Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T21:19:03.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental and numerical Investigation of wind tunnel wall interference near Mach one

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

M. Mokry ,
M. Khalid ,
Y. Mébarki  and
A. Rebaine
M. Mokry
Affiliation:
Institute for Aerospace Research, Ottawa, Canada
M. Khalid
Affiliation:
Institute for Aerospace Research, Ottawa, Canada
Y. Mébarki
Affiliation:
Institute for Aerospace Research, Ottawa, Canada
A. Rebaine
Affiliation:
Institute for Aerospace Research, Ottawa, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Surface pressure measurements on the CAST-10-2/DOA 2 aerofoil, conducted in the IAR l.5m wind tunnel and supported by CFD simulations, are used to validate some new theoretical analyses of transonic wall interference. Based on the transonic freeze principle, it is shown that the stream Mach number correction is indeterminate near Mach one.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 105 , Issue 1052 , October 2001 , pp. 589 - 596
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2001 

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. Emmons, H.W. Flow of a compressible fluid past a symmetrical aero foil in a wind tunnel and free air, 1948, NACA TN 1746.Google Scholar
2. Malmuth, N., Crites, R., Everhart, J., Newman, P. and Sickles, W. Transonic wind tunnel wall interference,Wind Tunnel Wall Corrections, 1998, Ewald, B. (Ed), AGARD AG-336, October 1998, Chapter 5.Google Scholar
3. Guderley, K.G. The Theory of Transonic Flow, 1962, pp 65–69 and 212–216, Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
4. Zierep, J. Theorie der schallnahen und der Hyperschallströmungen, 1966, pp 1–28 and 86-87, Verlag G Braun.Google Scholar
5. Cole, J.D. and Cook, L.P. Transonic Aerodynamics, 1986, North-Holland, pp 372–375.Google Scholar
6. Dvorák, R. Transsonicé Proudení, 1986, pp 13–19, Academia Prague.Google Scholar
7. Hornung, H.G. (Ed) Adaptive wind tunnel walls: technology & applications, 1990, AGARD-AR-269, April 1990, pp 100–102.Google Scholar
8. Newman, P.A., Kemp, W.B. and Garriz, J.A. Emerging technology for transonic wind-tunnel-wall interference assessment and corrections, 1988, SAE 881454, October 1988.Google Scholar
9. Allen, H.J. and Vincenti, W.G. Wall interference in a two-dimensional-flow wind tunnel with consideration of the effect of compressibility, 1944, NACA 782.Google Scholar
10. Spreiter, J.R., Smith, D.W. and Hvett, B.J. A study of the simulation of flow with free-stream Mach number 1 in a choked wind tunnel, 1960, NASA TRR-73.Google Scholar
11. Khalid, M. and Mokry, M. NPARC study of a two-dimensional transonic wall interference, J Aircr, September-October 1996, 33, (5).Google Scholar
12. Galway, R.D. The IAR high Reynolds number two-dimensional test facility — A description of equipment and procedures common to most 2-D aerofoil tests, 1990, IAR-AN-66, June 1990, National Research Council Canada.Google Scholar
13. Ray, E.J. and Hill, A.S. (Ed) CAST-10-2/DOA 2 aerofoil studies workshopresults, 1988,NASAConferencePublication3052, September 1988.Google Scholar
14. Blanchard, A. (Ed.) CAST-10-2/DOA 2 aerofoil studies, 1990, Raport interne DERAT No 39/5606.23, ONERA CERT, March 1990.Google Scholar
15. Chan, Y.Y. Wind tunnel investigation of CAST-10-2/DOA-2 12% supercritical aerofoil model, Phase II, 1987, LTR-HA 5x5/0170, June 1987, National Research Council Canada.Google Scholar
16. Mebarki, Y., Grenier, M. and Thain, J. 2-D PSP evaluation of a CAST 10 aerofoil, 2001, LTR-A-059, National Research Council Canada.Google Scholar
17. Sudani, N., Sato, M., Kanda, H. and Matsuno, K. Flow visualisation studies on sidewall effects in two-dimensional transonic aerofoil testing, J Aircr, 1994, 31, pp 1233–1239.Google Scholar
18. Mebarki, Y., Grenier, M. and Thain, J. Pressure sensitive paints application on a supercritical wing at cruise speed, 2000, Paper No 207, Ninthinternationalsymposium on flowvisualisation,Edinburgh, August 2000.Google Scholar
19. Bush, R.H., Power, G.D. and Towne, C.E. WIND: The production flow solver of the NPARC Alliance, 1998, AIAA 98-0935, 36th Aerospace sciences meeting and exhibition, Reno, January 1998.Google Scholar
20. Mokry, M., Peake, D.J. and Bowker, A.J. Wall interference on two-dimensional supercritical aerofoils, using wall pressure measurements to determine the porosity factors for tunnel floor and ceiling, 1974, AeronauticalReportLR-575,February1974,NationalResearch Council Canada.Google Scholar