Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T12:11:11.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Steady and unsteady pressure measurements on a swept-wing aircraft

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

N. Jansson  and
G. Stenfelt
G. Stenfelt*
Affiliation:
Dept of Aeronautical & Vehicle Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
*
glorias@kth.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Steady and unsteady pressure measurements are conducted for a tailless aircraft model. The main aim with the presented experimental work is to investigate the difficulties and possibilities involved in using an available pressure sensing system for accurate unsteady pressure measurement. The experimental procedure which is utilised for unsteady pressure measurements is described in detail. In particular, the importance of synchronised timing is recognised. For a harmonically varying pressure a small time delay in the measurement chain can result in a significant phase shift. Also, difficulties and uncertainties that are still present are pointed out. The results from these experiments are compared to numerical results based on unsteady potential flow theory. In general, the experimental and computational results show similar trends. Especially good agreement is found for the steady pressure measurements. For the unsteady pressure measurements a possible Reynolds number dependency is found for the considered test conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1200 , February 2014 , pp. 109 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J. and Haftka, R.T. Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization: survey of recent developments, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 1997, 14, (1), pp 1–23.Google Scholar
2. Mavris, D.N., Bandte, O. and DeLaurentis, D.A. Robust design simulation: a probabilistic approach to multidisciplinary design, J Aircr, 1999, 36, (1), pp 298–307.Google Scholar
3. Park, G.-J., Lee, T.-H., Lee, K.H. and Hwang, K.H. Robust design: An overview, AIAA J, 2006, 44, (1), pp 181–191.Google Scholar
4. Doltsinis, I. and Kang, Z. Robust design of structures using optimization methods, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, June 2004, 193, (23–26), pp 2221–2237.Google Scholar
5. Park, H.-U., Kim, S.H., Lee, J.-W. and Byun, Y.-H. Design of Very Light Jet (VLJ) Aircraft Using Robust Design Optimization Approach, in CJK 5th Proceedings, Jeju, S Korea, 2008.Google Scholar
6. Chen, W., Garimella, R. and Michelena, N. Robust design for improved vehicle handling under a range of maneuver conditions, Engineering Optimization, February 2001, 33, (3), pp 303–326.Google Scholar
7. Chen, W. and Lewis, K. Robust design approach for achieving flexibility in multidisciplinary design, AIAA J, August 1999, 37, (8).Google Scholar
8. Du, X and Chen, W. Efficient uncertainty analysis methods for multidisciplinary robust design, AIAA J, March 2002, 40, (3).Google Scholar
9. Chen, W., Allen, J.K.,Tsui, K.-L. and Mistree, F. A procedure for robust design: minimizing variations caused by noise factors and control factors, ASME J Mechanical Design, J Mech Des, 118, (4), pp 478–485.Google Scholar
10. Sandgren, E. and Cameron, T.M. Robust design optimization of structures through consideration of variation, Computers and Structures, 2002, 80, pp 1605–1613.Google Scholar
11. ModelCenter 10.1, PHX ModelCenter®: http://www.phoenix-int.com/software/phx-modelcenter.php Google Scholar
12. Park, H.-U., Lee, J.-W. and Byun, Y.-H, Development of the Robust Aerospace System Design Process, 21st Canadian Congress of Applied Mechanics, Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 3-7 June 2007.Google Scholar
13. Azamatov, A., Lee, J.-W. and Byun, Y.-H. Comprehensive aircraft configuration design tool for integrated product and process development, Advances in Engineering Software, January 2011, 42, (1–2).Google Scholar
14. Nguyen, N.-V. An Efficient Multi-Fidelity Approach for the Multi-Disciplinary Aerospace System Design and Optimization, Ph.D thesis, Konkuk University, Seoul, S Korea, 2011.Google Scholar
15. Nguyen, N.-V., Choi, S.-M., Kim, W.-S., Kim, S., Lee, J.-W. and Byun, Y.-H. Multidisciplinary unmanned combat air vehicle (ucav) system design implementing multi-fidelity models, Aerospace Science & Technology, 2012, 26, (1), pp 200–210.Google Scholar
16. Booker, A.J., Meckesheimer, M. and Torng, T. Reliability based design optimization using design explorer, Optimization and Engineering, June 2004, 5, (2), pp 179–205.Google Scholar
17. Gundlach, J.F. IV Multi-disciplinary design optimization of subsonic fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles projected through 2025, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA, 2004.Google Scholar
18. ANSYS Fluent 13, ANSYS, Inc., www.ansys.com. Google Scholar
19. Hartman, E.P. and Biermann, D. The aerodynamic characteristics of full-scale propellers having 2, 3 and 4 blades of Clark y and R.A.F. 6 airfoil sections, NACA-TR-640, USA,Google Scholar
20. Rotax Turbo Charge 914. http://www.rotaxparts.net/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=39.Google Scholar
21. Raymer, D.P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 5th ed, AIAA, 2012.Google Scholar
22. MATLAB 2012 toolbox, http://www.mathworks.co.kr/products/matlab/ Google Scholar
23. Pointwise 16 User manual: http://www.pointwise.com/ Google Scholar