透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.145.16.23
  • 學位論文

松山機場附近建築物尾流對飛機降落安全之影響

The Impact of Wake Flow behind Buildings on the Safety of the Aircraft Landing at Songshan Airport

指導教授 : 黃美嬌
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


當大氣邊界層風場流經機場航廈及附近建築物時,容易在背風側產生渦流,而這些渦流可能到達跑道,嚴重時影響飛機降落安全。本研究以松山機場做為研究對象,透過RANS(Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes)紊流模型進行計算流體力學模擬(CFD),探討不同數值模型(航廈模型、住宅區簡易模型、及住宅區複雜模型)在不同風向(南南東風、東南風、及東南東風)、不同參考風速(25.7m/s、15m/s、及4.9m/s) 下,渦流對跑道附近流場之影響,研究並以四種不同紊流模型(k-ε standard、k-ε RNG、k-ε realizable、及k-ω SST),探討最適合描述此類流場之紊流模型。 在進行模擬結果分析時,主要先透過流線圖及局部速度分布來評斷流場結構的合理性,接著透過本論文中蒐集整理各文獻後所得到的三種飛安標準進行飛安分析,包含廣義七節風標準(7 knots criteria)、低空風切警告標準(Low-level Wind-shear Alert System, LLAWS)、及紊流動能標準。本研究並針對廣義七節風標準提出兩種量化指標:危險距離比例及危險指標,企圖將危險性量化。 研究結果發現,在吹南南東風時,因西側住宅區所引起的建築物尾流對降落區風場影響最劇烈,因此降落危險性也最高;而東南東風下較無渦流形成,降落安全性較高。使用四種不同紊流模型進行模擬所得到的流場結構大致相同,但k-ε realizable模型所得到的局部風速分布與其餘三者差異較大,合理判斷應避免使用此模型。此外,依據飛安規範的定量分析可知,使用k-ε RNG及k-ω SST兩種模型得到的風場最為危險,在考慮安全至上的前提下,判定使用此兩種模型進行降落安全評估最為合適。經由比較住宅區複雜、簡化模型的模擬結果可知,使用簡化模型確實會低估降落危險性,但若需考慮計算成本及時間,可先以簡化模型進行初步流場結構分析。

並列摘要


When air flows through the airport terminal and nearby buildings, wake is often generated on the leeward side of the buildings. In the worst case, the wake flow affects the landing safety and causes severe damage to the aircrafts. In this research, computational fluid dynamics simulation (CFD) was performed, based on the RANS (Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes) turbulence model, to explore the wind field around Songshan Airport. How the wind field develops and affects the landing safety as the wind direction (south-southeast, southeast, and east-southeast) and characteristic wind speed (25.7m/s, 15m/s, and 4.9m/s) vary was investigated. Three numerical systems (terminal model only, simplified residential-area model, and complex residential-area model) were constructed and four turbulence models (k-ε standard, k-ε RNG, k-ε realizable, and k-ω SST) were attempted. We first examined the flow structures including the streamline patterns and local velocity distributions to evaluate the appropriateness of the turbulence models. Then we applied three landing safety judgement criteria, including the general 7 knots standard, Low-level Wind-shear Alert System (LLAWS), and turbulent kinetic energy standard. We further defined and calculated two quantitative indicators (hazardous distance ratio and risk index) to quantify the risk. The results showed that vortices caused by the south-western residential-area buildings strongly affected the flow field in the landing area under south-southeast wind and consequently caused landing risk. On the other hand, less vortices were formed under east-southeast wind. The resulting flow structures obtained by using four different turbulence models were similar in general, but the local velocity distributions of the k-ε realizable model were quite different from those of the other three models; thus, it is reasonable to give up this model. The landing conditions predicted by k-ε RNG and k-ω SST models are the worst. These two turbulence models are therefore suggested for further studies. By comparing the simulation results of the complex and simplified residential-area models, we understood that the simplified model underestimates the risk of landing in general. It is suitable for preliminary judgement as the computational cost and time must be considered seriously.

參考文獻


[1] Note, FSF ALAR Briefing. "Tool Kit."
[2] Gultepe, I., Sharman, R., Williams, P. D., Zhou, B., Ellrod, G., Minnis, P., Neto, F. A. (2019). A review of high impact weather for aviation meteorology. Pure and applied geophysics, 176(5), 1869-1921.
[3] Richards, P.J., Hoxey, R.P., 1993, Appropriate boundary conditions for computational wind engineering models using the k-ε turbulence model. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 46-47, 145-153.
[4] Yassen, Y. E., Abdelhamed, A. S. (2015). CFD modeling of the atmospheric boundary layer in short test section wind tunnel. American Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2(1), 38-46.
[5] Hargreaves, D. M., Wright, N. G. (2006). The use of commercial CFD software to model the atmospheric boundary layer. Cwe, 2006, 797-800.

延伸閱讀