Upload
duongque
View
218
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Experimental investigation of the freestream turbulence approaching a swept wing with a blunt leading edgeIsabella Fumarola, Mike Gaster, Chris Atkin
DiPaRT – 21st November 2017
Introduction
• Piercy and Richardson 1928, 1930 – Turbulence in front of the leading edge.
2
Sadeh and Brauber, 1981
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Kerr et al., 1994
• Sutera et al.1963 - Vorticity amplification theory
• Kerr, Dold 1994 – Periodic steady vortices in a stagnation-point flow.
Vorticity Amplification Theory• The vorticity amplification theory considers a case similar to the Hiemenz
flow.
3
• Superimposing a disturbance in the form of a sinusoidal wave ofwavelength λ.
𝜆" = 2𝜋𝜈𝑎
)/+
𝑎=Hiemenz constant𝜈=kinematic viscosity
Sutera et al.1963
• The theory predicts that if thewavelength of the oncomingperturbation is greater than a certainnatural wavelength (𝜆"), the vorticity willbe amplified at the edge of the boundarylayer (δ).
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Vorticity Amplification TheoryThe theory has been validated in many experimental investigations:
4
• Sadeh et al. , 1970 à stagnation flat plate.
• Bearman , 1972 à wing with a blunt leading edge.
• Sadeh and Sullivan, 1980 à NACA65-010 aerofoil.
• Sadeh et Brauber, 1981 à cylinder.
• and more…
Sadeh and Brauber1981
𝑢-./
𝑥/𝑅
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Aim & Motivation
Investigate the behaviour of the vortices when a sweep angleis added to the model.
5
U∞=Q∞
Vorticity amplification theory
?V
Λ
Q∞
V∞U∞
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
??
Aim & Motivation
• The region in front of the leading edge has been studied bothexperimentally and theoretically in un-swept cases. No informationregarding swept wings seems to be available in the literature.
6
• The swept case may be of interest to better understand the receptivityprocess due to freestream turbulence in the cross-flow instability, one ofthe main mechanisms of boundary-layer transition from laminar toturbulent.
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Previous experimentTwo experiments:
• Straight cylinder • Swept wing NACA0050
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark 7
Previous investigation
Q∞
Z
XΛ
Z
XU∞
Straight cylinder Swept NACA 0050
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark 8
Outline of the presentation
Outline of the presentation:
• Design of a new model suitable for studying attachment line flows.
• Analysis of swept Hiemenz flow in low turbulence wind tunnel.
• How to vary the incoming turbulence.
• Comparison of low and high turbulence.
• Conclusions and further works.
9
Swept model in lower turbulence wind tunnel.
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Model designAim: studying the flow at the leading edge of a swept wing.
Model: vertical flat plate fitted in a faring shape, similar to the wing used by Bearman 1971 but swept.
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark 10
Flow direction
Advantages:
- flow at the leading edge: Hiemenz flow
- Boundary layer relatively thick at the attachment line.
- Flat surface, experimentally convenient.
Model design• Sweep angle 50˚.
• Width of the leading edge to ensure blockage < 20%.
• Swept back due to wind tunnel constraints.
11DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Flow direction
Wood wing body
Two aluminium inserts
High quality surface
Attachment-line contamination• 𝑅𝑒 = 240at 18 m/s to avoid attachment-line contamination.
• The flow was turbulent already at low velocity.
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark 12
Wind tunnel top view – flow right to left
Attachment-line contamination
13DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
• 𝑅𝑒 = 240at 18 m/s to avoid attachment-line contamination
• Gaster’s device (Gaster,1965)
• Flow laminar up to 25 m/s
Wind tunnel top view – flow right to left
Attachment-line contamination
14
New attachment line
laminar
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Model
15DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Gaster wind tunnel at City University of London Test section 0.91m x 0.91m x 3m Tu < 0.01% at 20m/s.
y
x
Experiments
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark 16
Single hot-wire anemometer, boundary layer probe.Band pass filtered between 2Hz-10kHz
The sensor is traversed parallel to the leading edge along the attachment line.
Traverse
Base flow
17DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
yx
18
Base flow
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Base flow – boundary layer
19DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Spectra
20
Base flow - Spectra
21
Outside the BL for different speeds Inside the boundary layer
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
HW1 Vibration
Traverse vibration test
With and without tape
20Hz and 50Hz disappeared
22DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
How to increase turbulence
23
Vorticity amplification theory:
“Only the vorticity properly oriented goes under amplification approaching the stagnation point”
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
How to increase turbulence
24
Vorticity amplification theory:
“Only the vorticity properly oriented goes under amplification approaching the stagnation point”
STR ING
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
How to increase turbulence
25
Vorticity amplification theory:
“Only the vorticity properly oriented goes under amplification approaching the stagnation point”
STR ING
GRID
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
0 0.5 10
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
V/Ve
X [m
m]
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
VRMS
/Ve
X [m
m]
H1 0.23mmH2 0.23mm
Horizontal string
26
Exp. String d U∞ Red x/d Flow
H1 0.23 mm 18 m/s 274 3217 – 6782 Turbulent
H2 0.23 mm 18 m/s <274 613 – 3939 Laminar
H2 H1
740mm141mm
1560mm906 mm
x
y
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Horizontal string
27
Exp. String d U∞ Red x/d Flow
H1 0.23 mm 18 m/s 274 3217 – 6782 Turbulent
H2 0.23 mm 18 m/s <274 613 – 3939 Laminar
H2 H1
740mm141mm
1560mm906 mm
x
y
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
H2
No disturbance
Horizontal string
28
Exp. String d U∞ Red x/d Flow
H1 0.23 mm 18 m/s 274 3217 – 6782 Turbulent
H2 0.23 mm 18 m/s <274 613 – 3939 Laminar
H2 H1
740mm141mm
1560mm906 mm
x
y
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
H2 – inside the boundary layer
No disturbances
Horizontal string
29
Exp. String d U∞ Red x/d Flow
H1 0.23 mm 18 m/s 274 3217 – 6782 Turbulent
H2 0.23 mm 18 m/s <274 613 – 3939 Laminar
H2 H1
740mm141mm
1560mm906 mm
x
y
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
downstreamH2 – outside the boundary layer
No disturbances
Vertical string
30
V1
740mm
1560mm
Exp. String d U∞ Red x/d Flow
V1 0.23 mm 6-10-15-18 m/s 91-240 1782 Laminarx
y
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Vertical string
31
V1
740mm141mm
1560mm906 mm
V2V3Exp. String D U∞ Red x/d Conclusion
V1 0.23 mm 6-10-15-18 m/s 91 to 240 1782 LaminarV2 0.23 mm 18 m/s <274 1663 LaminarV3 0.15 mm 18 m/s 109 >40 Laminar
x
y
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Vertical string
32
V1
740mm141mm
1560mm906 mm
V2V3Exp. String D U∞ Red x/d Conclusion
V1 0.23 mm 6-10-15-18 m/s 91 to 240 1782 LaminarV2 0.23 mm 18 m/s <274 1663 LaminarV3 0.15 mm 18 m/s 109 >40 Laminar
x
y
Flow directionDiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
External turbulence - Grid
33
Grid: parallel rods d=3mm rods, M=20mm, horizontal or vertical orientation, Tu~1%.
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
External turbulence - Grid
34
Horizontal grid à cylinder parallel to x (parallel to the chord)Vertical grid à cylinders parallel to z (perpendicular to the chord)
horizontal
2D Vertical Flat Plate - Sadeh,Sutera, Maeder 1970
Horizontalgrid
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
External turbulence – GridSadeh,Sutera, Maeder 1970
Re=250000
35
No grid
𝑇𝑢8 =𝑢𝑈100
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
□ perpendicular to s.l. ○ parallel to s.l(grid parallel to the chord) (grid perpendicular to the chord)
36DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Swept experiment Q∞=6-18m/sU∞=4.8-14.5m/s Reu=28096-84289V∞=3.5-10.6m/s Rev=20413-61239
External turbulence - Hor. vs Vert. Grid
37DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Conclusion• A model suitable to study the flow at the attachment line has
been presented.
• The flow does not present an increase in RMS goingtowards the model in a low turbulence environment.
• Two different techniques to vary the turbulence in the windtunnel have been investigated.
• Further work will be to insert a grid with a lower turbulenceintensity.
38DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
Thank [email protected]
DiPaRT- 20th-22ndNovember2017,CFMSBristol&BathSciencePark
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
under grant ref. EP/L024888/1 UK National Wind Tunnel Facility,co-ordinated by Imperial College.
And the support of InnovateUK and Enhanced Fidelity Transonic Wing, led by Airbus.
39