Technical Papers
Aug 11, 2023

Drag Mitigation of Trilobed Airship Hull through Aerodynamic Comparison with Conventional Single-Lobed Hull

Publication: Journal of Aerospace Engineering
Volume 36, Issue 6

Abstract

Multilobed hybrid airships are being considered the next paradigm for reinvigorated utilization of lighter-than-air systems toward the realization of a green aviation future. However, increased epistemic understanding pertaining to their underlying complex aerodynamics in comparison to their conventional single-lobed counterparts is essential to augment the global implementation of these airships. This paper presents a comprehensive numerical investigation carried out at low subsonic speeds and a Reynolds number (Re) of 3.9×105 to capture the aerodynamics related to a trilobed airship hull in comparison to a single-lobed (conventional) airship hull based on the LOTTE profile. Postsolver validation, the study deliberates key aerodynamic aspects that need consideration while replacing a single-lobed airship with a trilobed airship. It is established that a trilobed hull with the same hull volume leads to significantly higher aerodynamic efficiency (109%) due to the increased lift coefficient in comparison to the conventional hull. However, reduced longitudinal stability and increased drag coefficient values (83.9%) with the difference being higher at higher angles are its biggest shortcomings. The paper makes use of the pressure coefficient as well as the flow-field description plots to decipher the alleviation of three-dimensional relieving, and the flow intermixing effects at the nose and stern portions, respectively in the case of trilobed hull leading to these aerodynamic deviations. Furthermore, the paper makes use of a webbed trilobed variant, to alleviate the aforementioned drag penalties by virtue of reduced flow separation in the stern portion. Notwithstanding, this benefit, a webbed trilobed variant leads to reduced lift coefficient values compared to the baseline trilobed hull variant. Hence, this paper underscores key aerodynamic differences between the conventional and trilobed hull variants and makes use of this understanding to mitigate drag penalty related to the latter by closing the gap between its three lobes.

Practical Applications

This paper explores the aerodynamic aspects that need to be considered while making use of multilobed hybrid airships in place of conventional single-lobed hulls. Understanding these results can be helpful for modifying the preexisting multilobed hull models so that their utility can be enhanced within the air mobility sector leading to the realization of a sustainable aviation future. This aerodynamic comparison has been accomplished through a sequence of computational simulations carried out in low subsonic and highly turbulent flow conditions. The results show that the trilobed hull with the same volume as the conventional hull achieves a significantly higher lift-to-drag ratio (109%) due to its increased lift coefficient. However, the trilobed hull also exhibits reduced longitudinal stability and increased drag coefficient values (83.9%), particularly at higher angles. Various post-processing tools like pressure coefficient and flow-field description plots were used to underscore the flow physics related to these aerodynamic variations. Following this comprehensive comparison, the paper further presents a new trilobed hull variant called the webbed trilobed hull. Due to the inherent structure, flow associated with these modified hulls was modified leading to drag mitigation at the expense of reduced lift coefficient. Overall, this research sheds light on some key aerodynamic differences between the conventional and trilobed hull variants paving the way for design modification for improved efficiency and performance of the multilobed hulls.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Data Availability Statement

Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author (Manikandan M.) upon reasonable request.

References

Adams, K., A. Broad, D. Ruiz-García, and A. R. Davis. 2020. “Continuous wildlife monitoring using blimps as an aerial platform: A case study observing marine Megafauna.” Aust. Zool. 40 (3): 407–415. https://doi.org/10.7882/AZ.2020.004.
Alam, M. I., and R. S. Pant. 2017. “Surrogate based shape optimization of airship envelopes.” In Proc., 24th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conf., 3393. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Alam, M. I., and R. S. Pant. 2019. “Estimation of volumetric drag coefficient of two-dimensional body of revolution.” J. Aircr. 56 (5): 2080–2082. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C034887.
Andan, A. D., W. Asrar, and A. A. Omar. 2012a. “Aerodynamics of a hybrid airship.” In Proc., AIP Conf., 154–161. College Park, MD: American Institute of Physics.
Andan, A. D., W. Asrar, and A. A. Omar. 2012b. “Investigation of aerodynamic parameters of a hybrid airship.” J. Aircr. 49 (2): 658–662. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031491.
Anderson, J. D., Jr. 2010. Fundamentals of aerodynamics. New York: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
Anoop, S., R. K. Velamati, and V. R. M. Oruganti. 2021. “Aerodynamic characteristics of an aerostat under unsteady wind gust conditions.” Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 113 (May): 106684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2021.106684.
Asrar, W., A. A. Omar, E. Suleiman, and J. M. Ali. 2014. “Static longitudinal stability of a hybrid airship.” In Proc., 2014 11th Int. Bhurban Conf. on Applied Sciences & Technology (IBCAST), 343–348. New York: IEEE.
Buerge, B. 2010. “The suitability of hybrid vs. conventional airships for persistent surveillance missions.” In Proc., 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 1014. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Carichner, G. E., and L. M. Nicolai. 2013a. Fundamentals of aircraft and airship design, Volume 2–Airship design and case studies. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Carichner, G. E., and L. M. Nicolai. 2013b. “Hybrids… the airship messiah?” In Proc., AIAA Lighter-Than-Air Systems Technology (LTA) Conf., 1317. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Carrión, M., M. Biava, R. Steijl, G. N. Barakos, and D. Stewart. 2016a. “CFD studies of hybrid air vehicles.” In Proc., 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 0059. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Carrión, M., M. Biava, R. Steijl, G. N. Barakos, and D. Stewart. 2017. “Computational fluid dynamics challenges for hybrid air vehicle applications.” Prog. Flight Phys. 9 (Jun): 43–80. https://doi.org/10.1051/eucass/201609043.
Carrión, M., R. Steijl, G. N. Barakos, and D. Stewart. 2016b. “Analysis of hybrid air vehicles using computational fluid dynamics.” J. Aircr. 53 (4): 1001–1012. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C033402.
Cheeseman, I. 1999. “Aerodynamics.” In Vol. 10 of Airship technology, Cambridge aerospace series, edited by G. A. Khoury and J. D. Gillet, 25–38. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, Y., Y. Wang, L. Wang, C. Ma, and J. Xia. 2017. “Research on aerodynamic characteristics of composite powered unmanned airship.” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 916 (1): 012003.
Chen, Y. K., and X. Zhang. 2014. “CFD-RANS model validation of turbulent flow: A case study on MAAT airship.” In Proc., 2014 Int. Conf. on Modelling, Identification & Control, 254–258. New York: IEEE.
Colozza, A., and J. L. Dolce. 2005. High-altitude, long-endurance airships for coastal surveillance. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Deshpande, S., L. T. Watson, N. J. Love, R. A. Canfield, and R. M. Kolonay. 2013. ADML: Aircraft design markup language for multidisciplinary aircraft design and analysis. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.
d’Oliveira, F. A., F. C. L. D. Melo, and T. C. Devezas. 2016. “High-altitude platforms—Present situation and technology trends.” J. Aerosp. Technol. Manage. 8 (3): 249–262. https://doi.org/10.5028/jatm.v8i3.699.
Donaldson, A., I. Simaiakis, J. Lovegren, N. Pyrgiotis, L. Li, C. Dorbian, and C. He. 2010. “Parametric design of low emission hybrid-lift cargo aircraft.” In Proc., 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 1395. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Elfes, A., S. S. Bueno, M. Bergerman, and J. G. Ramos. 1998. “A semi-autonomous robotic airship for environmental monitoring missions.” In Vol. 4 of Proc., 1998 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 98CH36146), 3449–3455. New York: IEEE.
Fei, X., and Y. Zhengyin. 2009. “Drag reduction for an airship with proper arrangement of propellers.” Chin. J. Aeronaut. 22 (6): 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1000-9361(08)60144-2.
Funk, P., T. Lutz, and S. Wagner. 2003. “Experimental investigations on hull-fin interferences of the lotte airship.” Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 7 (8): 603–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1270-9638(03)00058-0.
Gerke, M., U. Borgolte, I. Masár, F. Jelenciak, P. Bahnik, and N. Al-Rashedi. 2012. “Lighter-than-air UAVS for surveillance and environmental monitoring.” In Proc., Future Security Research Conf., 480–483. New York: Springer.
Gupta, P., M. Tripathi, and R. S. Pant. 2021. “Aerodynamic analysis of axi-symmetric lighter-than-air vehicles.” AIAA Aviation 2021 Forum, 2987. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Haque, A. U., W. Asrar, A. A. Omar, E. Sulaeman, and J. M. Ali. 2014. “Conceptual design of a winged hybrid airship.” In Proc., 21st AIAA Lighter-Than-Air Systems Technology Conf., 2710. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Haque, A. U., W. Asrar, A. A. Omar, E. Sulaeman, and J. S. M. Ali. 2015. “Power-off static stability analysis of a clean configuration of a hybrid buoyant aircraft.” In Proc., 7th Ankara Int. Aerospace Conf., 11–13. Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical Univ.
Haque, A. U., W. Asrar, A. A. Omar, E. Sulaeman, and M. J. S. Ali. 2016. “Effect of side wind on the directional stability and aerodynamics of a hybrid buoyant aircraft.” MATEC Web Conf. 40 (Jan): 02006. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20164002006.
Hochstetler, R. 2010. “Airships for the 21st century (September).” Accessed July 25, 2021. https://spectrum.ieee.org/airships-for-the-21st-century.
Hoerner, S. F. 1958. Fluid-dynamic drag: Practical information on aerodynamic and hydrodynamic resistance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hunt, J. D., E. Byers, A. L. Balogun, W. Leal Filho, A. V. Colling, A. Nascimento, and Y. Wada. 2019. “Using the jet stream for sustainable airship and balloon transportation of cargo and hydrogen.” Energy Convers. Manage. 3 (3): 100016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2019.100016.
Kanikdale, T., A. Marathe, and R. S. Pant. 2004. “Multi-disciplinary optimization of airship envelope shape.” In Proc., 10th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conf., 4411. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Khoury, G. A. 2012. Vol. 10 of Airship technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kungl, P., M. Schlenker, and B. Kröplin. 2001. “Research and testing activities with the solar powered airship Lotte within the scope of the airship research group at the University of Stuttgart.” In Proc., 14th AIAA Lighter-Than-Air Conference and Exhibition. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Lancaster, J. 1977. “Semi-buoyant lifting body hybrid characteristics for advanced naval missions.” In Proc., 2nd Lighter Than Air Systems Technology Conf., 1194. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Li, T.-E., X.-Y. Sun, Y. Wu, and C.-G. Wang. 2019. “Parameter analysis of aerodynamic drag force in stratospheric airship.” Eng. Mech. 36 (1): 248–256. https://doi.org/10.6052/j.issn.1000-4750.2017.11.0814.
Lutz, T., P. Funk, A. Jakobi, and S. Wagner. 2002. “Summary of aerodynamic studies on the lotte airship.” In Proc., 4th Int. Airship Convention and Exhibition, 1–12. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lutz, T., and S. Wagner. 1998. “Drag reduction and shape optimization of airship bodies.” J. Aircr. 35 (3): 345–351. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.2313.
Ma, D., G. Li, M. Yang, S. Wang, and L. Zhang. 2019. “Shape optimization and experimental research of near space airship.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part G: J. Aerosp. Eng. 233 (10): 3589–3602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954410018802101.
Mahzan, M. I., and S. Muhamad. 2014. “An evolution of hybrid airship vehicle (HAV) envelope: Aerodynamics analysis.” Appl. Mech. Mater. 660 (Oct): 498–502. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.660.498.
Manideep, D. R., and R. S. Pant. 2018. “CFD analysis of axisymmetric bodies of revolution using openfoam.” In Proc., Applied Aerodynamics Conf., 3334. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Manikandan, M., and R. S. Pant. 2021. “A comparative study of conventional and tri-lobed stratospheric airships.” Aeronaut. J. 125 (1290): 1434–1466. https://doi.org/10.1017/aer.2021.24.
Meng, J., M. Li, L. Zhang, M. Lv, and L. Liu. 2019. “Aerodynamic performance analysis of hybrid air vehicles with large reynolds number.” In Proc., IEEE Int. Conf. on Unmanned Systems (ICUS), 403–409. New York: IEEE.
Menter, F. 1993. “Zonal two equation kw turbulence models for aerodynamic flows.” In Proc., 23rd Fluid Dynamics, Plasmadynamics, and Lasers Conf., 2906. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Menter, F. R. 1994. “Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications.” AIAA J. 32 (8): 1598–1605. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.12149.
Munk, M. M. 1924. The aerodynamic forces on airship hulls. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Narayana, C. L., and K. R. Srilatha. 2000. Analysis of aerostat configurations by panel methods. Bangalore, India: National Aerospace Laboratories.
Nejati, V., and K. Matsuuchi. 2003. “Aerodynamics design and genetic algorithms for optimization of airship bodies.” JSME Int J., Ser. B 46 (4): 610–617. https://doi.org/10.1299/jsmeb.46.610.
Pope, T. C., and J. M. Cooksey. 1977. Feasibility study of modern airships, Phase II: Executive study. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Prentice, B. E., and R. Knotts. 2014. “Cargo airships: International competition.” J. Transp. Technol. 4 (3): 187–195. https://doi.org/10.4236/jtts.2014.43019.
Prentice, B. E., and R. Knotts. 2016. “Sustainable transportation: Airships versus jet airplanes.” In Proc., 51st Annual Meeting: Canadian Transportation Research Forum, 305–312. Toronto, ON, Canada: Univ. of Toroto.
Ram, C. V., and R. S. Pant. 2010. “Multidisciplinary shape optimization of aerostat envelopes.” J. Aircr. 47 (3): 1073–1076. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.46744.
Relekar, S., and R. S. Pant. 2002. “Airships as a low cost alternative to communication satellites.” In Proc., National Conf. on LTA Technologies. Agra, India: Aerial Delivery R&D Establishment.
Shah, H. N. M., M. Z. Ab Rashid, Z. Kamis, M. S. M. Aras, N. M. Ali, F. Wasbari, and M. N. F. B. A. Bakar. 2018. “Design and develop an autonomous UAV airship for indoor surveillance and monitoring applications.” JOIV: Int. J. Inf. Visualization 2 (1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.30630/joiv.2.1.33.
Shi, Y., Z. Ming, and H. Liang. 2019. “Multi-disciplinary design optimization with variable complexity modeling for a stratosphere airship.” Chin. J. Aeronaut. 32 (5): 1244–1255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.03.003.
Tozer, T. C., and D. Grace. 2001. “High-altitude platforms for wireless communications.” Electron. Commun. Eng. J. 13 (3): 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1049/ecej:20010303.
Voloshin, V., Y. K. Chen, and R. K. Calay. 2012. “A comparison of turbulence models in airship steady-state CFD simulations.” Preprint, submitted October 10, 2012. https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.2970.
Wang, X.-L., and X.-X. Shan. 2006. “Shape optimization of stratosphere airship.” J. Aircr. 43 (1): 283–286. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.18295.
Yang, Y., X. Xu, B. Zhang, W. Zheng, and Y. Wang. 2020. “Bionic design for the aerodynamic shape of a stratospheric airship.” Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 98 (Jun): 105664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019.105664.
Zhang, L., M. Lv, W. Zhu, H. Du, J. Meng, and J. Li. 2019. “Mission-based multidisciplinary optimization of solar-powered hybrid airship.” Energy Convers. Manage. 185 (Apr): 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.01.098.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Aerospace Engineering
Journal of Aerospace Engineering
Volume 36Issue 6November 2023

History

Received: Jul 27, 2022
Accepted: May 17, 2023
Published online: Aug 11, 2023
Published in print: Nov 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Jan 11, 2024

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400076, India. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4942-4579. Email: [email protected]
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Aeronautical and Automobile Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka 576104, India (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0798-962X. Email: [email protected]
Pranshul Pandey [email protected]
Undergraduate Student Alumni, Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka 576104, India. Email: [email protected]
Rajkumar S. Pant [email protected]
Professor, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400076, India. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share