A Study on Aerodynamic Interference for Truss Braced Wing Configuration

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 680)


Truss Braced Wing (TBW) is one of the most promising configurations for future single-aisle commercial aircraft. The additional strut and jury in TBW endow the structure with better stiffness and strength, which enables a wing with larger aspect-ratio, thinner thickness and smaller swept angle, and even equipped with laminar flow airfoil. Theoretically, TBW configuration has the advantage of higher lift-to-drag ratio. However, one of potential problems for TBW is that severe disturbance may exist at the junction of truss and wing, which will reduce the aerodynamic benefit of TBW. To deal with this issue, this paper investigates influence of truss geometry on aerodynamic characteristics by numerical simulations of CFD. The Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) method with the S-A turbulence model is used to compute the aerodynamic force and observe flow phenomenon of TBW in flight speed of Mach 0.73. The simulation results show that the geometric parameters that have large impacts on the cross section shape around the junction tend to have greater influences on aerodynamic characteristics (The Cross Section in this paper represents the cross section of air flow tunnel between the wing and truss). To analyze the impact of cross section geometry at the junction on the interference drag, we introduce a specific term, namely ‘flow section compression ratio’ that is the decreased rate of the cross section area from the entrance to the throat. The analysis indicates that the transonic disturbance will be considerable weaken when the ‘flow section compression ratio’ around the junction is under 16%, and the drag due to transonic disturbance accounts for only about 25% of the total interference drag. In order to further decrease the interference drag at the junction, we also investigate influences of the cross section geometry and airfoil thickness at the junction on the profile drag. The results from this paper can be helpful for TBW configuration design.


Truss braced wing Aerodynamics Interference drag Computational fluid dynamics 



This work is supported by National defense key discipline laboratory of advanced aircraft design technology, NUAA. Great gratitude giving to all the professors and companions of research group MDO305 for their help during the re-search. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments and suggestions of the reviewers, which have improved the presentation.


  1. 1.
    Xu DF (2010) US’ N+3-generation airliner program into phase 1. Int Aviat. (6):49–51. ChineseGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zeng JF, Qu JS (2012) EU aviation carbon tax and its international influences. Clim Change Res 8(4):292–296. ChineseGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lu ZF (2014) ICAO-based aviation carbon emission calculation and low-carbon countermeasures. Resour Economization Environ Prot (9):129–130. ChineseGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hardman AF (2014) Measures for international aviation to respond to global carbon emissions. China Civ Aviat (6):27–28. ChineseGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xu DF (2015) Truss-braced wing shows promise. Int Aviat (2), 79–79. ChineseGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bradley KF, Droney KS (2012) Subsonic ultra green aircraft research phase II. NASA/CR-2012-217556Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhu ZF (2009) Multi-disciplinary optimization of strut-braced wing transonic transport. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica 30(1):1–11. ChineseGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gern FF, Ko AS (2000) Transport weight reduction through MDO: the strut-braced wing transonic transport. In: 35th AIAA fluid dynamics conference and exhibitGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang YF (2016) The adventure of truss-braced wing. World Flight (6):54–57. ChineseGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moerland EF, Pfeiffer S, Daniel T (2017) On the design of a strut-braced wing configuration in a collaborative design environment. In: 17th AIAA aviation technology, integration, and operations conferenceGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang GF, Zeng JS, Lee JT (2015) Preliminary design of a truss-braced natural-laminar-flow composite wing via aeroelastic tailoring. ASD J (3):1–17Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xing YF, Yu XS (2018) The wing mass estimation for commercial aircraft with truss-braced wing configuration. Mach Des Manuf Eng (2):83–86. ChineseGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xing YF (2018) Integrated analysis and optimization in conceptual design of airliners with truss braced wing configuration. Doctor, Nanjing University of Aeronautic and Astronautic. ChineseGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang SF, Ji BS, Bakar AT (2012) Multidisciplinary evaluation of truss-braced wing for future green aircraft. In: 28th international congress of the aeronautical sciences, Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Locatelli DF, Riggins KS, Kapania KT (2015) A physics-based methodology for cantilever and strut-braced wing weight estimation. In: AIAA aerospace sciences meetingGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ko AF, Mason WS, Grossman BT (2003) Transonic aerodynamics of a wing/pylon/strut juncture. In: 21st AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, AIAA-2003-4062Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ivaldi DF, Secco NRS, Chen ST (2015) Aerodynamic shape optimization of a truss-braced-wing aircraft. In: 16th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conferenceGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ney RF (2019) RANS-based aerodynamic shape optimization of a strut-braced wing with overset meshes. J Aircr 56(1):217–227Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knight KF (2011) Assessment of RANS turbulence models for strut-wing junctions. Master, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tetrault AF, Schetz JS, Grossman BT (2013) Numerical prediction of the interference drag of a streamlined strut intersecting a surface in transonic flow. In: Aerospace sciences meeting & exhibitGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Duggirala KF, Roy JS, Schetz AT (2011) Analysis of interference drag for strut-strut interaction in transonic flow. AIAA J 49(3):449–462Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Aerospace EngineeringNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations