Skip to main content

Analysis of transonic buffet on ONERA-M4 model with unsteady pressure-sensitive paint

Abstract

The transonic buffet on an ONERA-M4 model was experimentally investigated using an unsteady pressure-sensitive paint (PSP) in the present study. Wind tunnel tests were conducted in a blowdown-type transonic wind tunnel at a Mach number of 0.84 and a chord Reynolds number of \(2.0 \times 10^6\). The angle of attack was varied in between \(-3.0^{\circ }\) and \(4.0^{\circ }\). The left wing was painted with a polymer/ceramic PSP with low surface roughness, and the right wing was painted with a temperature-sensitive paint. The measured PSP data were processed to calculate time-series pressure coefficients, root-mean-squares pressure-coefficient fluctuations, power spectral density, coherence, and phase shift. The behavior of the unsteady pressure field was different from that observed for the NASA Common Research Model (CRM) in a previous study. The dominant frequency of the shock oscillation shifted from the low-Strouhal-number component (\(St < 0.05\)) to the bump Strouhal number (\(St = 0.11\) for the center frequency) with increasing angle of attack. The separation processes with an increasing angle of attack were also found to be different for the two models. The separation starts from the mid-span region in the CRM, while the separation starts from the wingtip in the ONERA-M4 model. The characteristic pressure fluctuations known as “buffet cells” were not observed for the ONERA-M4 model. These differences are considered to be caused by the difference in model geometries, such as the wing twist and the airfoil cross-sectional profile.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

References

  1. Babinsky H, Harvey JK (2011) Shock wave-boundary-layer interactions. Cambridge University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511842757

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Binion T Jr (1976) Tests of the onera calibration model in three transonic wind tunnels. Technical Report AEDC-TR-76-133, Arnold Engineering Development Center Arnold AFB TN

  3. Dandois J (2016) Experimental study of transonic buffet phenomenon on a 3d swept wing. Phys Fluids 28(1):016–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gadd G (1961) Interactions between normal shock waves and turbulent boundary layers. ARC Reports and Memoranda, p 3262

  5. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hamada Y, Isaji H, Yamada E, Yasue Y, Hirakami Y, Takahira K (1990) Characteristics of the Kawasaki 1-meter transonic wind tunnel. Tech. Rep. 107, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., pp 82–89

  7. Inger GR (1983) Transonic shock/turbulent boundary-layer interaction on curved surfaces. Journal of Aircraft 20(6):571–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Iovnovich M, Raveh DE (2014) Numerical study of shock buffet on three-dimensional wings. AIAA J 53(2):449–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kameda M, Tabei T, Nakakita K, Sakaue H, Asai K (2005) Image measurements of unsteady pressure fluctuation by a pressure-sensitive coating on porous anodized aluminium. Meas Sci Technol 16(12):2517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Koike S, Ueno M, Nakakita K, Hashimoto A (2016) Unsteady pressure measurement of transonic buffet on nasa common research model. In: 34th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, p 4044

  11. Korkegi R (1973) A simple correlation for incipient-turbulent boundary-layer separation due to a skewed shock wave. AIAA J 11(11):1578–1579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lawson S, Greenwell D, Quinn MK (2016) Characterisation of buffet on a civil aircraft wing. In: 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, p 1309

  13. Lee B (2001) Self-sustained shock oscillations on airfoils at transonic speeds. Prog Aerosp Sci 37(2):147–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Masini L, Timme S, Peace A (2020) Analysis of a civil aircraft wing transonic shock buffet experiment. J Fluid Mech 884

  15. Merienne MC, Le Sant Y, Lebrun F, Deleglise B, Sonnet D (2013) Transonic buffeting investigation using unsteady pressure-sensitive paint in a large wind tunnel. In: 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, p 1136

  16. Michou Y, Deleglise B, Lebrun F, Scolan E, Grivel A, Steiger R, Pugin R, Merienne MC, Le Sant Y (2015) Development of a sol-gel based nanoporous unsteady pressure sensitive paint and validation in the large transonic onera s2ma windtunnel. In: 31st AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology and Ground Testing Conference, p 2408

  17. Molton P, Dandois J, Lepage A, Brunet V, Bur R (2013) Control of buffet phenomenon on a transonic swept wing. AIAA J 51(4):761–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nakakita K (2007) Unsteady pressure distribution measurement around 2D-cylinders using pressure-sensitive paint. AIAA Paper 2007:3819

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nakakita K (2013) Detection of phase and coherence of unsteady pressure field using unsteady PSP measurement. In: AIAA Ground Testing Conference, pp 24–27

  20. Paladini E, Dandois J, Sipp D, Robinet JC (2018) Analysis and comparison of transonic buffet phenomenon over several three-dimensional wings. AIAA J 57(1):379–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pearcy H (1961) Shock Induced Separation and its Prevention by Design and Boundary Layer Control. Boundary Layer and flow control. Oxford Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 1166–1344

    Google Scholar 

  22. Roos F (1985) The buffeting pressure field of a high-aspect-ratio swept wing. In: 18th Fluid Dynamics and Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference, p 1609

  23. Staff of the Second Aerodynamics Division, National Aerospace Laboratory (1983) Results of the test on ONERA calibration model M5 in NAL 2 m \(\times\) 2 m transonic wind tunnel. Tech. Rep. TR-774T, Second Aerodynamics Division, National Aerospace Laboratory of Japan

  24. Steimle PC, Karhoff DC, Schröder W (2012) Unsteady transonic flow over a transport-type swept wing. AIAA J 50(2):399–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sugioka Y, Arakida K, Kasai M, Nonomura T, Asai K, Egami Y, Nakakita K (2018a) Evaluation of the characteristics and coating film structure of polymer/ceramic pressure-sensitive paint. Sensors 18(11):4041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sugioka Y, Koike S, Nakakita K, Numata D, Nonomura T, Asai K (2018b) Experimental analysis of transonic buffet on a 3D swept wing using fast-response pressure-sensitive paint. Exp Fluids 59(6):108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sugioka Y, Numata D, Asai K, Koike S, Nakakita K, Nakajima T (2018c) Polymer/ceramic pressure-sensitive paint with reduced roughness for unsteady measurement in transonic flow. AIAA J 56(6):2145–2156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sugioka Y, Nakakita K, Koike S, Nakajima T, Nonomura T, Asai K (2021) Characteristic unsteady pressure field on a civil aircraft wing related to the onset of transonic buffet. Exp Fluids 62(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ueno M, Kohzai M, Koga S (2014) Transonic wind tunnel test of the NASA CRM (volume1). Tech. Rep, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency

  30. Vassberg J, Dehaan M, Rivers M, Wahls R (2008) Development of a common research model for applied CFD validation studies. In: 26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, p 6919

  31. Vaucheret X, Bazin M, Armand C (1976) Comparison of two-and three-dimensional transonic tests made in various large wind tunnels. Tech. rep, Foreign technology div Wright-Patterson AFB OH

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI, Grant Number H19H00800.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kazuki Uchida.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Uchida, K., Sugioka, Y., Kasai, M. et al. Analysis of transonic buffet on ONERA-M4 model with unsteady pressure-sensitive paint. Exp Fluids 62, 134 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-021-03228-1

Download citation