Integrating CFD and Experiment in Aerodynamics - CFD4Aircraft

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Parameter Value ( V ) min ms −1 ( -5 V ) max ms −1 ( 35 V 2 − V ) 1 ms −1 5 D r 7 ϕ (%) 15 Table 2: CFD a-priori values. Parameter Value L (mm) 1.5 CCD size (pixels) 1000 2 Particle image size (pixels) 3 D/d 10 N i 5 Table 3: Experimental parameter values. 3.4 Results Figures 6 and 7 show time-averaged vector maps output from the PIV data processing from the Hart and the correlation averaging algorithms. The results from the Hart algorithm do not show any substantial recirculation regions contrary to predictions by the CFD model. In contrast the results from the in-house correlation averaging algorithm show a distinct large scale recirculation inside the cavity. The poor performance of the Hart algorithm is attributed to locally low levels of seeding inside the cavity as can be seen in the PIV image of Figure 5. Lower than expected seeding levels would not provide the performance predicted by the optimisation method which assumed a minimum of 5 particle images per interrogation region. The correlation averaging algorithm, however, ensures greater than 5 particles images per interrogation region as the 70 images set on average accumulates more than 5 particle images in each interrogation region. Figure 6: TSI code processed time averaged PIV vector map (70 Image average). Figure 7: In House code processed time averaged PIV vector map (70 Image average). The improved performance of the correlation averaging method is further illustrated in a U component centreline plot of velocity shown in Figure 8. In this case the TSI data has a greater deviation than the correlation averaged results when compared to the CFD prediction. Therefore optimisation of a given PIV system requires not just a-priori knowledge of the flow to specify variables such as M and ∆t, but also careful control of variables such as seeding and judicious choice of the data processing algorithms for a given flow. 4 Open-wheeled racecars Ground simulation and wheel rotation are known to be essential for accurate automotive testing [16], particularly for open-wheeled racecars. With this type of vehicle, ground effects and large unfaired wheels dominate their aerodynamic characteristics. Every care must be taken to ensure that the wheels are modelled correctly both in experimental testing 7
Figure 8: Streamwise Velocity Profile - y/d=0.5. and computational simulation. Previous evaluations of the capability of CFD to model wheel flows [17–19] used the surface pressure and force data published by Fackrell [20, 21] as their main validation criteria. CFD models enable researchers to investigate physical processes that may be impossible to reproduce experimentally. In our work the investigation concentrated on the effect of using external wheel support struts during racecar wind tunnel testing [22]. The struts are used to mechanically decouple the car body from the ground whilst still allowing the wheels to rotate. Ideally the support struts should be aerodynamically neutral, however, this is not always the case. An experimentally validated CFD model of an isolated racecar wheel and strut was used to quantify the aerodynamic interference effects between the two. The virtual environment of the CFD model enabled the support strut to be easily removed, something that could not have been carried out experimentally. 4.1 Experiments A 40% scale (263 mm diameter), non-deformable Champ Car front wheel assembly was chosen along with its associated support sting. The experimentally tested sting was of aluminium beam section with a symmetrical aerofoil profile. It supported a 50 N load cell, oriented to measure drag force, to which the wheel was attached. The aerofoil profile was extended to the wheel by shrouding the load cell with carbon fibre. The instrumentation cabling was shielded from the freestream air by routing it inside the sting. No vertical force, other than that due to the weight of the components, was applied during testing and no problems were encountered with wheel lift. The experimental set-up is shown in Figure 9. The LDV measurements were made using a two-component and a single-component, 1m focal length, Dantec FibreFlow probes mounted to a three-component traverse. Data acquisition was carried out by three BSA enhanced signal processors, with all equipment centrally controlled by Dantec Burstware software. The experimental set-up was tested at 20 ms −1 , corresponding to a Reynolds number (based on wheel diameter) of 3.69 × 10 5 . LDV measurements were made in four vertical planes oriented perpendicular to the freestream flow. Traverse access confined each plane to being a 250 mm square, centred about the longitudinal centreline of the wheel. The planes were located at 10, 25, 50 and 100 mm downstream of the rearmost part of the wheel and contained identical grids of 441 equally-spaced data points. All three velocity components were simultaneously sampled over a 15 second period yielding 2500 samples for each component at each point. When processed, these data subsequently provided time-averaged three-dimensional velocity results. 8
Page 1 and 2: Integrating CFD and Experiment in A
Page 3 and 4: Experimentalist’s requirements fo
Page 5 and 6: persistent discrepancy may be due t
Page 7 and 8: numbers significantly lower than th
Page 9 and 10: Heat flux measurements. Over the pa
Page 11 and 12: The measurements are made on select
Page 13 and 14: advantage that the signal is emitte
Page 15 and 16: 12. Mébarki, Y. and Mérienne, M.
Page 17 and 18: castellated nozzles entrained more
Page 19 and 20: Axisymmetric Regular Convergent Div
Page 21: Figure 5: Typical instantaneous PIV
Page 25 and 26: 1.25 CFD (SKW PRESTO) Experimental
Page 27 and 28: 5 Conclusions In this paper we have
Page 29 and 30: 2 which include boundary layer and
Page 31 and 32: 4 not received much attention in th
Page 33 and 34: 6 Although a great deal of effort h
Page 35 and 36: 8 Computational simulations can con
Page 37 and 38: 10 separation location over rounded
Page 39 and 40: 12 3.7 Vortex / flexible wing inter
Page 41 and 42: 14 [8] Mitchell, A.M. and Molton, P
Page 43 and 44: 16 [31] Gursul, I., Proposed Mechan
Page 45 and 46: 18 Figure 3: Spectrum of unsteady f
Page 47 and 48: 20 Figure 7: Flow visualisation of
Page 49 and 50: Figure 11: Upper surface pressure d
Page 51 and 52: While the information presented in
Page 53 and 54: Figure 3 : DFR against Flap angle f
Page 55 and 56: Figure 7 shows a series of plots of
Page 57 and 58: Figure 9 : Contours of Mach number,
Page 59 and 60: ¥:97§Y©R¥e©H !V( H ¨9#f§e!"
Page 61 and 62: é¡êŒëWì¤í?î(ïeð±ñWòL
Page 63 and 64: Ó3×ÓnØ*Ù(Ú*Û+Ü ÝÞ#ß)ÝG
Page 65 and 66: 6‹wB6h67 C,7D4 ')(r,+.st/9:!/L£8
Page 67 and 68: ACBDsEutCIvwlxV^ c Q!Lkd_Q_SFM PQ_^
Page 69 and 70: Ç¹ºF»¼@½:¾¿_À!Á »_ÂÃk
Page 71 and 72: yaw angle. Also, extreme value coef
Page 73 and 74:
0.9 Cs vs yaw angle Side force coef
Page 75 and 76:
Fig. 5. Grid block structure around
Page 77 and 78:
Cs comparison at V=0.6 m/s Fig. 10.
Page 79 and 80:
Investigation of Flow Turning in a
Page 81 and 82:
duct as it approaches the blocker c
Page 83 and 84:
Figure 1. Natural Blockage Thrust R
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 7. Post-Exit rake Total Span
Page 87 and 88:
Figure 11. Comparison of Static Pre
Page 89 and 90:
2.2 Data Aquired The Embedded Laser
Page 91 and 92:
First, plots of the turbulent Reyno
Page 93 and 94:
Particles seeding tube 3 m 1 m mode
Page 95 and 96:
000000000 MEASUREM ENT S MEASUREM E
Page 97 and 98:
Figure 5: Influence of the pseudo t
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 7: Turbulent Reynolds' numbe
Page 101 and 102:
Figure 9: Turbulent Reynolds' numbe
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 11: Vortex Shedding cycle fo
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 13: Comparison with experime
show all

Integrating CFD and Experiment in Aerodynamics - CFD4Aircraft

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?