Advertisement

Experiments in Fluids

, 59:108 | Cite as

Experimental analysis of transonic buffet on a 3D swept wing using fast-response pressure-sensitive paint

  • Yosuke Sugioka
  • Shunsuke Koike
  • Kazuyuki Nakakita
  • Daiju Numata
  • Taku Nonomura
  • Keisuke Asai
Research Article
  • 226 Downloads

Abstract

Transonic buffeting phenomena on a three-dimensional swept wing were experimentally analyzed using a fast-response pressure-sensitive paint (PSP). The experiment was conducted using an 80%-scaled NASA Common Research Model in the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) 2 m × 2 m Transonic Wind Tunnel at a Mach number of 0.85 and a chord Reynolds number of 1.54 × 106. The angle of attack was varied between 2.82° and 6.52°. The calculation of root-mean-square (RMS) pressure fluctuations and spectral analysis were performed on measured unsteady PSP images to analyze the phenomena under off-design buffet conditions. We found that two types of shock behavior exist. The first is a shock oscillation characterized by the presence of “buffet cells” formed at a bump Strouhal number St of 0.3–0.5, which is observed under all off-design conditions. This phenomenon arises at the mid-span wing and is propagated spanwise from inboard to outboard. The other is a large spatial amplitude shock oscillation characterized by low-frequency broadband components at St < 0.1, which appears at higher angles of attack (α ≥ 6.0°) and behaves more like two-dimensional buffet. The transition between these two shock behaviors correlates well with the rapid increase of the wing-root strain fluctuation RMS.

List of symbols

C

PSP calibration coefficient

CL

Lift coefficient

CM

Pitching moment coefficient

CP

Pressure coefficient

CPrms

RMS pressure fluctuations

\(C_{P}^{\prime }\)

Dynamic component of pressure coefficient

Coh2

Coherence of the cross-spectrum

I

PSP emission intensity

M

Free-stream Mach number

Mloc

Local Mach number

N

Number of data points

P

Pressure

P0

Total pressure

PSD

Power spectral density

Re

Reynolds number

SXX, SYY

Auto-spectrum of X and Y

SXY

Cross-spectrum between X and Y

St

Strouhal number (= fcmac/U)

T

Temperature

U

Free-stream velocity

UC

Convection velocity

b

Span length

c

Chord length

cmac

Mean aerodynamic chord length

f

Frequency

fS

Frame rate of the camera

k+

Roughness height

t

Time

x

Model chordwise location

y

Model spanwise location

Δf

Frequency resolution for FFT analysis

α

Angle of attack

ϕXY

Phase shift of the cross-spectrum

η

Spanwise location normalized by the half-span length

κ

Reduced frequency (= 2πfc/U)

λ

Spanwise wavelength

Subscripts

ave

Time-averaged

ref

Reference condition, 100 kPa

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the members of the Next Generation Aeronautical Innovation Hub Center and Wind Tunnel Technology Center, JAXA, for their kind preparation and operation of the wind-tunnel test. We gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions with Mr. Tsutomu Nakajima, Dr. Makoto Ueno, and Mr. Kodai Hiura. TiO2 samples used for the PSP binder were provided by Tayca Corporation. The present study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant number JP16J02503.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 2726 KB)

Supplementary material 2 (MP4 4921 KB)

Supplementary material 3 (MP4 2898 KB)

Supplementary material 4 (MP4 5026 KB)

Supplementary material 5 (MP4 2826 KB)

Supplementary material 6 (MP4 5095 KB)

348_2018_2565_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (123 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (PDF 122 KB)

References

  1. Babinsky H, Harvey JK (2011) Shock wave-boundary-layer interactions. Cambridge University Press, NewYorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Balakrishna S, Acheson MJ (2011) Analysis of NASA common research model dynamic data. AIAA-2011-1127.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2011-1127
  3. Braslow AL, Knox EC (1958) Simplified methods for determination of critical height of distributed roughness particles for boundary-layer transition at Mach numbers from 0 to 5. NASA Technical Note 4363. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930085292
  4. Crouch JD, Garbaruk A, Magidov D, Travin A (2009) Origin of transonic buffet on aerofoils. J Fluid Mech 628:357–369.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112009006673 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Dandois J (2016) Experimental study of transonic buffet phenomenon on a 3D swept wing. Phys Fluids 28:016101.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4937426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Giannelis NF, Vio GA, Levinski O (2017) A review of recent developments in the understanding of transonic shock buffet. Prog Aerosp Sci 92:39–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2017.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gregory JW, Asai K, Kameda M, Liu T, Sullivan JP (2008) A review of pressure-sensitive paint for high-speed and unsteady aerodynamics. Proc Inst Mech Eng G 222:249–290.  https://doi.org/10.1243/09544100JAERO243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gregory JW, Sakaue H, Liu T, Sullivan JP (2014) Fast pressure-sensitive paint for flow and acoustic diagnostics. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 46:303–330.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-010313-141304 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Hartmann A, Feldhusen A, Schröder W (2013) On the interaction of shock waves and sound waves in transonic buffet flow. Phys Fluids 25:026101.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4791603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Iovnovich M, Raveh DE (2015) Numerical study of shock buffet on three-dimensional wings. AIAA J 53:449–463.  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J053201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacquin L, Molton P, Deck S, Maury B, Soulevant D (2009) Experimental study of shock oscillation over a transonic supercritical profile. AIAA J 47:1985–1994.  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.30190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koike S, Ueno M, Nakakita K, Hashimoto A (2016) Unsteady pressure measurement of transonic buffet on NASA common research model. AIAA-2016-4044.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-4044
  13. Korkegi RH (1973) A simple correlation for incipient turbulent boundary-layer separation due to a skewed shock-wave. AIAA J 11:1578–1579.  https://doi.org/10.2514/3.50637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kouchi T, Yamaguchi S, Koike S, Nakajuma T, Sato M, Kanda H, Yanase S (2016) Wavelet analysis of transonic buffet on a two-dimensional airfoil with vortex generators. Exp Fluids 57:166.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-016-2261-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lawson SG, Greenwell D, Quinn M (2016) Characterization of buffet on a civil aircraft wing. AIAA-2016-1309.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-1309
  16. Lee BHK (1990) Oscillatory shock motion caused by transonic shock boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J 28:942–944.  https://doi.org/10.2514/3.25144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee BHK (2001) Self-sustained shock oscillations on airfoils at transonic speeds. Prog Aerosp Sci 37:147–196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-0421(01)00003-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mabey DG (1989) Buffeting criteria for a systematic series of wings. J Aircr 26:576–582.  https://doi.org/10.2514/3.45805 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Masini L, Timme S, Ciarella A, Peace A (2017) Influence of vane vortex generators on transonic wing buffet: further analysis of the BUCOLIC experimental data set. In: Proceedings of the 52nd 3AF international conference on applied aerodynamics. FP14-AERO2017-masiniGoogle Scholar
  20. Merienne MC, Sant YL, Lebrun F, Deleglise B, Sonnet D (2013) Transonic buffeting investigation using unsteady pressure-sensitive paint in a large wind tunnel. AIAA-2013-1136.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-1136
  21. Michou Y, Deleglse B, Lebrun F, Scolan E, Grivel A, Steiger R, Pugin R, Merienne MC, San YL (2015) Development of a sol–gel based nanoporous unsteady pressure sensitive paint and validation in the large transonic ONERA’s S2MA windtunnel. AIAA-2015-2408.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-2408
  22. Molton P, Dandois J, Lepage A, Brunet V, Bur R (2013) Control of buffet phenomenon on a transonic swept wing. AIAA J 51:761–772.  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J051000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nakakita K (2007) Unsteady pressure distribution measurement around 2D-cylinders using pressure-sensitive paint. AIAA-2007-3819.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2007-3819
  24. Nakakita K (2013) Detection of phase and coherence of unsteady pressure field using unsteady psp measurement. AIAA-2013-3124.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-3124
  25. Ohmichi Y, Ishida T, Hashimoto A (2017) Numerical investigation of transonic buffet on a three dimensional wing using incremental mode decomposition. AIAA-2017-1436.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-1436
  26. Roos FW (1985) The Buffeting pressure field of a high-aspect-ratio swept wing. AIAA-85-1609.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1985-1609
  27. Sartor F, Mettot C, Sipp D (2015) Stability, receptivity, and sensitivity analyses of buffeting transonic flow over a profile. AIAA J 53:1980–1993.  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J053588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schairer ET, Mehta RD, Olsen ME (2002) Effects of pressure-sensitive paint on experimentally measured wing forces and pressures. AIAA J 40:1830–1838.  https://doi.org/10.2514/2.1860 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schlichting H (1999) Boundary-layer theory, 8th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Steimle PC, Karhoff DC, Schroder W (2012) Unsteady transonic flow over a transport-type swept wing. AIAA J 50:399–415.  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J051187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sugimoto T, Sugioka Y, Numata D, Nagai H, Asai K (2017) Characterization of frequency response of pressure-sensitive paints. AIAA J 55:1460–1464.  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J054985 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sugioka Y, Numata D, Asai K, Nakakita K, Koike S, Koga S (2015) Unsteady PSP measurement of transonic buffet on a wing. AIAA-2015-0025.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-0025
  33. Sugioka Y, Numata D, Asai K, Koike S, Nakakita K, Nakajima T (2018) Polymer/ceramic pressure-sensitive paint with reduced roughness for unsteady measurement in transonic flow. AIAA J.  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J056304 Google Scholar
  34. Tijdeman H (1977) Investigation of the transonic flow around oscillating airfoils. NLR TR 77090 U. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:b07421b9-136d-494c-a161-b188e5ba1d0d?collection=research
  35. Ueno M, Kohzai T, Koga S (2014) Transonic wind tunnel test of the NASA CRM (volume 1). JAXA Research and Development Memorandum JAXA-RM-13-017EGoogle Scholar
  36. Vassberg JC, DeHaan MA, Rivers MS, Wahls RA (2008) Development of a common research model for applied CFD validation studies. AIAA-2008-6919.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-6919

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yosuke Sugioka
    • 1
  • Shunsuke Koike
    • 2
  • Kazuyuki Nakakita
    • 2
  • Daiju Numata
    • 1
  • Taku Nonomura
    • 1
  • Keisuke Asai
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Aerospace Engineering, Graduate School of EngineeringTohoku UniversitySendaiJapan
  2. 2.Aeronautical Technology Directorate, Japan Aerospace Exploration AgencyChofuJapan

Personalised recommendations