Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T04:10:08.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Operational experience and test results in the adaptive test section of the DLR transonic tunnel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

H. Holst ,
K-W. Bock ,
W. Lorenz-Meyer ,
F. Oberdieck  and
M. Hermes
H. Holst
Affiliation:
DLR, Lorenz-Meyer ConsultantGöttingen, Germany
K-W. Bock
Affiliation:
DLR, Lorenz-Meyer ConsultantGöttingen, Germany
W. Lorenz-Meyer
Affiliation:
DLR, Lorenz-Meyer ConsultantGöttingen, Germany
F. Oberdieck
Affiliation:
DLR, Lorenz-Meyer ConsultantGöttingen, Germany
M. Hermes
Affiliation:
DLR, Lorenz-Meyer ConsultantGöttingen, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The transonic facility of DLR Göttingen (TWG) has been modernised with respect to an improved flow quality and flow simulation, as well as to the logistics of exchangeable test sections, operational reliability and productivity. It is presently equipped with a Laval nozzle for supersonic flow measurements, a perforated test section (6% open, 60° slanted holes) for transonic measurements, and a two-dimensional adaptive test section for subsonic measurements. The latter can perform two-dimensional adaptive tests on wing profiles, using the Cauchy integral formula for wall adaptation, as well as two-dimensional wall adaptation for three-dimensional models, utilising the Wedemeyer/Lamarche procedure, also known as the VKI method. For both cases, it is shown that the wall adaptation was successful. The 3D force results compare quite well to test results from the perforated test section, as well as to nominally interference-free results. The pressure distribution from the wing profile tests compare quite well to theoretical calculations. In the course of windtunnel modernisation, the transonic facility of DLR Göttingen has been equipped with the new software system DeAs for data acquisition and control of experimental facilities. In this environment the wall adaptation programs had to be implemented. Before adjusting the computed wall shape, it has to be controlled in the loop for sufficient accuracy and tolerable bending stresses. A simplified finite element method — also taking into account the pressure loads at the wall — is used for this purpose. The simplified approach has been checked against more detailed computations using ANSYS and NASTRAN.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 101 , Issue 1009 , November 1997 , pp. 421 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1997 

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. Wedemeyer, E., Heddergott, A. and Kuczka, D. Deformable adaptive wall test section for three dimensional windtunnel testing, J Aircr, December 1985, 22, (12), pp 1085–1091.Google Scholar
2. Lamarche, L. and Wedemeyer, E. Minimization of wall interference for three-dimensional models with two-dimensional wall adaptation, Technical Note 149, von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Brussels, Belgium, 1984.Google Scholar
3. Goodyer, M.J. and Wolf, S.W.D. Development of a self streamlining flexible walled transonic test section. AIAA J, February 1982, 20, (2), pp 227–234.Google Scholar
4. Wedemeyer, E. The computer in experimental fluid dynamics, Lecture Series 1986–06, von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Brussels, Belgium, 1986.Google Scholar
5. Holst, H. and Raman, K.S. 2D Adaptation for 3D testing, DLR-IB 29112-88 A03, DLR Göttingen, 1988.Google Scholar
6. Wedemeyer, E. Adaptive windtunnel walls: technology and applications. (Section 4: testing of 3D models in 2D adaptive wall test sections.) AGARD-AR-269, April 1990.Google Scholar
7. Ashill, P.R. and Weeks, D.J. A method for determining wall-interference corrections in solid walled tunnels from measurements of static pressure at the wall, AGARD CP335, 1982.Google Scholar
8. Holst, H. Procedure for determination of three dimensional windtunnel wall interferences and wall adaptation in compressible subsonic flow using measured wall pressures, DLR-FB 91–09, Göttingen, Germany, 1991.Google Scholar
9. Amecke, J. Direct calculation of wall interferences and wall adaptation for two-dimensional flow in windtunnels with closed walls (published in German), DFVLR-FB 85–62, DFVLR Göttingen, 1985.Google Scholar
10. Lewis, M.C. and Goodyer, M.J. Residual wall interferences when testing an arrow-head half-wing model in a square non-porous test section with two adaptive flexible walls, AASU Memo 93/04, January 1993.Google Scholar
11. Holst, H. Realtime computation of wall shapes in a two-dimensional adaptive test section. ICAS 94, Anaheim, California, USA, 1994, p 3.7.1.Google Scholar
12. Binder, B., Riethmuller, L., Tusche, S. and Wulf, R. Modernisierung des transsonischen windkanals in Göttingen, (modernisation of the transonic windtunnel in Göttingen), Jahrbuch 1992 I der deutschen Gesellschaft fur Luft und Raumfahrt, (DGLR), Bonn, 1992.Google Scholar
13. Geisen, H., Harmening, M. and Kosel, W. Datenerfassungs und anlagensteuerungs software, (software for data acqisition and control of experimental facilities), DLRIB 29112 95 C 02, Göttingen, Germany, 1995.Google Scholar
14. Lorenz-Meyer, W. and Oberdieck, F. Computation of bending stresses for the flexible walls of the adaptive test section of the 1 m x 1 m transonic windtunnel with the aid of a finite element procedure, simultaneously taking local pressure forces into account, (published in German), Lorenz-Meyer Consultant, Göttingen, Germany, 1995.Google Scholar
15. Hermes, M. Elastomechanical verification of the adaptive wall of TWG, (Published in German) DLR IB 232-95 C 02, Göttingen, Germany, 1995.Google Scholar
16. Garner, H.G., Rogers, E.W.E., Acum, W.E.A. and Maskell, E.C. Subsonic windtunnel wall corrections, AGARDograph 109, 1966.Google Scholar
17. Krogmann, P. Measurements on the transonic profile VA-2 with 30 mm wide perforation and cavity, (published in German.) DLRIB 222-86 A 01, Göttingen, Germany, 1986.Google Scholar
18. Drela, M. Two-dimensional transonic aerodynamic design and analysis using the euler equations, MIT Gas Turbine Plasma Dynamics Laboratory Reoort No 187, February 1986.Google Scholar