High-Amplitude Surge of a Pitching Airfoil: Complementary Wind- and Water-Tunnel Measurements

  • RECENT interest in gust response, rotorcraft forward flight and wind energy, among other applications, has focused on streamwise oscillations of nominally two-dimensional airfoils in attached and separated flows. The airfoil may be simultaneously held at constant incidence or execute some maneuver, such as pitch. The relative freestream is spatially uniform but temporally unsteady, and this can be accomplished in a ground-test facility in two ways. The first method is to vary the output of the prime mover, such as the rotational speed of the impeller or the blower driving a wind tunnel, or (alternatively) to vary the pressure drop in the tunnel, thereby varying the flow speed in the test section, despite nominally constant primemover revolutions per minute. The second method is used to keep the tunnel’s operating speed constant, as well as to move the test article in the streamwise direction, fore and aft (for example, via an electric linear motor), such that the relative freestreamRECENT interest in gust response, rotorcraft forward flight and wind energy, among other applications, has focused on streamwise oscillations of nominally two-dimensional airfoils in attached and separated flows. The airfoil may be simultaneously held at constant incidence or execute some maneuver, such as pitch. The relative freestream is spatially uniform but temporally unsteady, and this can be accomplished in a ground-test facility in two ways. The first method is to vary the output of the prime mover, such as the rotational speed of the impeller or the blower driving a wind tunnel, or (alternatively) to vary the pressure drop in the tunnel, thereby varying the flow speed in the test section, despite nominally constant primemover revolutions per minute. The second method is used to keep the tunnel’s operating speed constant, as well as to move the test article in the streamwise direction, fore and aft (for example, via an electric linear motor), such that the relative freestream speed felt by the test article varies according to some waveform. Typically, the latter approach is chosen in water tunnels, where there is too much tunnel-circuit inertia to vary the flow speed directly but where the usually low tunnel test section flow speeds enable large excursions in the relative freestream by oscillation of the test article. In fact, outright reverse flow is possible by moving the test article in the laboratory frame at a higher speed than the water-tunnel flow speed. In either case, a sinusoidal relative-speed waveform is the most intuitively realizable, and this can be combined with similar oscillations in the airfoil incidence angle or other kinematics. Although the two methods of realizing streamwise oscillations are mechanically distinct, experimental comparisons between an oscillating test article in a water tunnel and a stationary test article in a wind tunnel with a louvermechanismhave demonstrated agreement in themeasured lift and drag histories. Such experimentswere performed by Granlund et al. for a 10% freestream amplitude oscillation and fixed airfoil incidence, comparing a free-surface water tunnel and a closed-circuit wind tunnel. After buoyancy was subtracted from the wind-tunnel data (resulting from the louver pressure drop) and the model inertia subtracted from the water-tunnel data (resulting from acceleration of the test article), the remaining lift and drag histories matched well at the low freestream oscillation amplitude regime. The work of Granlund et al. was later extended to high-advance-ratio streamwise oscillations of 50% amplitude by Greenblatt et al., where the aerodynamic histories of the water-tunnel and wind-tunnel facilities were compared in combined pitch and freestreamoscillations (governed by relative pitch phase), pure pitch oscillations, and purely freestream oscillations. Agreement between the two facilities’ data for fixed-incidence streamwise oscillations was reasonably good, and in fact, better than agreement in just the static lift and drag, evidently owing to differences in blockage and model-support systems. Additionally, Greenblatt et al. determined there was no strong coupling between simultaneous freestream oscillations and pitch oscillations on resultant lift and moment coefficients.zeige mehrzeige weniger

Volltext Dateien herunterladen

  • Medina_2018_High-Amplitude Surge of a Pitching Airfoil Complementary Wind- and Water-Tunnel Measurements.pdf
    eng

Metadaten exportieren

Weitere Dienste

Teilen auf Twitter Suche bei Google Scholar Anzahl der Zugriffe auf dieses Dokument
Metadaten
Autor*innen:A. Medina, M. V. Ol, D. Greenblatt, H. Müller-Vahl, Christoph StrangfeldORCiD
Dokumenttyp:Zeitschriftenartikel
Veröffentlichungsform:Verlagsliteratur
Sprache:Englisch
Titel des übergeordneten Werkes (Englisch):AIAA Journal
Jahr der Erstveröffentlichung:2018
Organisationseinheit der BAM:8 Zerstörungsfreie Prüfung
8 Zerstörungsfreie Prüfung / 8.2 Zerstörungsfreie Prüfmethoden für das Bauwesen
Verlag:American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Jahrgang/Band:56
Ausgabe/Heft:4
Erste Seite:1703
Letzte Seite:1709
DDC-Klassifikation:Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik / Chemie / Analytische Chemie
Freie Schlagwörter:Airfoil pitching; Airfoil surging; Deep stall; Dynamic stall; Wind energy
Themenfelder/Aktivitätsfelder der BAM:Chemie und Prozesstechnik
DOI:10.2514/1.J056408
ISSN:0001-1452
ISSN:1533-385X
Verfügbarkeit des Dokuments:Datei im Netzwerk der BAM verfügbar ("Closed Access")
Datum der Freischaltung:01.02.2018
Referierte Publikation:Ja
Datum der Eintragung als referierte Publikation:26.04.2018
Einverstanden
Diese Webseite verwendet technisch erforderliche Session-Cookies. Durch die weitere Nutzung der Webseite stimmen Sie diesem zu. Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier.