulations (Figure 9) are not similar to the wind tunnel
results. The likely reason of this discrepancy is may be
due to the mesh quality.
C. Lift-to-Drag Ratio, L/D
Figure 11 shows the comparison of lift-to-drag ratio
values from wind tunnel test and CFD simulations.

Figure 12. Flow Behaviour Winglet Cant 0° at AOA = 2° and 8°

Figure 13 shows a comparison of flow behind the winglet

at cant angle 45° at AOA 2° and 8°.

Figure 11. Lift-to-drag Ratio, L/D (Wind Tunnel and CFD Comparison)

The L/D values obtained from wind tunnel experiments

were very low compared to those obtained from
simulations. This is due to the high CD values from the
wind tunnel results. From the simulations results (Figure
11), winglet with cant angle 45° has the highest L/D
compared to all other configurations. From the wind
tunnel results (Figure 11), the L/D for each winglet
configuration varies for different angle of attack, e.g. the
winglet at cant angle 45° has the highest L/D at 12° angle
of attack.
D. Flow Visualisation
The flow behaviour behind the winglets at different
angle of attack was visualized in the wind tunnel using a
smoke generator and a laser device. Figures 12, 13 and 14
illustrate flow visualisation of the winglets at cant angle
0°, 45° and 60° at angles of attack 2° and 8°.
The winglet at cant angle 0° (Figure 12) produced
quite large trailing vortices at low angle of attack (2°). At
higher angle of attack (8°), the cant angle 0° winglet
produced lower trailing vortices. Based on the simulation
results and wind tunnel results, and taking into
consideration the visualized flow behaviour, it can be
argued that winglets at cant angle 0°, gives a ‘no winglet Figure 13. Flow Behaviour Winglet Cant 45° at AOA = 2° and 8°
effect’ at typical cruise angles of attack (2° to 3°).
 Figure 14 shows a comparison of flow behind the winglet
at cant angle 60° at AOA 2° and 8°.
Figure 14. Flow Behaviour Winglet Cant 60° at AOA = 2° and 8°
The winglets at 45° and 60° degrees cant angles
(Figures 13 and 14) produced very turbulent vortices at
very high angle of attack (8°). At low angle of attack (2°),
i.e. cruise flight condition, the 45° and 60° cant angle
winglets produced very less induced drag, hence very low
trailing vortices (flow almost smooth).
IV. CONCLUSION
The CFD simulations and wind tunnel test results showed
that the different winglet configurations have different
aerodynamic characteristics when the angle of attack is
varied. At low angles of attack, ideally at cruise angle of
attack, winglets at cant angle 45° and 60° showed
improved the aerodynamic performance in terms of lift
and drag coefficients. The winglets at cant 45° and 60° did
not provide optimum performance at high angles of attack,
for example, at higher angle of attack, the winglets at cant
45° produced more lift compared to other winglet
configurations. Hence, varying the winglets’ cant angle at
different flight phases can improve the aircraft efficiency
and optimise performance. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the investigated concept of variable cant angle
winglets appears to be a promising alternative for
traditional fixed winglets. However, this study involved
only the flow study and there are many other important
View publication stats
factors to consider while designing new devices for
aircraft, e.g. structural weight and cost.
REFERENCES
[1] M. K. V. Sankrithi, B.J. Frommer, “Controllable Winglets”,
United States Patent Document, Patent No. US2008/0308683,
2008.
[2] R. Hallion, “NASA’s Contributions to Aeronautics:
Aerodynamics, Structures, Propulsion, and Controls”, Vol. 1,
Washington, DC: NASA SP-2010-570-Vol 1, 2010, pp. 116-118.
[3] R. H. Grant, “Retractable Multiple Winglets”, United States
Patent Document, Patent No. US2007/0262205, 2007.
[4] J. B. Allen, “Articulating Winglets”, United States Patent
Document, Patent No. US005988563, 1999.
[5] W. Freitag, T. E. Schulze, “Blended Winglets Improve
Performance”, Boeing Aero Magazine, pp. 9-10.
[6] L.B. Gratzer, “Spiroid-tipped Wing”, United States Patent
Document, Patent No. US005102068A, 1992.
[7] W. Garvey, “Spiroid Winglets – The Way Forward?”, Aviation
Week & Space Technology, 2010, p60.
[8] M. J. Smith, N. Komerath, R. Ames, O. Wong, “Performance
Analysis of a Wing with Multiple Winglets”, School of Aerospace
Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 2001, pp.2-
3.
[9] M. A. Azlin, C. F. Mat Taib, S. Kasolang, F. H. Muhammad,
“CFD Analysis of Winglets at Low Subsonic Flow”, World
Congress on Engineering 2011, Vol. 1, 2011, pp. 1-5.
[10] I. I. Mohammad, M. Mohammad, A. N. Abdullah, S. M. S. Selim,
“Induced Drag Reduction for Modern Aircraft without Increasing
the Span of the Wing by using Winglet”, International Journal of
Mechanical & Mechatronics IJMME-IJENS, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.
69-74.
[11] A. Hossain, A. Rahman, P. Iqbal, M. Ariffin, M. Mazian, “Drag
Analysis of an Aircraft Wing Model with and without Bird
Feather like Winglet”, International Journal of Aerospace and
Mechanical Engineering, 6:1, 2012, pp. 8-13.
[12] P. Marks, “Morphing Winglets Make for Greener Aircraft”, New
Scientist, Issue 2692, 2009.
[13] P. Bourdin, A. Gatto, M. I. Friswell, “The Application of Variable
Cant Angle Winglets for Morphing Aircraft Control”, AAIA
Journal - 24th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 2006, pp. 1-13.
[14] P. Bourdin, A. Gatto, M. I. Friswell, “Aircraft Control via
Variable Cant-Angle Winglets”, Journal of Aircraft,Vol. 45, No.
2, 2008, pp. 414-423.