Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Availlable
COPY
AD-A286 061
-
AGARD-AR-303 Vol. I
AGARD
Volume I
UV
This Advisory Report was prepared at the request of the Fluid Dynamics Panel,
MORT
, 94-34416
IRWI
i994
AGARD-AR-303 Vol I
Volume I
]hii
/
-T
.-\dxh sor
Report!
*a
S...
rw . .. .
in tile
oyiciiiiidiiig effective ways (or the menber natioils to use their reseairch and developiment capahilities for (lie:
common benefit of the NATO cornmuttitv:
-Rc~
scientific andstechnical advice and assistajice to, the %1fIjury Commlitittee in the field of aero space research
and dcvelipteitt l with particular regard to its miuiary application;
-Pro'vidinig
-Contiinuously
h nproingvti
--
stimiulatintg advances inithe aerospace sciences relevant to atrctimieniiiig the koinnonl detence p sture:
the co-operationi among tieimiber tat ions ini aerospace research aiid devebipnieni
-Reicitdein
niatiotns mi
the htighesti aiithoi iv witthin AGARD is the National Delegates Board consistiiii if olfticiahlv appoiiinted setiulr
representatives friomi each nienmber iiation. Tile mission iif AGARD is carried out through the Panels which are comimpised if
experts appointed by the National D~elegates. the Coinsumltant aitd Fxchamige Prolr trimlre
anid !Ic Acr q~ase Atptlications
StUdies trieralunme. Fihe resnltt of AGARD wo rk are reported to the meiiber ntationts atnd the NATO Authairit ies thirioighi tile
AG-A RI series if putbl icatioits of whicth this is iine.
P'articipationu ini AGARI
91
au cliapilre 1.
Recent Publications of
il
Contents
Page
I.
Introduction
2.
3.
35
4.
51
5.
55
6.
135
Annex A
A-I
vi
Chapter I
Introduction
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has developed to the point where the flow field around practical
aircraft and missile conkgurations can he described fairly realistically. Although problems related to tile
numerical accuracy (grid refinement) and turbulence modeling still limit the application of these codes. thir
use today is an integral part of aircraft development and design. Before a specific code can be used with
confidence. it is essential to validate the code (to test the capability of the code to describe the physics of the
flow correctly( or to calibrate the code (to establish the usefulness and reliability of the code for practical
design applicationsi. An essential paii of the validation process is a comparison of the CFD code with the
experiment.
In 1979 AGARD's Fluid D.'namics Panel established Working Group 4 to compile a number of suitable
experiments for such a comparison. This has resulted in AGARD AR-138 (together wvith an Appendix
published in 1984). The Working Group limited its scope at that time to two-dituensional airfoils, slender
bodies aud s ing\hody configurations. Some of the test cases hase been used extensively in the past and are
still used today. Since the publication of AR- 138. CFD methods have improved considerably- More comples
geometrical configurations with much more complex flow fields can now be calculated in fine detail- As a
result of this. detailed experiments that cover a wider range of flow, types and geometries are required for
CFD validation. Many experiments that suit these needs have been made. but the results are not always
easily accessible. For that re-.son AGARD FDP decided in 1990 to establish another Working Group on
"The Selection of Experimental Test Cases for CFD Validation". The first meeting of the Working Group
took place in Amsterdam in the fall of 1990 and 7 meetings later the working group members returned io
Amsterdam for their iinal meeting.
In the very beginning of the Working Group. it was decided to concentrate mainly on "validation' rather
than "'building block" or *'calibratioo experiments. Hence, the Working Group limited its scope of interest
to the flow around generic configurations of practical interest. A questionnaire was sent out to request test
cases. In total, over 100 questionnaires wvere returned. Out of these. 65 were objectively selected for a more
detailed written report and subsequent evaluation by the working group members. As a result of this
evaluation. 39 test cases were selected for inclusion in this report.
'[he report has been split tip in two volumes. Volume I provides a review of the theoretical (chapter 2) and
experimental (chapter 3) requirements,. followed by a general introduction to the test cases (chapter 4). a
two-page summary of all test cases (chapter 5) and finally a discussion and some recommendations for the
future (chapter 61. The detailed information on the 39 test cases can be found in Volume II. Accornpanyivig
this is a set of floppy disk's where the relevant data of all test cases have been compiled. This set of floppy
disks can be obtained upon request through national distribution centers (see Annex).
The Working Group found it difficult to select reliable test cases. The inclusion of a test case within the data
base does not automatically guarantee good quality. The Working Group takes no responsibility for the
fitness or otherwise of the data base information. or for any decisions made thereafter on the basis of that
information. In fact. it is felt that the usefulness and reliability of a particular test case can only be judged
after a comparison of theory and experiment. For that reason. AGARD FOP would appreciate it very much
if the experience with the particular test cases could be reported to the Chairman of AGARD's FDP TESCommittee on "Wind Tunnel Testing Techniques-. A standard form for this can be found at the back of this
report.
_IIIII
In the Working Group. chaired by A. Elsenaar. both theoreticians and experimentalists were representedTwo subcommittees headed by E.G. Waggoner and P.R. Ashill formulated the requirements from the point
of view of CFD development and experiment, respectively, Other active members of the group were
3. Muylaert, D. Jones. V. Schmitt, H. Kiirner, E. Stanewsky, MI.Onorato, U. Kaynak. M. Burt. S. Lekoudis,
E. H. Htirschel and D. Brown. C. Hirsch followed the activities of the Working Group on behalf of the
Propulsion and Energetic Panel (PEP).
Chapitre I
Introduction
L aterodx narnique nul~inrique (CID I a 6voI uc all Point Ouiles champs si ecoulenient aUtOUr dieconfiguratio n."
r~eles d'a~ronefs et de missiles peuvent tre tepr~xentes Lie fa~on assez fidZ'e. Bien que ['application d"s
codes soit loujours limit~e par cerlains; probleroes lies, ii Ia precision numneique (finesse des maillages) e( ll
tnodeisatton des toorbillons. leur emplol auojord'hui fail partie ints~grantcetdl processus de conception et de
ds~veloppernent des a~ronefs. Avant de pouivoir utiliser on code donn as'cc confiance. ii esl indispensable
soil de le valider (tester la capacils du code aid~crire correctemnen la physique de lecoulernent 1,soil die Ic
v&ifier 16tablir I'Litilits et [a fiabilit du code en sue d'applications concretes). Vo'n des 61kmerNt essentiel,
Lie processus de validation est hitcomparaison doUcode CFD avec dies rttSUltat.s expt~ituentlauIX.
En I1979. le Panel AGARI) die la dynamique des fliIoids a crs&sle groope dcetravail No. 4. LIM Mail p iir
nlandat tie dresser oine lisle d'exptinences permnettalit de faire oine tel le colnparai son. Ce travsail atdehoudlhs
sor lat rsdaction do douncmet ACSARD AR-i13 (et d'otie annexe publisee en 1984). he groupe at
volontairemient linlitse le doniaine de ses rechierches, aux profi Is a6-odynarniques bidi meiisionnels, ilo corps
eff-ilss et aos configorations voilore/foselage. Cerlains des cas d'essai ont 6tet u-6s largenient tltilis~s dans' IC
passe et le SOnt tooI'ours. Les ni~thodes CFI) se sont considi~rablernent ainsior~es depuis la poblicalion doL
AR-I 38. Aojourd'hui. le calcul detaille de configurations geome~triqoes heaocoop Plus comlplexes. ilus
champs dikoolemnent plus complexes, est tout aifait faisable. Par consequent. des experiences cOIovralit onle
garnme pius large de types dIkl~oolemnent et de g~om~tries son( demnandiks poor Ia validatiosn CFD. Hon
nomnbre d'expseriences rt~pondant ii cex crit~res ont 6t r~aliskes, mais lacces aux resoltats, pos, soosent de,
problemes. Poor ces ralwns. :1 199(0, le Panel AGARD de la dynamniqoe des floides a decide de creer onl
aUtre groupe die travail, stir 4ec choix die eas d'essai expilimentaox pour hitvalidation CFD,. he grOope s'CsI
rl~uni poor ]It prerni~re fois ii Amnsterdamn en aotomne 199(0. Sept reunion,, plus tard. les menibres ornl
retournes it Amsterdam poor Ia r~union ftnale.
Ali tool d&btt des travaux de cc groope die travail, ii a l~t dcid.1 de porter l'effort principal stir 'Ia
validation,. plol6l qoc sor des exp&iences du type -smodulaire, 00 ,tatlonnage,,. Par consi~quett. Ic grouipe
dietravail a limnit son. domnaine dlint&ret aux 6koulements aotoor de configorations gsensfiques d int&rst
pratiqoc. IUo questionnaire a Oe diffus6 afin sic recocillir dcx- cax; dcessai. Eni toot, plus; de IM)qosinnie
on1 6ts retouml6, dont 65 ont 6 selectioinnes objeetivement en voc de U~tahlissenieit doun rapport OLril
plus du~laiI16 poor 6valuatioii olt6rieore par les memnbres du groope. Suite it celte 6valoalion .39 cas d'essai
ont s6techoisis pour incorporation dans le present rapport.
heCrapport est en detux volumnes Icl volume I donne oin aperqu des besoins thteoriqoes ichapitre 2) et
exp&imcentaox fchapitre 3), soivi doUne introduction gi~n~ale aUX cas d'essai ichapitre 4., on rt~surmiLde
['ensemble des cas d'essai de deox pages ichapitre 5) et finalement doii d16hat qoi d~booche stir des
recommandations poor lavenir (chapitre 6). Le ddtail des 39 cas dexsai est donne aoivolume H1.Le rapport
ext accompagnt5 doun jeo die disqoettex contenant les donn~es appropri~es Li bous let cas d'essai. ('es
disqoettes sont disponibles A Ia demande mopr-s des centres diedistribution nationaux (voir lannexel.
Le groope de travail a 6proov6 des difficult~s poor choisir des cas d'essai fiables. La presence d~ut cas
d~essai dans la base die doinntes ne repr~sente pas la garantie syst~niatique de sa qrialit6. Le groupe de travail
n .accepte aucune responxabilit6 ni die[a joxtese. ni de tout autre qoalit des informatiotns contenoex dans Ia
base de donn~es. ni de bolte d~cision prise ult~rieutrement sur la base de ces informations. En effet. les
auteurs sont de [avis quc l'applicabilit6 ct la liabilit6 d~un cas d'essai donn6 ne peuvent atre appriki6es
qu'apr~s avoir confroii6l~ a th~orie et 1'exp~rience. Pour ces raisons. Ie Panel FDP diel'AGARD aimnerait que
des reuours d~information concernant des eat d'essai panticuoliers soient adress~s au President do comit6
AGARD FDP TES sor ,les techniques d'essais en souffleries'. Un formualaire Ai eel effet ext joint Aicc
rapport.
Dascc groupe de travail. qui tctait pr~idtc par A. Elwcnaar, I"s tht~oriciens ont 6ttreprt~sdntt~s. ius~i hien
que Ics experimentalisies. Lcs oh'uclif, dui point dle ' ue du d6N eloppement CED et descxp~irienccs ont &cte
dlefinik par dcux cornit~s. prcsides pair 1-1 G. \Vagi-'mer et P. R. Ashill respectivemient. Parmii ics autreN
mniebres actil dii croupe on distintgue J. Muylaeco. 1). Jonecs. V. Schmitt. H. Kdrner. E. StancwskN
NI. 0norato. U. Kaynak. NI. Burt. S. Lckoudik. E. 1-. Hirschel et D. Brown. C. Hfirsch a suivi Icsactivitiis dILI
groupe pour le contptc duiPanel AGARD de Propulsion cl d\6nergetique I PEP),
Ch apt er
CFD
for
Code
Validation
by)
F. G. Waggoner (NASA-LaRC, USA)
NI. Burt (BAe, ULK)
S. Lekriudis (ONR. U,A)
U. Kavnak (TUlSAS. Turkey)
F. H. Hirschel (DASA, Gernmany)
H. Korirer (DLR, Germnaty)
t.0
I NTRODI,('TION
effort
reported herein.
MIa rvinit
For completeness.
' CFL2
CLQFDcn-
ENALI'AIIN
2.0) 111F,(TI)
PRiOCESS
acepablyuracees.un
are1ICIL
t'np\ia
eriativ
inty ?A
ott getttcrme
the code preili5 t w ithi adequiate accuhte o) owitit:on
rmtc
nivsomeof
al or
features of the flow field. e~e.
veh~~ it~ napswith
-detalded
-geometric
surface
parameters.
e.g.
2. 1
Definisions
engineers.
Consistent
CV1D
code
(7
CFD
code
validation
Validated
CFD
code
CFD
code
2.1.5
Calibrated
CFD
code
Engineering
CFD
code
calibration
Accuracy
"
2.2
Impact of CFD Evaluation
Methods
and
Experiments
on
"i-lated
i.
3.1
The Computational
Approach
Fluid
Physics
Modelling
to
The majority of CFD codes presently under development are modelling either the Euler equations or an approximation to the Navier-Stokes
equations.
Most will attempt to simulate flow
in all three spatial dimensions but many will
be restricted to flow in two dimensions only,
the most popular being no lateral flow (airfoil)
and no circumferential flow (axisymmetric
body). A brief, qualitative overview of these
sets of equations is given below.
3.1.1
Euler
equations
still statistically
turbulence,
The Euler equations, which model exact inviscid, rotational flow, seek to conserve the scalars
of mass and energy (or enthalpy) and the vector
of momentum. The equations feature density,
energy, pressure and velocities either singly or
in combinations in derivatives with respect to
time and the base of spatial directions.
In
these conservative formulations the Euler
equations allow the capture of flow discontinuities such as shocks, slip surfaces, and vortices. To close the system of equations, the
equation of state for a perfect gas is invoked
which gives, for 3-D flows, six equations for the
six unknown primary flow variables.
While the Euler equations describe inviscid
flows, in order to simulate viscous phenomena
codes can be coupled to the Euler solvers which
solve the boundary layer equations.
The solutiotis to each set of equations are strongly coupled and iterated until convergence of the two
solutions is reached.
3.1.2
Navier-Stokes
equations
modelling
smaller-scale
3.2
Errors
Inherent
in
CFD
Codes
LL_
post-processing
These are considered in turn and, in some
cases, questions are posed which the code developer or evaluator should seek to satisfactorily address. The types of approximation and
error described are a sample and in no way
could be regarded as a comprehensive list.
3.2.1
Grid
generation
3.2.2
Governing
equations
Physical
duced by
in their
physical
Choice
of
voverning
equations
As previously described, there is a choice between similar sets of governing equations depending on the level of modelling of viscous effects, rotational effects and entropy changes.
assumptions
state
Gas
The assumption of a perfect gas is typical but
may not be strictly valid throughout the flow
field.
Empirical
models of physics
Many physical models for complex phenomena
such as turbulence and combustion are based on
empirical formula, fitted to observed behavior.
transition
laver
Boundary
Transition between laminar and turbulent flow
states is another phenomenon for which the ex-
3.2.3
Boundary
and
initial
conditions
It is within this general category that experimenters can have the greatest influence and
provide the most help to the CFD validation
process.
It is reasonably accurate to say that
code developers will know the most likely
sources of inaccuracy and the relative magnitudes of resulting errors associated with many
aspects of code development. However, the impact of errors resulting from boundary conditions is often not fully recognized until code
validation or calibration begins in earnest.
Surface
definition
The surface geometry, usually available numerically at discrete points, must be interpolated
to the required surface grid definition.
A particular source of error can be due to incorrectly
locating the intersection of two surfaces, e.g. a
wing-body junction.
Surface slopes and curvatures are typically derived numerically and are
often the source of significant error,
Comnatihilitv
of
boundary
conditions
The conditions imposed at the far-field boundaries must be adequate in number, sufficient in
detail and compatible with the flow conditions,
Over-specification of boundary conditions, especially of the downstream boundary, can force
the code to respond in an unnatural manner,
When required boundary conditions are not
available or have not been measured adequately
for validation purposes, the code user may have
to make certain assumptions about the boundary conditions to be applied. Typical examples
include wind tunnel wall boundary layer char-
L.
-U-
initial
and
hound-
3.2.4
Solution
techniques
There are three major and fundamentally distinct aspects of solving the posed flow problem
which will each introduce errors and approximations into the solution: iterations to the final
mathematical solution, convergence efficiency
enhancement, and assessment of convergence.
Iteration
to
the
final mathematical
jjljtp
Most codes advance to the final solution by
time-marching and attention will be concerntrated on this approach.
The solution can only
accurately be advanced at a rate, equivalent to a
time step length, which will satisfy the relevant
stability criteria.
This is controlled by the
non-dimensional
Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy
(CFL) number. Many codes will have CFL as a
user specified parameter which therefore can
be a source of error. Time-marching is usually
achieved by either an integration scheme, typi-
12
Siu
S-
L.._
-i
4.0 EXPERIMENTS
VALI DATION
Following
a generally
FOR
CFD CODE
accepted
categorization,
4.2
Physical
Modelling
Experiment
first suggested by Bradley . there is a distinclion between various types of experiments, such
as:
flow physics experiments
physical modelling experiments
calibration experiments
validation experiments
4.1
-,,.,,,,m
Flow
,,,,.
Physics
Experiment
m immml
"to
_mmmmmmm
14
4.4
CFD
Validation
Experiment
may
need
to
measure
quantitative
the need
for good
future vali-
phenomenon and geometry at transonic conditions the flow field is signifivantly influenced
by Mach number.
After the dependent and independent variables
were identified for each geometry/speed regime
subset, the next task was to identify the necessary parameters to be measured in order to
document the physics of interest.
For instance.
one may be interested in vortex burst (the dependent variable) on a delta wing. We can
identify the primary variables (independent
variables) which influence the phenomenon a,
Reynolds number, Mach number, incidence and
leading-edge sweep and radius.
Within the
context of code evaluation, what parameters
would one need to measure to capture the
physics associated with the phenomenon?
For
this case we could identify wing surface pre,sures, off-body pressures and velocities, onand off-surface flow visualization and integrated forces and moments as those parameter,.
With these measurements available from an experiment, one could evaluate the results available from a computational method and draw
valid inferences relative to the prediction of
the flow phenomenon.
Finally, the necessary parameters have been
prioritized.
Priorities are assigned to the measurement
physical
A B C -
i6
REFERENCES
Philosoph,'.
I Bradley, R. G.: 'CFD Validation
Fluid Dynamics,
Validation of Computational
Volume I - Symposium Papers and Round Table
Discussion, AGARD-CP-437. Vol. 1. Dec. 1989,
pp. I-I - 1-6.
2 Marvin, J. G.: "Accuracy Requirements and
Bencthrmark Experiments for CFD Validation"Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics.
Volume I - Symposium Papers and Round Table
Discussion, AGARD-CP-437, Vol. 1, Dec. 1988,
pp.
2-
2-15.
13-1
13-I5.
".
17
~K~222 .~..
0 0 00
0Wlf
cooco
flf~
LL
4, 0
cfl-c
(n
CL
0
zCL
o0
CL
0
U,-cn.0C
3i0030
cc
0~
C.)~u.0
.0
.~
u))
30
00
.
0;
Fn
Fn
w0
-1
m_
CYM-
O(
-C
Cl,.
Uz
in cc
<0a
Cf
Q)
..
C/)
0c
im
LUU
C)D
U)U
0
co E
, E
=0 -
M,
3
r-
CD D-2-
'o
U)U
0.
z
LU
M,
0
E* >'
)Loc
o
0.0
:U)U)
'n
cl
a)0~
-o.
0~U
C: c00~
: .0i
E n
LU
In
~U
U)i
6
0
a
ILU
a,
.0
ow
- L
LL
-J
3W32(
0.
E~
I.0
LL
0~ 0)
cc
cc
Cc
~U)
I-9
ac0
<0L<
mo m
o<
m
<~o
Uf)
wU
__
-a
a)
A. w
U)
cn
~U)
..
.2
wj
oE
cc
~~~U
-.
0
0.~.L
-~
'o
M>'
Nm
:
Ia,)
aE ,
L. a.
C!'
'a
>0 ,n
.0
u 0
E o
ma
.
m00
w04
5
:
a,
C-C5c
rc
u 'ra
4 c
CU
,~
.oa,
Ul)
C)a
U)Q
.a ->. 0
co-JoU
U-
r_
c,
=.a
0~cU
>uI' cu
>
za
-0t
W
0
V.)a
3
&
ca 0 *C
,
:3
M.L
uc
cc
Ci)
.. j
-~
r-E-
m>
z n
4r
0E
EE
oE Q))
cm-
'Z
gE~
o
>-
,
>, a
"C
In,
c,
L
Z
Cn).
<~
0)
1)
-a)
LLJ~-
00
oo
05
a)
3.1
a),L
Z
-L
z
c
C1
a)
,Q) V a
0"
:5
)
a
ar-E'0a
U.
__ __
0L
r___
o.0
>) 4cm
W_
)I
Q : 0,
__._
03.
c)0
0:,
z
c<~3m~-W
zU
C)
cr
o0
<-.o
40
-c
00
'3'
a)) c
U-
w.
3n
5~~a
.Q)
-
cc=I
0.
3~
)0
'3
cr'3-0cE
4(3
Co
V0 0"
3
-)W
U) U),
w' >
'-
.2.: z
2 t
Qa
'3U)
4
C0.
Q..
LA-j~A
_0.
'3)
'33
EU'(n
x
1--
U
U.
C
"
't) C-
E
-~0
-U cn
EV
)(D
m.
0.
uicu(
zw
LU
m0
LL
-9
--
Cj
co
,a
>2
a v2o. -S ,
c D
0V
c)
Ofn '=n
(n m
C/ZI-L
M)
(A co
(3)
Ci)
cuC' 3
a cocu
ZtC
&(D
to
:3c
42
00
>0
LU
I.~
0.
03)
i
.o
C))E
CC~
-0_
__
z
W -
M<MM<<m~<w<Mmm-.<MMO<o
ccm<Mo<<
cnc
4o.
U)
M
d)
E,
E
0
CC
(a
uw(n
t- 4
*0
.= w0-E
rr- C
-0
=-
0'rn
co
Z3
0 0co
LC
-0
.O
2O~
CL00
, a, coE~
o0
~~~cnIn
LU
< U
)-
73) Ua
-0ca*
.r-c
>
cua
0o'
2
S0
1-
wl
(ID
r~E,E
C,
,0
oa) m
L
C
0
76
0.
u
-j-L
13
Z
z
0
U-
Er
>0ULLI
a)
D~
I--
CL
CC
0L
WC
_o
C;
0
C!
-0 E
E)CU
E.
>
c(
00
...
z~~~~0
-1 0
i)
w0
E 0
E~
20
MCL
<I
',
0c
0U
0V
w4.3:
C6
lo2
-o
222
00
40.
LUI
000
.:0
ml
C)
:
no
0
Cw
f0
0
2-0 10
:3.
U)
iC
M:
CC
r-
V)
00
v C
ca
a =j
0
'-
-C
70
Ca
8.,~
M0 c
'n
, = a)~~a
LU
a:
U) l )
5y
UJ
-c 2
cT
LU
76 S)
-0
ag
o5
E
c
a -o
)
.23:
>
~'
(0UL
Q)
Ca
0
QNa
. -3
)Sm
o>V
03)=>
.
S
CC
0MOE
000
Ca
~~~~
(D
0'
&
LL(
0.
c,,
t:
>LU
06
U
0)
5,
~(L,
c90M
o
4 C,
EE
a)
M~ C.a
a,V
.) C
(Df
cc
cca,
-0
r--
'u-0
J.a
(ta
=r
ccE0
U)O
)O~~U)Q
Lu
i
a
a001
~ ~a,
0
Ea
cy)
V'C
0
0)C
0D
0-
0.r
L0
r-
0-0
-0
'
aa)
Wcr
.-
w
w
V)
'
0(
LJW
cn.
.2
CC MW
F-
E~
1
'a, 0
~W
.2
aE~
0
a-=
'
aECi
*4
0
(h
CD0
zc'
CU~
(nQ)
(n ;a
=a
a).*=0=.a)
E>
z4
~~
a,
-='
a) C
an'
CC
u..
.COa
a'E
mI
....
cn
dl
Cl
cu
a.2a
Qca E
u)
C*>
) aE
>
.0
w it c
30
.2? o
a.
>-C
W<
w
0)
a))
U-
)
4i0.
0l
n -
'@ = w~
w0
E-Ea'
C.C
0.2 n'
0
c rj
E'
(D
C.E
= 'o
0o
zC
'D~ a)
0) a'
~a
a)
0
z
0a
4Z
-.
0) 2a
LI.
C>
CL
L.
0C
CL
0aa
24
LU>
0
-ZLw
,<o
0)
U))
0)
ca
Co
ui
0
0)
00
-:,'
CO
>
O,
LU
LL)
oE.2~
0)
In
2
ccc
'
E,
.O
=3~h
E~)Q7 ,~
C
c_-" C
-0
'
CO
00m)0
'02
0)Cf-C)
> 00
In
E o~ 0
awz
-DE2
aCa
J-3i
00
c)
'--
.2.
L)8
cc
C:
o ow a0)2
EL
0n
ifO)E
o~c
0a
. .
..
.0
. .
oI-~~~~c ~
~
~
70
0)L
JTCV
COcr
.a2o
aC)
.
a
U
<A
)0
aaco)~
o.
to'
)~0
0~m
CO
LUL
o)
0)0
0
.0L
3 (2
CL
COV)O)a0
CDO (D
Ci-
Cl55
:3 CO
)Q00
CC.0 0)COaC
.
0
Q)
Q)
0
C.)
.0
Lea
.-J
E~C00)~) o
w
C
.-
2 0 .g*
LoC
2.5
~zW
20
-c
c
E0
CL
0
L L . Q))
0 -0
C
>
C0r
EU
0
-0
co 0
*4)
C%0C c
0cE
CE!
>
>1
>
c 0
o)
C0
CE
L0.C
ac
83
Cl)
CL.
*
.0
U- z
cc
~
U.
(D
4)
(
30)
QCC
-.
E UJ
(Z
cc 0 3.
.o
0.
Z-
&C
.o .00
CC
m T0w5_
cc
cm(
-
aC
0)
4 2
cc
Ow
=. ca.a
E)
EU.
21 E)
Cr(
C.~
~~E
0c
cn
U)
Lw
>
CjLL
U)
co
. . .
C.
02>
26
z
2
LUU
cflco
U, 0
0
_
)-
00
uw
co,
cca
LW
(n
c)
CC
o
,: W
-o
0
a,
C a
~c" 0 E - E~
(D
n4-
Dc
)I
- P'
0)c
-2 Iz
.U
0
-
U.
>.C
0=m
U c
LL
.a
LELC
.)U)[
0
CL-
.3'
, 0
a,
oU)a
,
____________
C-
0n
m
<w
OW
>.
-i
ZC.
-z
v)
0
-
0oC=
)
00(
~-2
0rO
UJ
0.2a
0.
LL
,aaC
0
co
z-
uc
0 0
Fn-
3C
-Q0c
>
0o
r
a= c
co(Daa)
--
c8
L cn
.,fa>)
N
z0
0)
Ci)
a8 c, E~
cC
Ecc
-a)
-o
.i
vwS 0.9~o
5 E C 'r
-S Eou=
o? Z;3,
c,~
--
LL
-~
M-~
C)
(n (
C
a):
-6
=3
a.
LU
~ ~ ~. C.)
=-
r-
t u-
C.
.2
.0
27
<mmm~
0
o
V)
CQ)
2-
a5
2- Em
C aC ), n
>.
E)C
2
=ca
0 j
0Cl Ca
75
-a"V
0)
loo
U)m
U)
V)
0ca
. .~. . . . .
. .
.~.0
Q)a-oo
0
CL.
CC)'
0C
U.
0 0
cc
E -0
>0
o)C1
ccU)E
0C
00
-j
m
U c
U)
LU
.2
caO
)0
co
z
<
-L
U)
0
0-c
L
LLW
cr
Wn
C:
F-
4L
V0
t.
-;3
-0
E~
U,2
= 0
.2
onoL
>
M
0
%~
3~
.I.
U,
-o0
Q-g-
co
0v
UE
>
> 'a
0
L
00
0 nA'
0n
CO LL U. CDW
U,
0
3f
0 >
.0mf
0 0
-0
SO0
40<
um>
UE0~,
(fUC
0
CL
'0
wU,
o
U31(
=
3u
g0'
-0
U)
-
CZth0
V~
00
gon
LMC
UE
-0>
00
03
o :3
LU
-
wn
.0
-) U
oS
a)
-0
CY E
03
(DU
00'D
CrE-
-Uo0
>.Uac
+-
.w .0.20(U,
I.-
.0
L.U
.8
=_
CL)
x
29
mio<(4~
<<o
m
<<<oc
o< <<
o<
co
LLW
c.)
0))
CO
Cl)
Co
a.I oo8
(n
UCo(D
fl~~~~a
ca
)0U
ccU>.
CODE
-0
<-C
U)m
*
w-
Ca
ca
>
3:
a~
O)E
0~
_)C
CO
cU
a)Z:
) Co~ N
(D
>OC ,
>
cU
'-
)(n
Q)
N a)ECc
2~O~
0
:3
aC
Ea
CL
02
cu)Cm-
wEC
wt
).2
0
C.
En
(n
)C
)c
~'
.
m >
Z,)0
Clo
Cln
C.)
cc
a)
0.
I-
a)C.)
m
-
LL
0,
2.-.
L)
E0 -
0 0
M
Uc
2
30)
>
C)
o.
CO
a)
f-E t2co
0=C
CO
a
a)
0,
.0C
-0
( E a)- EB~
~ ~
U.
oU
P:0
rc
CrC
zz
-
-10
0LU
CL
5
CU
a)
COf
Os
Ca) C
CLL.
CLC)
,-CC
t
0.
__
__
m_
__
__
_)C
zIL.) >.
<<<<z
cc
:-n
ct)
mC)
m
<
00
ED
--
M~
uccCU
00
W~L
-U
V 2op~ -E
)
0
Eu
>.
a*
*)a
0
"
E
CL)
OEm
0E
0~) m
Q) , V) 4)aC
)aN Q)U))a,
S
a,
1)
c" r-
0.6
Va)
SE
m~~~a
4
&
U
0)27
)
- a)
ww
<
L C
)-,
> 8.* -
aE
a-
-0
c
a,
a)
CU Q
a,
>
C/)
.--
___
>
U) 0
E-- a~a
LLa:
>
0-5
a,
n
aMw
0a
> Qo
200
LL
EI)
U-. o
a,0
- ~'
( -
m Z
M (n
UL
a,
ca,
a,
Vg
a
o0
'LJ
(nW
LUco-
..
..
.0
C0
32:-
00
cl
U)a
a,
EE
.10
CD'
ma
I
J~7
0-0
oW0
VU
orac
Q) M.)
a)M
.0
LL
L
C6V
C0
02
aca
.
-U cc
m
>
LL
0
taE
0 cz7
a~,.0
,C
0..
LL
0,0O
3==
31
z
wJ .
00
0W
(I)
__
-)Q)G
LU
O
in
U) Xo
~cu
nC
r
. a)
.'r
w~
CC
(v .T
>UI40
-
'
u
)->>--
-Ci 0
(u
EUC , D1c
C
0
C
T)
:fl
.~C
c_
C
a
n'
(C:
E -
"
CD >
w>0c
u
L
ca7
Z:
L.U
a>
a)
C-1 =C cE
acc'aQ
CL o~ra
oi
ca 0CE
WCa
cu~
CC
a))0
0.
-(
cC
'
m*o T
co ..
w
CE
a
0C
-aCV
E2
'u .C
L"
CE
-a
-0a6 .=
a)
CCa
a>
0)
0C):>-0
*C)
QC
C)
0rwa,
wU
Lu
--(n
L E(D
LU
>a
,a
a
V)
m) =o=-
= z
40
c
0
cn
U)
~C
fa
> 2w
Q-~0
cn
00
2.
>>
>. -a~
=~a
~0aff0
Cw
:3:3:,
a) a
0L
cac
cc
p
0j
LU
aJ
a>
cc
u0
caw
m
cZ
(D)C
CL0
Z C/
Cl)
T 00
co
.2
U)
-u
U)
CLC
ci)
E2
Cc
o m
o0
0
cm.
.
<<
om
<al
<<Om
<cn<m
<0
<wO
cnccr
0
C:
z
w-o-CCC
.0
-0
r4 ox
o~w0
cc
L3
"-o
-8o
0'
D
0
0
co
"L_.o0
0CC
c0.0 00
u0
)
4 0
'
,.1C
0 0.I
0_
.-
0
0.
,,
,,,
S2?.
303,
o)
0.2
-
.0
cL
) L
.
o. ~..
,-,
w
o:
'0
0N 'j0)
Z5* 2
3" E "o
3
0
::"
,c
LL
..
I.,-,
!2 z
C
.00
,'-
0U
cc .2
mc U) - [L
C--
co~L
C- w r- o o
o
-.
cn
)- )
CL
(n
10 C
0
WU
O U.
0.
Cf)
,3a
<
00
ccEC
cc
U, 0
a)S
-)
-D
>
Fr in
ac.
a
0
a)30
)3o0
0,
- ) 0
0
..
030
<)
-L o
'> . L4 T
DL
~~~a
.0
+>Cl
,o o
C-
oc .10
---0
a)c
cc f
N CO
.0 0
o~
030
U,
Q)~ 2
a)
'Z
c+0
Cc0Q
CDo
QCoQ
M S a.
CcME01
cc
. . .0.28......
.. .
.
z
CS
,.--.
cc 5E
CCw
.2 0
cC
0
>)C
V
0
COL
..
0-.L0L
.
C:0
0
.
. 3:
W
0
0
CHAPTER 3
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXPERIMIENTS FOR CE!) VALID)ATION
b.%
P' R Ashill BDRA. Bedlord. UK).
D) Browun iformerly of JAR. Ottawa, Canada).
J Maylnert kESTEC. H~olland).
M flnorato Plolitecitico di Torinio. Italy)
V Schmitt iON;FRA. France)
and F Stanewsky (DLR. Germtan%)
1.0
1INTRODItUTION'
3
Data accuracy. Thirs aspect has been addressed by
A-GARI) Working Geroup 15 'Witnd Tunnel D~ata Quality .
Ilie studies by this Grioup hav e showit that the most seriums
Stource itt uncertainty% is bias i r systematic errors fitt
curreectitns fire exatnple. liir wind-tunnel a-all constraint arid
------------ ----------- _-----------
2.0
DEFINITION
OF
FI.OWl FIFEL)
BOUND)ARY CONDITioN's
2.1
tot
AND)
2.1.1
II-ight
36
the model installed. Such reference conditions are, tor
instance, the total pressure and temperature in the settling
chamber, the pressure in the plenum chamber and/or the
static pressure at a tunnel wall position upstream of and
undisturbed by the model*.
These pressures and
temperatures will be used to predict the (average) free-stream
parameters. Mach number. Reynolds number, static pressure
Uriwash
The empty-tunnel calihration should also include the
determination of the test section wall pressure distributions
for both. conventional and adaptive-wall wind tunnels. This
enables irregularities in the distributions to be detected. "c.
due to orifice damage. and allows the assessment of the
extent and magnitude of the upstreanm influence of the support
structure and/or the wake-rake. These disturbances must be
accounted for in the actual model tests by correcting the
measured wall pressures accordingly.
Free-stream parameter accuracy requirements
The accuracy w ilt
which characteristic
free-stream
parameters must be determined is based on the desired
accuracy in drag prediction of AC,, = 0.00)1. Accordi::g to
Ref 1. these accuracies are:
Stagnation pressure
Ap, = 0.0005p,
Stagnation temperature
AT, = 0.005T,
Mach number
AM
AQ < 0.1,
< 0.03'
chord
= 0.(01
Act
0.0)1,
Temrperature
AT
I K (Ref I)
AT, < 0.25K (Ref 2)
Total pressure
Ap, < 0.005p,
Further requirements
37
studies, the variation in total presure should not exceed
Ap, = 0.uu2p,. Alt omer requiremuent remain me same,
Flow unsteadiness
Unsteadiness of the oncoming flow may affect the flow
development on the model in three distinct ways: i) via the
influence on the boundary layer transition location. ii) by
affecting the development of a turbulent boundary layer and
iii) as a driving force for an overall unsteadiness of the flow
about the model, causing, for instance, shock oscillations and
variations in aerofoil or wing trailing edge conditions.
For turbulence levels of present-day wind tunnels,
free-stream unsteadiness is generally not a critical parameter
when tests are conducted with fixed transition and sufficient
run time is provided, ic 0.5 sec for static force and moment
measurements and I sec for static pressure tests' 1. However,
unsteadiness becomes important for tests with free transition
or when specific tests, such as laminar flow control (LFCI
measurements, unsteady measurements (buffet tests) or
measurements of turbulent boundary layers, are being
conducted. These investigations will determine the wiid
tunnel flow quality i-!quirements.
Turbulent boundary
transition)
layer
measurements
(with
fixed
< 0.1%
< 0.5K
< 0.5K
-m
At the outflow plane CFD methods need the quantity u 2a'(- - I ( if the flow is subsonic and no information if the
flom is supersonic. For subsonic 'free-air' flows in two
dimensions. CFD users frequently prefer to specify static
pressure at the outflow boundary, because static pressure
tends to its undisturbed value far downstream, whereas the
quantity u - 2a/(y - 1) does not downstream of a shock. In
three-dimensional flows, static pressure does not tend to its
undisturbed value far downstream owing to the presence of
a trailing-vortex sheet. Solutions for such flows obtained in
this way are therefore incompatible with the outflow
boundary conditions, but the effect on the solution in the near
field may not be serious if the outflow plane is sufficiently
far downstream of the test article. By the same argument, it
may he sufficient to supply only a measurement of static
pressure at a wall orifice near the outflow planes. However,
for porous-wall wind tunnels, this measurement cannot be
used since the plenum air (at a different stagnation pressure)
mixes with the air in the main flow, thereby affecting the
static pressure far downstream,
Wall conditions
iL,.
40
values of Reynolds number encountered in many wind
tunnels and explain why boundary-layer transition is
generally "fixed" in wind-tunnel tests. An undesirable effect
of boundary-layer trips placed near the leading edge of wings
is an excess thickening of the boundary layer at the trailing
edge. However, for CFD validation, this is preferable to the
uncontrolled and sometimes unrepeatable boundary-layer state
arising from free transition. The exception to this rule is
where transition occurs in a narrow region close to the
leading edge, for example, at high Reynolds number or
following the reattachment of a laminar short bubble. Where
this is the case. evidence should be presented showing the
position and streamwise extent of transition,
The position of any attachment and separation lines should be
defined, and. if possible, a description of the flow topology
should be presented (see eg Ref 9).
2.4 Flowfield
flow vector and
The precise definition of a flowfield requires
scalar quantities to be determined at a series of points.
However. measurement, usingconventionalprobetechniques.
is necessarily an average over a zone of non-zero size. The
difference between this average and the corresponding point
value will depend on spatial variations of the flow quantities
in the region of the point. Furthermore. the measuring device
may affect the flow being measured, displacing the
streamlines locally. Thus, depending on the flow. it may he
necessary to correct the data for non-zero probe or hole-size
Where possible. flow
effects (see Section 3.4.4).
visualisations or alternative measurement techniques should
be used to determin, ".hethcr or not the measurement device
has a serious effect on the flow.
3.1
Data Repeatability
_...._
41
Model build
Wind tunnel
ii)
Support interference.
Boundary-layer state
L+
... . l,
42
iii)
and
iv)
ii)
Lack of reliable information about the inflow and
outflow conditions .
iii)
Errors in the streamwise component of velocity
perturbation caused by using the linear version of Bernoulli's
equation.
iv)
Effect of the model and the associated images
beyond the wind-tunnel walls on the reference pressure
tapping far upstream which will cause errors in the
corrections of methods that are not 'autocorrective" in
nature.
Where possible, checks should be made using analytical
methods to evaluate the errors arising from these sources,
Regarding the inflow and outflow conditions (ii). the
uncertainties from this source wifl depend on the length of
working section relatise to working section height or width,
becoming increasingly inmportant as working-section length
decreases. The method used for inferring these conditions
should be described. For two-dimensional flows, it is not
necessary to use the linearised form of Bernoulli's equation
and therefore the errors from this approximation, referred to
in iii). can readily be deterrired. On the other hand, the
43
44
would be useful in assessing the value of the half-model
technique fur providing data suitable for CFD validation,
Where this has not been done. the technique may.
nevertheless, be useful in assessing a code's ability to model
the effects on the flow of changes in wing shape or of Mach
number and Reynolds number. Details should be provided of
the boundary-layer state on the sidewall in the empty tunnel.
45
data important. In the following, the implications for the
measurement of pressures and overall forces are considered,
(a) Surface pressure measurements
Traditionally, steady measurements of model surface pressure
have been obtained by means of small-diameter orifices (0.2
-0.5mm) connected by small-bore tubing to pressure sensors,
The length of the tubing may vary enormously (from about
0.5m for two-dimensional aerotoil models to more than 20ni
for sting-mounted models in a large working section). The
damping characteristics of the connecting tubing may have a
pronounced effect in determining the steady pressure, and, in
some cases, the effects of tubing connection will introduce
measurement uncertainties that are unacceptable for code
validation.
It is generally true that the closer the transducer to the
measurement orifice, the more accurate the measurement.
However. it is worth pointing out that. when absolute
transducers are used. periodic re-calibration is necessary
which may cause problems. This difficulty may be overcome
by the use of differential transducers which may be calibrated
in situ by the use of a reference or calibration pressure
applied to one side of the transducer,
(b) Field pressure measurements
Field pressure measurements have grown in iniportance with
the need to validate field predictions by CFD methods.
Similar comments to those for surface pressure measurements
apply about the need for instruments of high response to
allow the fullest possible scope for electronic filtering. This
implies that pressure transducers should be mounted as close
as possible to the sensing head. Spurious unsteady signals due
to probe vibration should be avoided by the use of
sufficiently stiff supports. Here a compromise has to be
fiiund between the need for data that is sufficiently steady and
tor small corrections for probe interference,
Experimenters should give details of the type of pressure
system used, providing details of any filtering and averaging
as well as any evidence of unsteady-flow effects that may not
he represented properly in the measurements.
(c) Force measurement
Unwanted dynamic response from models. support systems
and wind-tunnel balances may be avoided by designing each
system so that it is as stiff as possible. The system should be
such as to ensure that the frequency response is well removed
from those of any expected aerodynamic excitation. Since all
eventualities cannot be foreseen, methods for damping
vibrations may have to be considered'.
Most wind-tunnel balance systems are based on strain gauges,
usually resistive, and steady-state readings are obtained by
applying low-pass filtering to the output prior to digitisation.
There are some differences of opinion between various test
centres as to the cut-off frequency to be employed but these
are invariably well below die frequencies of stream pitch and
yaw angle oscillations,
t.
L..
4h"
tor
'*IThe
research".
ACKNOWLEDGE.MENTS
tURA.
REFERENCES
-itnjectioin method
itt
4'7
37
Archambaud. J.P
Michoniieau. J F- Micitosi. A.
of test sect~on side wall eftects ont 21)'terotfoik
Experimental and nunmerical tnvesttnriin'n Paper 26 AGARI)
F-UP Sympoisium. fdiussels. Oct 1993
"Analysis
38
26 A~hill. P R. arid Keating. R. I'. A. "Calculation of tunnel
wall interterence from wall-pressure measurements".
wind tunnels".
AGARD-CP-333. Pt' 7.1 , 7.7. May 1982
Redeker. C., Mueller. R_. Ashal. 1' R.. ' Isettair. '
Schmitt. V. "*Experimtents ott the t)[V IR -1:4 tint N ids
conufiguratiton tin evei .' Europeani win d tutliteis
AGARD-CP-429. pp 2.1 -2,15. Jul 1988
43
'ijn
44
Franikltin. R. 1. atid Wallace. Lanie, MI Ah-uttii
measuirenents if staltic-hlrl c riir a ft: flush i riiidui~cr,
J. Fluid Mechi. Votl 4. Part 1. 4 Jur 07"i. pp 3;.4IS
32 Barniwell.
R. W.
"Sintilarits
rule trir sidewall
boundars -laver effect in isso-dineteional wind tunnels".
AIAA Jiturnal. Vol.18. Nit. 9. Sept 1980. pp I1149-I1151.
33 Sewsall.
William
G.
"The effects tif sidewall
biiunsajry-layer effect ti twii-dmensional subsonint anid
transoinic wind tuntiels"'.
AlAA Journial, Viil 20.
Nit.
9, Septentber
1982.
pp 12-53-1256
34
Murthv. A. V. "A sitmplified Itiurwall tnterference
assessnment prticedure for airfoiil data obtained in the Lattgley
(3.3-Meter transonic crytigenic tunnel".
NASA CR-4042. Jatt. 1987.
35 Ashill. P. R. "Effects ofi idewall boiundary layers tin
aerofoil,; miounted from sidewalls, if wind tunnels experimental evidence and developments if theitry"*.
RAF Technical Report 83065 1983.
50
Pankhurst. R.C. and Grriirs. N. "Ixpeirinteitil
methods". Chapter X oif "Lamittar BoundarN layers".
edited by I.- Rowsnhead Oxford. Clarendoin Press 1963
. -
4S
Control volume
Outflow plane
Model position
Inflow plane
rVgi
002
\\
",34
Murthy
\
N
Ashill
6
Model Aspect Rotio
rig.2
=L
49
f0
0.02
M = 0.6,
CAST 7 aerofoil
Transonic - flow
M = 0.71, a
2"
0.01M-7
0.6
0
2
Fig.3
number by a
transonic -
theory, 26*/b
= 0 013
C02
Transonic
""D
,
.
AM
\
.\
0.0
a oerofoid
flow theory, Ref 36, 8oeing A4
Aoproximote theories
Fig 4
Ref 35
Ref34
CHAPTER 4
INTRODUCTION TO THE DATA
2.0
1.0
"generic
Clearly,
not
in a
SUMMARY
"CFD VALIDATION
USING AGARD FDP SELECTED
TEST CASES"
E SELECTION
C CONSULT THE DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRES
T
(VOL It)
included in this
the
application
of
the
data,
the
reader
is
N
E
V
CASE ORIGINATOR FOR DATA
A
L COMMUNICATE YOUR EXPERIENCES WITH THE TEST
U CASE ORIGINATOR
A
T COMMUNICATE YOUR EXPERIENCES WITH THE
I
AGARD FDPTES-COMMITTEE
0
N POSSIBLE FOLLOW-UP FROM AGARD
WG 14
FINAL
TEST
CASES
SUBSONIC
TRANSONIC
A _2-D
6
A-2 A-6
A-I A
" -3 , A 4
A-5 A
A-10
Airfoils
A-9. A- 13
A-Il A-'1
AB-B-3. B-4
B-2.B-B
B-5, B-6
B2
C-6
C-IC-5C 6
D-2 D-3
D-I D-4
D5-.1)-5
SUPERSONIC
ompicx
Con figoraiio*s
E-6. E-7
- E-4. E-8
E-3.
E-9
E-8
t"5
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARIES OF THE TEST CASES
by
Martin Burt
British Aerospace (Defence) Ltd
Preston, Lancashire. England
The very large number of test case reports made available and the considerable depth of information
that each contains can make the search for the most appropriate test cases extremely difficult
Therefore, to make the information in Volume 2 more accessible, a brief summary of each lest case
report has been made. Together, these are intended to form a detailed index.
Each test case summary that follows is to a standard format. For ease of use, this is spread over two
facing pages with information grouped under the headings
*
CASE NUMBER
tereference number for the test case used throughout this report
TITLE
L"-7
reasons why this dataset has particular appeal for CFD code validation
*
NOTES OF CAUTION
ifrmation that should also be considered prior to the choice ot a test case
SUITABILITY FOR CFD CODE VALIDATION
teways in which the authors consider tedataset can be most appropriately used for
validation purposes
*
the dominant physical mechanisms / phenomena that are demonstrated by this test case
*
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
digram of the model sometimes also illustrating flow, tunnel or support information
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
FLOWS MEASURED
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
the model and tunnel conditions for which data are presented. with information on the types
of measurements taken
such as references in open literature previous use of model and data. details of the wind
tunnel in which the model has been tested
56
CASE NUMBER
A-1
TITLE
2-D AEROFOIL (VA2-1) TESTS INCLUDING SIDE WALL BOUNDARY LAYER MEASUREMENTS.
AUTHORS
W BARTELHEIMER, KH HORSTMANN,
W PUFFERT-MEISSNER
ORGANISATION
DLR BRAUNSCHWEIG.
GERMANY
NOTE OF CAUTION
1.
The temperature variation during a run is rather large so that adiabatic conditions are not reached
57
CASE NUMBER
A-1
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
-o
- -- - -- -
-- -- -
- --.-..
-.
--
..-
..-
:--
-:---T
:::
---
ONSIDE .1ALL
LAYER ,EASUREF4E.-TS
LOCTIT OF BOW3DARY
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The aerofoil has a 13% thick, supercritical section, with
200 mm
Chord
=
=
340 mm
Span
FLOWS MEASURED
Data are available for the following three conditions
=
073
Mach number
6 0 x 106
=
Reynolds number
=
0 0. 1 5, 3 0'
Incidence
At all three conditions. the following have been measured
Aerofoil static surface pressures at
53 chordwise locations - 31 upper surface taps. 22 lower surface taps
8 spanwise locations at 1 5' incidence (06 2.9. 5,9. 11 8. 25.5. 41 2. 50 0. 58 8% tunnel width. from
the side wall)
5 spanwise locations at 0.0 and 3(0' incidence (2 9, 59. 11 8. 58 8Pl tunnel width, from the side
wall)
Tunnel wall pressures (centre-line of top and bottom walls. 23 taps each)
Tunnel boundary layer (total pressure) profiles at 13 side wall locations
i Surface oil flow visualisation
There was no measurement of model surface boundary layer data.
F-
. _ __
_ _.....
....
58
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHOR
I R M MOIR
ORGANISATION
A-2
DRA FARNBOROUGH, UK
K
.
L
..... .f
59
CASE NUMBER
A-2
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
There are three different flap arrangements attached to a common main section and leading edge slat (at
250 droop). namely
Flap camber of 20'
Single-slotted
Overall flap camber of 40
Double-slotted
Triple-slotted
Overall flap camber of 67 5'
The overall configuration has dimensions
0.7635 m (retracted)
Chord
=
2.743 m
Span
=
There is a considerable number of surface pressure holes, covering all sides of each element
FLOWS MEASURED
The conditions for the eight cases available are
Flap typ
Velocity
Single
Single
Double
Double
Double
Triple
Triple
Triple
67.0
670
549
54.9
549
54 9
549
549
m/s
m/s
m/s
m/s
m/s
m/s
m/s
m/s
Reynolds No
3 52
3 52
2.88
2.88
288
2.88
2 88
2 88
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
106
101
106
106
106
106
10
101
Incidence
40
200
3o
170
190
30
15o
170
[...
60
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHOR
P R ASHILL
ORGANISAT/ON
A-3
DRA, BEDFORD, UK
61
CASE NUMBER
A-3
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
RAE Section
-Cp
5225
522 9
o'Cn v e x '
50
X/I
/
0 .O
/ c
, XS
0.6
0.5
-Cp 0.x/C
5236
Chord
0-C635
m
0.6
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
5223 edges fitted onto a common aeroloil front end Ileading edge to
There are fourTwo-ant
different8m/
trailing
651. chord)
The model size is
Chord
=
08635 m
Span
=
2 438 m
There are 50 centreline and 11 off-centre pressure holes on the model.
FLOWS MEASURED
The nominal conditions, for which model surface and wake traverse pressures have been measured are
Aerofoil
Mach No
5225
5225
5225
5230
5236
5234
0600
0,735
0735
0735
0735
0735
Reynolds No
20.0 x
60x
200x
60x
60 x
60 x
106
106
101
101
106
10
Lift Coefficient
0433
0 403(-). 0659
0407. 0640
0443, 0706
0410
0434
Mean-flow boundary layer measurements were also recorded at this single condition
velocity profiles at 4 lower surface locations
skin friction (13 locations on the upper surface, 11 on the lower surface)
static and total pressures at 99% chord (off both surfaces)
62
CASE NUMBER
A-4
TITLE
AUTHORS
D J JONES, Y NISHIMURA
ORGANISATION
61
CASE NUMBER
A-4
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
'
FR IL
81
0.3
0.2
o'.A
-.
0.6
.7
o0.8
0.9
The Boeing A4 Airfoil Showing the Nominal Positions of Pres.. ,re Orifices
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The model has the following dimensions
0 305 m
Chord
Span
1 358 m (between splitter plates)
Nose radius
1 671. chord
Surface pressures are measured through 70 holes at a - ation close to the model centrelne
force coefficient available through downstream wake rake measurem-nts
with drag
FLOWS MEASURED
A tutal of 96 flow cases are provided for several C in the range -0 1 to 0 7 at each of 10 Mach numbers
(in the range 060 to 081) 13 premium cases of interest have been identified by the authors namely
Mach Number
=
=
=
=
=
=
060
070
0 72
074
0 76
0 77
078
S0
79
080
0 81
=
=
=
-0024
0330.0709
0724
0736
0 734
0 733
0717
0 717
0661 0696
0524, 0588
64
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHORS
V D CHIN, C J DOMINIK,
F T LYNCH, D L RODRIGUEZ
ORGANISATION
A-5
and
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
1
Tne airfoil designation is McDonnell Douglas DLBA032
2
The test case is published in MDC k4752 January 1990'
3
The model has been tested in the 0 38m x 1 5m 2-D High Reynolds Number Test Facility at IAR Ottawa
The test section has porous top and bottom walls, with 0 5% to 6%'0 porosity. and porous sidewalls to
allow boundary layer bleed
65
CASE NUMBER
A-S
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
Pressure Orifice
CONFIGURATION DET41LS
Te su;:ercrteal section has a simple aileron that smoothly fits into thle mainplane beomitrv (,ith asri
gap of 0 254mmf) The aileron can be set to fixed deflectionts of
-2 -5'
(trailing edge uip)
12 3 '5'
trailing edge down.
7he overall configuration has dimensions
Chord
0 254 m
Span
0381 mn
0
Hinrje-[ne
75", chord
There are 80 surtace Pressure holes mainly arranged on the aileron and the range ot nositions ofrLt
k~ppe~r surtace snock
FLOWS ME ASURED
269 settarate cages nave tht-n testod Whose conditions are olven by
Mach, number
r0717
F, 717
0 717
0 747
Reynolds No
90
1O
'0
15QU
2-)0i 106
15 0 x106
Aileron deflection
_l'-
0 2 34
-5 -2 0 1 2 3 4 5
02 34 5
-5 -2 0 123 45
with a sweep of uip to 12 incide'nres rn tnt range -0 5 to 3 0' in increments of order IJ2!5 )for ea( n ot the
above Those case,, highi~ghted by !ne 'igures in the main report are consi dered to make a good nubset
of data for a mirnpr validation
Surface Pressures force and pitching moment coefficients (balance and integrated pressures) and drag
0rce iwake rake) are available for all 259 cases
There are no measurements in the model surtace boundary layer
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHORS
P GUNTERMANN, G DIErZ
ORGAN/SATION
A-6
RWTH-AACHEN, GERMANY
67
CASE NUMBER
A-6
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
NLF(1)-0416
24
x
Ix
.x
+,~
Pressure taps
Ix
Sx * x
\ upper-side
x
=
/lower-side
+
4
+
+
+
+-
=
=
200 mm
400 mm
There are 32 pressure taps on the upper surface and 18 on the lower surface
on the upper surface equally spaced from 10 5%' to 68% chord
FLOWS MEASURED
Data are available for the following 34 test case conditions
Mach number
018 030 040 050 060
030
040
050
050
050
where
a
b
c =
d
e
Incidencej
00
-30 (10) 50
-30 (10) 50
-30 '1 0) 5 0
00
00
Measurements taken
ac
a de
a b
ade
a bc.d.e
a.b c d e
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Fixed
airfoil surface pressures tunnel top and bottom wall pressures drag force
upper surface boundary layer and wake regions via pressure probes. LDA and Hot Wire
flow-field visualisation above airfoil via colour schheren and differential interferometrv
upper surface transition location via multi-sensor hot-film
upper surface flo'A visuahisation via liquid crystals oil
Reynolds number varies from 0 8 x 106 (at Mach 0 18) to 2 3 x 106 (at Mach 0 6)
I______
Transition state
68
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHORS
L H J ABSIL,
D M PASSCHIER
ORGANISATION
A-7
69
CASE NUMBER
A-7
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
.2
Y/c
-.2
....
. .
. .
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The dimensions of the 14% thick model are
0.600 m
=
Chord
Span
1 250 m
010
Velocity
Incidence
Reynolds No
35 0 m/s
40
1 47 x 106
In addition to surface pressure measurements, the following boundary layer and wake data are available
Upper surface
Lower surface
Wake
70
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHOR
S 0 T H HAN
ORGANISATION
A-8
-'4
The
71
CASE NUMBER
A-8
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
2155
Main
prsur1,cin
resuMod
secitonstueto
el
LLi
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
Thie diimensions ot the model are
Chord
0 500 m
Span
2 000 m
Steady surface pressure is measured at 67 holes along the model centre-lIne with 36 along ine upper
surface and 31 along the lower surface Transducers in the nose region have a wider range than ttose
funther aft
FLOWSiMEASURED
Data are available for 170 test conditions There are 104 tow-speed cases with natural transition largely
to determine Reynolds number effects at high values of C_
Mach No
1)12
0320
F020
020
030
Reynolds No
4 50sxi0
2 85 x101
4 50 x101
600 a 101
4 50 x101
C,
27 values
18 values
20 values
17 values
22 values
Likewise there are 67 nigh-speed cases with tixed transition at 2 Reynolds numbers Of 1hese 45 gl.e(
sweeps of C for constant Mach number and 30 give sweeps of Mach numb
for constant C.. (8 casey' a-.-'
com mon)
Mach No
C
-
060
060
0 745
0 745
Reynolds No
0)30
046
0 30
045
Reynoids No
3 60 a 101
12 50 x103 60 x 101
6
12 50 x10
3 60 a 101 Mach No
3 60 x 101
12 50 a 101
12 50 x 101
For each case surface static wake rake and tunnel wall pressures are available
positioned 400mm behind the model and has 79 pilot and 2 static pressure probes
No model boundary layer data have been measured
15 values
14
tvalues
9-values
7Vyalues
5
7
8
7
values
values
values
values
The wake rake is
72
CASE NUMBER
A-9
TITLE
LOW-SPEED SURFACE PRESSURE AND BOUNDARY LAYER MEASUREMENT DATA FOR THE
NLR 7301 AIRFOIL SECTION WITH TRAILING EDGE FLAP.
AUTHORS
ORGANISATION
NLR, NETHERLANDS
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
1
The test case has been previously used in GARTEUR TP-013
2
The model has been tested in the two wind tunnels, namely
the 3m x 2m LST tunnel at NLR Amsterdam
the 3m x 2 25m LST tunnel at NLR Noordoostpolder
73
CASE NUMBER
A-9
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
C1 1A 22A (
Airfoil and /lapsection with the positions of static-pressureholes and boundarylayer measuring stations
FLOWS MEASURED
Data are available for a single incidence traverse at the following conditions
0 185
=
Mach number
2 51 x 106
=
Reynolds number
0 to 16' in 1 increments
=
Incidences
20'
=
Flap setting
At all conditions the following have been measured
Wing static surface pressures at 52 chordwise locations - 26 upper surface 26 lower surface taps
Flap static surface pressures at 26 chordwrse locations - 13 upper surface 13 lower surface taps
Surface oil flow visualisation
Moreover at nominal incidences of 6 10 and 131 more in-depth measurements have been made
Wing boundary layer and wake mean velocities at 16 stations
Turbulent stresses at 5 stations in the wing wake
Skin friction (through three different methods)
Drag force via wake rake
namely
'p
74
CASE NUMBER
A-10
TITLE
DATA FROM THE GARTEUR (AD) ACTION GROUP 02 - AIRFOIL CAST7JDOA1 EXPERIMENTS,
AUTHORS
A MIGNOSI, J P ARCHAMBAUD
E STANEWSKY
ORGANISATION
ONERAICERT, FRANCE
DLR GOTrINGEN, GERMANY
NOTES OF CAUTION
None
I__
CASE NUMBER
A-1O
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
"---:--
Uppe swface
x Loec surfae
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The aerofoil has a 11 9% thick supercritical section with
Chord
=
200 mm
Span
=
400 mm
There is a total of 103 pressure taps arranged close to the model centre-line
These are evenly split
between upper and lower surfaces and are more densely situated close to the leading edge
FLOWS MEASURED
Data are available at 13 flow conditions, comprising incidences sweep at three Mach numbers and a Mach
number sweep at a constant incidence The nominal conditions are
Mach number
Mach number
=
-
Mach number
Incidence
060
0 70
Incidence
incidence
0 1 30
0 1 30
0 75
Incidence
-1 0. 1
Mach number
077 078
76
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHORS
A M RODDE, J P ARCHAMBAUD
ORGANISATION
A-11
7"7
CASE NUMBER
A-11
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
2 30
The aerofoil has a 1 . o thick supercritical section
=
150 mm
Chord
390 mm
=
Span
with
There is a total of 56 pressure taps arranged close to the model centre-lhne. with 37 on the upper surface
and 19 on the lower surface
FLOWS MEASURED
Data are available at a single Mach number for ranges of both incidence and Reynolds number
Incidence
Mach No
1 15
30
115 20 30
115 20
073
073
0173
073
where
a
b
c
=
=
Reynolds No
Measurements
3. 6 11 15 20 x 101
6
3.6 11 15x 10
3x 10
3 x 101
a.b
ab
abc
a bd
7s
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHORS
G G MATEER, L A HAND,
H L SEEGMILLER and
J SZODRUCH
ORG-NISsTIONS
A-12
of
of data
Surface pressures force and pitcning moment coefficients (balance and integratea oressures,
force twake rake) are available for all 269 cases
and drag
CASE NUMBER
XENEv4.
SIDE VIEW
.RRANGEMENT
ILFlow
C3mF.GUR4*TION DETaiLS
-t. j-rfo.i h as j ! x : 'hc k
Chord
20filL,
v: a)
,an
LiJ
11a
S-sva"
5
Sean
"),
3cC
rd a mons, o,,s oa
aower surfaLe
eper surface
upflr LJrltaL'
S0WS MEASURED
Xi'>
i'L
av,:l lal
"
7 ,:,
.,
or Il: :
) '.('I
'
~ nI flee
9
i'.'
t
iSCS
pa-p,,ulc
,mcc
'1- ill
I') 5
,I
itflfolf
~
"11'rLL'
,vao
rv,,'p,
it~~
',
'O f'''"%
s
:F!
,-it"1 ,!
iv
..
"
iU
C1 if
'i
l 7
lh
o
nd 'o'*.rC'
iaver
:'''
"
A-12
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHOR
G W BRUNE
ORGANISATION
A-13
Thrr lest
CASE NUMBER
A.13
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The airfoil has a 1-13% thi~ck section in the nominal flaps retracted'
configuration and has dimensions
Chord
0 6096 mn
Span
=
1 524 m
The three flaps have fixed settings (gaps and overlapsi with
angles relative to the main airfoil chord of
Leading edge flap
-~57
2'
Main flap
12 6'
Aft flap
14 9'
There are 77 surface pressure holes on the complete model,
comprising
- 19 on the leading edge flap
-32
on the main element
- 5 on the main flap
- 1 en the aft flap
FLOWS MAEASURED
Data -are-a~vailatble for a wide range of (incidence at Mach 1311.
and a cnoraai Reynoids numiber of 1 55
',cdence
iMeasurements
10
li2
a tc
abI
14
j 0
16 18 19 21J1
21 22 23 24
.vtnere
a
b
ab
abp
airfoil lift force and pitching moment fbalancel drag force fwake
rake)
urface pressures
houndary layer mean velocity profiles 56traverses on main element
1 or main flapi
boundary layer turbuience data
812
CASE NUMBER
B-1
TITLE
MEASUREMENTS OF THE FLOW OVER A LOW ASPECT RATIO WING IN THE MACH NUMBER
RANGE 0.60 TO 0.87 FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALIDATION OF COMPUTATIONAL METHODS
AUTHORS
M C P FIRMIN, M A MCDONALD
ORGANISATION
DRA, FARNBOROUGH, UK
83
CASE NUMB/AR
20%
15%
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
(39 "Pies)
PP 'uses
rComU33
LE
50%
";-"
PO uoies
B-1
holes)
54%!
rro
70% (( 3 hohes)
n5}n
60%(39 hoes)
"
7% 90%/
-P :uses iron 1,2
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The wing planform is shown above, mounted directly off the tunnel model There are 8 major chordwise
pressure stations on the upper surface with a total of 308 pressure holes The lower surface has 5 major
chordwise pressure stations, with a total of 161 pressure holes. Boundary layer profiles are measured by
traversing probes from within the wing model
FLOWS MEASURED
For all the flows tabulated below, the Reynolds number is 4 1 x 101 based on mean chord
Mach
number
060
070
072
0 74
0 76
078
Incidence 10)
30
1 5
20
2 5
3 5
40
45
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
c
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0 79
0 80
081
082
083
0 84
086
a
a
c
c
b
087
085
where
a
b
c
b
b
b
b
a
b
a
b
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
84
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
A DETAILED STUDY OF THE FLOW OVER ROUNDED LEADING EDGE DELTA WINGS IN
SUPERSONIC FLOW.
AUTHOR
M J SIMMONS
ORGANISATION
B-2
DRA, BEDFORD, UK
NOTES OF CAUTION
1
The assessment of overall forces poses some difficulty because the flow over the body is affected by
the interaction between the body and the sidewall boundary layer This has been overcome by
subtracting body-alone forces and moments from those of the wing-body configurations to derive
notional wing overall forces and moments. which are presented within the dataset
2
No allowance has been made for the effect of variation of aeroelastic deformation across the span
However. the wing was very stiff and consequently. aeroelastic distortion is believed to be
insignificant
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
1
The designations of Wings A and C are Model 2205 and Model 2217 respectively
2
The test case has previously been published in two parts in RAE TM Aero 2092 (19871 and RAE TM
Aero 2202 (1991)
3
The model has been tested in the 2 44m x 2 44m subson(c/supersonic wind tunnel at DRA Bedford
The test section has solid walls
-4
CASE NUMBER
B-2
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
Balance
ientre tine
Moment
10
'
~~0.11:0B,
B-odv centr
______
x/co = 0.7)
ref. point
tine
1__T
'Wing
-
S = 0.9174m
(9.875ftt
(3.187f0)
0.9445m (3.099ft)
= 0.9714m
]plane
2707.8mm (106.6ins)
,.5c0o
reference
atrateX/co
Pressure =plot tin,
1.945
Oit outlets
0o4 r
,~~--17--
'179'3
-_
f///ff/
_nit, 1 6iris)j
7 .7
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
Two configurations of the wall mounted half-model are available
1
Wing A (4% thick highly cambered and twisted) on a simple body
2
Wing C (4% thick no camber or twist) on a simple body
There are 9 spanwise rows of surface static pressure holes totalling about 300 on each wing
also 28 holes along the body centre-line
FLOWS MEASURED
For both Wing A and Wing C flow conditions are
1 605
Mach number
12 7 x 106 based on centre-line chord
Reynolds number
0 0 001 02 03 04 05
C
(incidences between 0 and 13')
Measurements recorded at all condfitons are
* wing and body surface Cps
5 component balance forces / moments (no CY)
with the following additional data at C
oil filament flow visualisation
laser vapour screens
z- 02 03 and 04 only
There are
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHOR
J L FULKER
ORGANISATION
B-3
DRA, BEDFORD, UK
87
CASE NUMBER
B-3
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
71
<A
A 80
W4 FULL MODEL
FLOWS MEASURED
On the complete model
Mach number
Reynolds number
Incidences
0 780
5 8 x 106 based on
-0 500 0060. 1 523.
(giving C = 0 347
Surface pressures and overall 6 component
pressures are also available
On the half model.
Mach number
Reynolds number
Incidences
0 781
13 3 x 106 based on geometric m
-0815 -0277 1 462 2095*
(giving C. - 0343 to 0732)
measured
wall
in chord
Surface pressures and overall 5 component fortes / moments have been measured
Tunnel wall pressures are also avalable
There ae
Tunnei
CASE NUMBER
'ITLE
AUTHOR
G REDEKER
ORGANISATION
B-4
89
CASE NUMBER
B-4
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
--------
----
utbo3rd of 43',
bemrisDan)
The body Is a gLneric representation of a modern airliner with a blunt-nosed forebody with cockpit a
sloped underside to 'he tapered atlerbody and a cylindrical centre section (on which the wing i
low-mounted) It has Principal dimensions of
length
=
1192 mm
max diameter
148 4 mm
There are 7 spanwise pressure measuring stations each with 23 upper and 13 lower surtace holes There
are also 22 holes or' the upper and lower body centre-lines that overlap the wing-body junction region
FLOWS MEASURED
Surface pressure and overall 6-component force and moment balance data are available from all three
Wuinels for all the flow conditions below
Surface oil flow visualisations have been made on the wing
surfaces during testing at NLR and ONERA
Forces and moments
Mach number
Incidence range
Configurations
Surface pressures
Mach number
C
Configurations
body alone
060 070 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082
030 040 050 060 (at Mach 075)
1 - wing-body
at C-
050)
All testing has been at a Reynolds number of 30 x 105 based on wing mean chord (141 2 mm)
No wing surface boundary layer has been measured
,2f
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
DLR - FS
AUTHOR
H SOBIECZKY
B-5
"2
NOTES OF CAUTION
No overall force and moment data have been measured directly
2
The flow physics of this lest case are extremely complex in the region of transition and the shock
3
The choice of parameters to be used to represent the boundaries in CFD calculations requires very
careful consideration
SUITABILITY FOR CFD CODE VALIDATION
The data are intended only to be used for in tunnel' calculations In employing the test case !or CFD
validation attention must be paid to two issues
Transition occurs within a small laminar separtion bubble induced by the shock This tests a code s
ability to model transitional shock - boundary layer interaction and the consequences this has for the
properties of the reattached turbulent boundary layer (for more details, see AGARD-AR-224 Chapter
4 6)
There asan expansion of the flow inside the test area around the trailing edge of the vertical spitter
plate on which the wing is mounted This causes the static pressure at "he exit plane to decrease
towards the splitter plate Since this has an effect on the flow about the model the static pressure
distribution in the exit plane must be taken as a boundary condition
FLOW FEATURES IDENTIFIED
The dominant flow physics are
swept wing flow with a large root filet avoiding a .vrtexat the wing apex
laminar / transitional / turbulent flow
- a small laminar separation bubble at the shock - boundary layer interaction
must be stressed that the flow physics is very complex within the local region of the shock at the hgqher
ricidence
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
The wing section is designed to have shock-free laminar flow at Mach 0 78
2
The test case has previously been published in conjunction with some CFD calcLIarfors
AGARD-CP-437 (1988)
3
The model has been tested in the 1 00m x 1 OOm TWG wind tunnel at DLR Gottingen The test sec!
has slotted top and bottom walls which were closed throughout these tests and solid side walls
4
A second set of tests with DLR-F5 has been conducted in 1990 at other flow conditions
11
91
CASE NUMABER
B-5
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
75e wing has a 13'V taric syr-metric sectcion and ihe lollowing citaracteristics
20' ePaclin edqe sweep
'2'raring edge sweep
-aspect
"-here
ratiO ot ')
ajre 10 spanwise pressure measuring stafions eacn "Ptn 211lLppr and ) lower sLjrtace Sc CS"
F:LOWS MEASURED
Data are -imaiiaure xt ''.0 :low :onditions5
Mach numrner
Pevrroids number
intcidence
-~
ierodvnam'c
teAti rhold
"7he
!l'ow
*,tatic
niitter 'nitri
dflnr
h 5talic
'het low plane
-
l''cm oiin
'
Atn-mounted
''Sijar
oressure
L
(oundarv
aiver
-otal and static
emperature
rigqlos
r'ow
*11tal Iict Stat(
at 67 locations
protfile at snlot artd exit planesi
pressure
o ressure
'lrow .lft;es
wake protries
icceterormlter
'noniltors c~utfle
gauges
No marrt ,urtace
ue
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
A UTHORS
M OLSEN, H L SEEGIMILLER
ORG-ANIZATiON
B-6
PURPOSE OF THnETEST
Tit-e test nba~see-nco-nducteo to provide a cornprencnsive database for the unambiguous validation of OFO
codes in transonic flow To this end a solid wall wind tunnel was chosen to give more precisely defined
tarfield boundlary conditions and a hall model mounted directly onto a side wall to eliminate sting and
Su~por' nitertcrence
SIGNIFICANT POINTS OF INTEREST
1 Te top ano bottom tunnel walls were diverged at 0 1tO relative to tunnei centerline to account for
*unnel empt boundary !ayer growth
These were instrumented with 48 pressure taps extending
abou.t 3 root chords upstreamn and downstream of the otodel centerline Thie straight tunnel sioe walls
a.iso contained 56 pressure taps
2 Axiai ano erica mean velo::ties and Reynolds stresses have been measured ni 6 vertical planes
above and in the near wake region ot the wing These data were obtained at the premiu
'low case
nominaily Macn 0 775 5' incidence and a Reynolds numrber ot 13 5 s 106
3
Testing nas neen conducted at very high Reynolds numbers for the siye of model This has Deeh
achieved by operating at high total pressures
4
Boundarv layer orofle at the Intlow plane are demonstrated to be independent ot the model
ric'dences tested Redundant measurements ot inflow plane velocities show good correlation
Acrocetastic deformation h1asPeen measurec jang Ithe LOV system Wing tip Pending dletormatiot
.sas -oeasurea at 135mm with Insignificant %vat at the h~ghly loaded prerniu
Case
NOTE OF CAUTION
1
Transitio-n a natural and the location of transition inferred from suirtare oil lonw naltterha at the higher
%-woincidences) In general the location is within 2%local chord increasing to 6, in the top region
Note t.hat the ncllence at the dti'cialk mixture used tor visualisation on the tlow and its transition
location has beent iuoge trom surtace pressure compartsons to Pe negligible
2
Tots temperature 's -ot controlled during testing ano can decrease by iJp to 30'K during a run In
'3nnerai variations are, ess than 5'K during data acquisition timne and this intormation 5srecorded
Note that tne LOV data are normalised mlat respect to the instantaneous treestreath velocity (or
wpeed of sountd) to directly compensate for large orifts that can occur during data acquisition
No overail orce artd motoln data are avallabie
CASE NUMSER
B-6
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The wing has a symmetric and untwisted NACA 64A010 section across the span with
=
0 25
Taper ratio
32
Aspect ratio
=
0'
Trailing edge
36 9'
Leading edge
and a root chord of 254 nim
There are 128 upper surface pressure holes on the half model, distributed across 5 spanwise stations
(301'0 50%. 70%. 80% 90% span) There are a furtier 4 pressure holes on the lower surface to heip
determine flow symmetry conditions
FLOWS MEASURED
Data are available at the following 41 nominai flow conditions representing 22 complete test points
where
Mach number
;ncidence C)
Reynolds number
Measurements
060
065
0 70
070
0725
075
075
0775
0775
0775
0 80
080
-8 -5 -2 0 2 5 8
-8, -5 5 8
-8 -5 -2 0.2
5 8
8 -5 5 8
-8 -5 -2 2
5 8
-8 -5 -2 2
8
5
-8 -5 -2 0 2
5 8
120x 106
12 7 x 101
13 1 x 10,
130x 101
135 x 106
137 x 106
138x 101
138 x 101
135 x 106
135x 101
140 x 106
140x 106
a
a
a
ab
a
a
ab
a
ab
abc
a
a b
a =
b =
c
"-r
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHOR
H ESCH
ORGANISATION
C-1
L.
CASE NUMBER
C-1
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
x
30'
I-
RID
sect-on
(IN/D)'-, 25
165*
crne
'essur.efQ
3
'.
10
15T\
135'
11
control
iii
__
------
nstrumented
__
__
__
__
I~
axi
~105
305*
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The model is sting mounted
(D)
Body diameter
Body length
(L)
(ILN)
Nose length
from
=
=
=
Surface pressure has been measured every 3' circumferentially at 11 axial stations in the middle region
of the cylindrical body
FLOWS MEASURED
Surface pressure data are available for
15
=
Mach number
=
1 2 x 101 based on body diameter
Reynolds number
Incidences
8 values, in the range 9 to 23'
with limited schlieren and Oil flow visualisations recorded
No model boundary layer data have been measured
96
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHOR
H-P KREPLIN
ORGANISATION
C-2
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
1
The test case has previously been widely reported, such as AGARD-CP-342 paper 14 (1983)
2
Independent data checks have been made on streamlines and flow angles at the surface and
Loundary layer velocities, through comparison of different measurement techniques
3
The two wind tunnels in which the model has been tested are
- the 3m i 3m Low-Speed (NWG) wind tunnel at DLR Gottingen
- the 4 5m x 3 5m F1 wind tunnel at ONERA Fauga-Mauzac
97
CASE NUMtcR
C-2
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
sf''R
-TrOn~tion
-L
,strip
,
20
b
,--20mm
-- SU
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The body is a 6 1 prolate spheroid with circular cross-section and
Length
=
2400 mm
Diameter =
400 mm (maximum)
FLOWS MEASURED
Comprehensive data are available for 3 flows
Parameter
Mach number
Reynolds number
Incidence
Transition
Case I
Case 2
Case 3
0 16
7 7 x 101
100
tripped
0 13
6 5 x 106
3000
free
023
43 0 x 106
3000
free
CASE NUMBER
C-3
TITLE
AUTHOR
K HARTMANN
ORGANISAT/ON
CASE NUMBER
C-3
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
D =200mm
-30
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
Each body is axisymmetric with
the following dimensions
Diameter
=
200 mm
600 mm
Nose length
Total length
=
2800 mm
2200 mm
Imaximum)
(pressure model)
(force and moment model)
There are 360 static pressure holes on the body surface There die 24 taps. circumferentialiy distributprf
at equal spacings. at each of 15 axial stations down the body length but clustered towards the nose
Dynamic pressures are measured by 16 Kulite transducers at 2 further axial stations
FLOWS MEASURED
Comprehensive data are available for 10 flow conditions at zero body roll
Velocity m's
Incidence I'
Reyolds number
Measurements
30 35, 50. 55. 90
30 35. 50. 55 90
30 35 50 55. 90
35 375 90
35. 375 90
-5.(2 5) 90
-5,(2 5).90
30
55
30 50 80
20
30
60
30
60
20
57
20
20
01
a
b
c
d
e
f
where
0.25 x 10
0.38 x 106
074 x 106
040 x 101
071 x 106
026 x 101
076 x 101
026 x 101
025 x 101
0005 x 10,
a
a
a
b
b
c
c
d
f
e
Tunnel
NWG. NWB
NWG NWB
NWG NWB
NWG
NWG
NWG
NWG
NWG
NWB
WSG
In addition. local force has been derived from surface pressure integrations for a range of body roll angles
10' to 360* in 30' increments) at two further flow conditions
Velocity (m/s)
Incidence (
Reynolds number
Tunnel
20
60
55
55
0 25 x 101
0 73 x 10'
NWG NWB
NWG NWB
i____
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
ELLIPSOID-CYLINDER MODEL.
AUTHOR
D BARBERIS
ORGANISATION
C-4
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
1
The model designation is ECR
2
The model has been tested in the 1 80m x 140m F2 low speed wind tunnel at the ONERA
Fauga-Mauzac Centre The tunnel walls are solid
CASE NUMBER
C-4
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
340
XG
1150
Rotating Part
--.
-XG'
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The body consists of a halt prolate Hl-iiod nose mounted on a cylindrical main body. with the following
dimensions
Total body length
=
1600 mm (nose to nid-point ofinclinrd base)
Nose length
=
800 mm
Max diameter
200 mm
Pressure is measured at 46 equally spaced taps along one meridian from approximately 20% to 70% body
length Most of the model can be progressively rotated about its major axis, to achieve a very dense
coVC.r.
3
at a" interval of 1' circumferentially)
FLOWS MEASURED
All testing has been conducted at one low-speed condition
Velocity
=
50 m/s
Reynolds number
=
5 60 x 101, based on total body length
Measurements have been taken across the following incidence range
Incidence
Measurements
()
20
22.24 26 28 30
where
a
b
c
=
=
=
a.b c
a
I '2
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHOR
D BARBERIS
ORGANISATION
C-5
"2
NOTES OF CAUTION
The locations of natural transiton are not stated for the 4 flow cases presented but tow rmirwied
2
3
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
The model has been tested in th
1
solid
0C2ICn x 0 30m ONERA S5Ch wind tunnel :n which the walls are
-4SE VuAtBEP
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
Explored Cross-Sections
3
M
=2
-.
CCNFlc-JRATION DETAiLS
-11 a
-smmr
ocers jre?
moun~tau rci
Body d~amlet
Boav erngth
Nose length
jfm
re
XID
Investigated Domain
-t
ar
d haS
on
rmm
i
Pmm
~ocrgOf
FLOWSMEASURED
ransf
~On
20
211
where
11 b
c
0
e
Measurem~ents
Natural
Frxed
C0e
al1e
F,,ed
Nau,ai~a
a Cd e
d e
'cofpd
Faxed
a00e
'5Natjra
116 '
rsior'
i vt
C-5
CASE NUMBER
C-5
TITLE
AUTHOR
P CHAMPIGNY
ORGANISATION
His~
CASE NUMBER
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
C-6
400
12000
spline
A/6
9 -
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The body is sting mounted from the rear and has dimensions
1200 mm
=
Body length
Body width (maxl
Body depth Imaxl
240 mm
80 mm
There are 207 pressure taps on the upper surface These are mainly grouped at 11 pressure stations down
2 0
the body from 4 to 99 4.0o body length with some additional taps on the centre-line
FLOWS MEASURED
Surface pressure data are available for the following 15 cases
Mach numoer
spie
incidence
(0)
.SideshhpjJ
040
0 40
0 10 20
0
0 90
0 10 20
0 90
0
10
I)
10
200
200
0 10 20
0
0
10
450
450
10
10
_Rey.nolds number
Wind Tunne
!25 x 106
6
12 5 x10
S2MA
S2MA
20 5x 106
S2MA
20 5 x10
6
1175 x 106
S2MA
75x!0
S2MA
S2MA
186 x 1066
S3MA
186x10
2..
-L
S3MA
106
CASE NLAiBER
D-1
TITLE
WIND TUNNEL TEST ON A 65 DEG DELTA WING WITH A SHARP, ROUNDED OR DROOPED
LEADING EDGE - THE INTERNATIONAL VORTEX FLOW EXPERIMENT.
AUTHOR
A ELSENAAR
ORGANISATION
NLR, NETHERLANDS
10h
CASE NUMBER
0-1
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
"PRESSURE
SECTIOS---
.....
----- w
AR.-N
.. 0...M.D.L.
SN-----OOECPATUtIT0OS
O 650*0
NOSESECrCtON*
3 NTERC000GEABLE
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The 5%/ouncambered wings have the following common characteristics
650 leading edge sweep
00 trailing edge sweep
0 15 taper ratio
and a total span of 480 mm
The 5% biconvex canard has the following characteristics
600 leading edge sweep
350 trailing edge sweep
0 40 taper ratio
There are 3 lateral pressure measuring stations on the wing. located at 30%. 60016and 80%0 root chord
The canard has no
with of order 30 pressure holes per station (mainly )n the upper surface)
instrumentation
FLOWS MEASURED
Surface pressures and 3-component force and moments are available at the following nominal conditions
for the sharp and rounded leading edge wings
Mach number
040
070
085
120
130
1 70
220
300
390
Incidence (0)
0. 5 10. 15 20. 21. 22 23, 24. 25
0 5 10. 15 20 21. 22 23. 24. 25
0 5 10 15 20 21 22. 23. 24. 25
0 5 10
4 8 10
4 8. 10
4. 8. 10
4, 8. 10
4
Reynolds number
sli
90 x 10,
6
90x 10
90x 10,
70x 106
15.5x 101
155x 10,
190 x 106
280x 101
425 x 10O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Incidence ()
040
085
10. 20
10. 20
slip
-5.0 5
-5.0, 5
Reynolds number
90x 10,
9 0 x 106
Surface (oilflow) and flow-field (schlieren) visualisations have also been recorded. Reynolds number is
based on the wing root chord There are no measurements of surface boundary layers or wake
.-
Li
Il0h
SCASE
NUMBER
TITLE
DELTA-WING MODEL.
AUTHOR
0 BARBERIS
ORGANISATION
0-2
CASE NUMBER
D-2
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
X (mm)
Left Right
L W 0LW
4"-- 000
9 -113.8
X (mm)nih
104
8-335.5
3LeftRih
43 4L.L
10
7-554.9
["j11i
10000,
,' ;, \
6-757.6
15 6147
5-941.7
13 00 0
L :leeward
L: fWnward
W: windward
4- 1102.63-1236.3
2-1339.6
1 - 1409.9
15 8 58
2000 00
200o
1-25122411
Model A
Model B
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The wing has a sharp leading edge. swept at 75 with flat upper and lower surfaces and a chamfer of 15'
on the lower side of the leading edge. The wing has dimensions of
=
1450 mm
Chord
Span
=
777 mm
Thickness
=
30 mm (visualisation)
22 mm (surface pressure)
=
There are 9 pressure measuring stations (at constant chord positions) totalling 252 pressure taps These
are arranged on the upper and lower surfaces for 4 stations and on the upper surface (port side) for the
remainder.
The surface flow visualisation model has 9 pressure taps only.
FLOWS MEASURED
A wide range of data is available for 10 cases
Velocity (m/s)
Incidence (o)
24
24
40
40
10.15.25 30
20
10.15.25.30
20
where
a
b
c
d
=
=
=
=
Reynolds number
24 x
24x
40 x
4 0x
Measurements
106
10V
106
6
10
a.b.c
ab cd
a b.c
a b.c.d
L.
L__
CASE NUMBER
D-3
TITLE
AUTHORS
N G VERHAAGEN,
J E J MASELAND
ORGANISATION
K1
L___.
CASE NUMBER
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
0-3
76*
SECTION A-A
A'Az
from
60
x=O tox=0.4 c
SECTIONB-B
t = 0-03c
65
40
CONFIGURATION OETAILS
The dimensions of the 'flat-plate' double-delta wing model are
Root chord
=
667 mm
Span
=
552 mm
Thickness
=
20 mm
Leading edge kink
=
50% root chord
There is a lower surface chamfer of 72.90 normal to the leading and trailing edges
Surface pressure is measureo at 485 taps These are distributed across the full span at 1 station ahead
of the leading edge kink, 1 at the kink and 10 aft of the kink.
FLOWS MEASURED
Different parameters have been measured at one of three low Mach numbers (and consequently at
proportionately different Reynolds numbers), namely
Incidence (0)
-2 -1 0, 1 2. 4
5
6.8
10
12. 14
15
16 18
20
22 24
25
where
a
b
c
d
e
=
=
=
=
=
Measurements
c.e
b.c
ce
ab c.e
e
a.b.c
e
a b.c d.e
e
a b.c.e
flowfield visualisation (laser lightsheet. 9 planes)
surface visualisation (oil flow)
overall forces and moments
flowfield velocities and pressures (5-hole probe, 5 planes)
upper surface pressures
L__i
at
at
at
at
at
Mach
Mach
Mach
Mach
Mach
008
008
008
0 12
0 20
only
only
only
only
only
112
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
WIND TUNNEL TEST ON A 65 DEG DELTA WING WITH ROUNDED LEADING EDGE - THE
INTERNATIONAL VORTEX FLOW EXPERIMENT.
AUTHJWS
K HARTMANN, K A BUTEFISCH,
H PSZOLLA
ORGANISATION
D-4
1i3
CASE NUMBER
D-4
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
CD itcft
0.8
---
--
--
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The 50. uncambered wing has the following characteristics
-65'
leading edge sweep
-0' trailing edge sweep
-0
15 taper ratio
and a total span of 333 mm
Lk
L.
There are 3 lateral pressure measuring stations on the upper surface of the wing, located
at 30%" 613"
and 80% root chord, and one tongitudinal station at 55%. semispan. There are a total of
60 pressure holes
FLOWS MEASURED
Surface -Pressuresand 3-component force and moments are available at the following nominal
conditions
for the rounded leading edge wing
. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ..
Mach number
085
085
085
085
085
085
085
where
a
b
C
Incidence
-1. 0 121(2) 22
-1. 0. 1, 2 (2) 20
-1. 0,1 21(2) 10
10 20
10
20
10 15 20
Measurements
2 4x 106
4 5 x 106
70 x 106
24 46 x101
6
7 1x 10
4 5 x106
60 x 106
a
a
a
b
b
a
114
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
D-5
AUTHOR
D R STANNILAND
ORGANISATION
ARA, BEDFORD, UK
CASE NUMBER
D-5
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
RA
SOUARE SECAIS
--
-W_
Y BALANCE
C E
MACHINED
IN
PIECEB
TO ISTRUENTT!ON
REOVLE
TOJI
P
|
.CENTRBODY
SQUARE
SECTION
ALPEESPESR
CANARDS
rARIACLE AfNGLE.
WITH RADIUSED
O
|STING
WINGS,
PORT CANARD
CORNERS.
BALANCED.
MODULAR BUILD
for w conMEguratIoHs
AROUND
CANARD
REMOVABLE
TOP
CAPFOR ACCESS
-TO INSTRUMENTATION
ALTERNATIVE
L.EIT.EPIECES.
T,-2SGET
ALLPIECESPRESSURE
PLOTTED
- 6 STATIONS
PORTWINOU.S.TUBES
STBO.
WING LS TUBES
AE
RETAINS
SO.SECTION
ALLN
AIN
FOR A 3
SURFACE
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
Data are available for Iwo configurations
Datum wing and fuselage
Datum wing. fuselage and canard (at zero setting)
The wing leading edge and trailing edge controls are not deflected
There is a considerable number of pressure tappings covering all components
The port wing upper surface has 6 static pressure stations, each with 29 pressure holes
The starboard wing lower surface has 6 static pressure stations, each with 26 pressure holes
The starboard canard upper surface has a row of 6 pressure holes at 94% chord
There are 1lso 8 pressure tappings in the fuselage base
FLOWS MEASURED
For each of the two configurations, surface
6-component balance) are available for
0 85. 0 90
0 95. 1 20, 1 35
at Reynolds numbers in the range 5 7 x 106 to 6 6 x 106 based on wing mean aerodynamic chord
an incidence sweep at a constant Mach number of 0 90. at approximately
50. 60
80
100
12.0
1500
In addition for the second configuration, 3-component canard force and moments are measured at all flow
conditions
There are no measurements of the model boundary layer or wake
L,
.IC
116
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHORS
R RADESPIEL. A QUAST
D ECKERT
ORGANISATION
E-1
'cli1v
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
1
The model designation is 'Falke'
2
The test case has been previously reported in DLR-IB 111-89/32 and DLR-IB 129-89/37 'both n
German)
3
Tunnel flow quality and support effects are well quantified
4
The model has been tested in the 8m x 6m DNW wind tunnel at Emmeloord the Netherlands The test
section has closed walls
Lo
...
117
CASE NUMBER
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
... . .
Prczsare
; res-;re
;r-s~ire
68a:
unles I
h..es 3
hc1es 2
x0
ScaOe
26
heightr
m/
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The model s an accurate
5 427 scale of the US Space Shuttle
Overall length
6 820 m
Overall height
2 b20 m
Fuselage length
6 039 m
Wing span
4 360 m
Reynolds number is based on a reference chord of 2 222 m
with dimensions
FLOWS MEASURED
The conditions for the seven cases available are
Mach No
0176
0175
0 174
0 171
0311
0 172
0172
where
a
b
c
d
Reynolds No
90x 10,
90x 101
90 x 10,
90x 104
160G lx
1u6U
90 x ;0r
90x 10
Incidence.
528
1065
16 12
21 10
21 54
21 54
Sideshlpi
Measurements
00
00
00
00
00
-50
50
abd
abd
a bcd
abcd
abd
a b
abd
L*
E-1
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AU7HORS
R KIOCK AND
W BAUMERT
ORGANISATION
E-2
otal;
NOTE OF CAUTION
1
The tests were made with free transition and the location of transition was not determined
it is
advised that this is overcome by assuming that transition occurs at
the position of the steep pressure rise (X = 82mm to X = 92mmi on the inside ot the intake
the position of maximum nacelle diameter (X - 171mm) on the outside of the intake
and that the flows ove, the core cowl and plug are fully turbulent
It is believed that the flow
development over the outside of the nacelle is not very sensitive to transition location
SUITABILITY FOR CFD CODE VALIDATION
As wall interference is negligible, the test cases are suitable for free-air' computations
isentropic
conditions can be assumed ie total pressure remains constant (as is assumed *n the analvsis of the
experimental data)
FLOW FEATURES IDENTIFIED
The dominant flow physics identifieo are
- mixing of multiple flows
external, cold fan and cold turbine
attached flows over the intake and fan cowl
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
1
The model designation is TPS441
2
The 'performance of the model is compared with that of the real engine
3
The test case has previously been reported at ICAS 1990 (Vol 2 pages 1277-1289)
4
The model has been 'ested in tth- 1- Y 3m Low-Speed NWG wind tunnel at DLR Gotfingen
CASE NUMBER
E-2
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
150I
-- s--;__--
--
61
66
,2
,_-_-_-___-_-
65
----
"
,I 221,
-,/
[..
I"
,'
Fan Cowl
36xp
2D intkoie
42xp
i
Core Cowl
31xp
TPS Plug
9XP
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The complete nacelle is 465 7mm long with a maximum external diameter of 170mm which allow tan
2
The nacelle is attached to a smalt
rhe intake highlight area is 13710 mm
blades of 127mm diameter
symmetric pylon mounted on a vertical sting
FLOWS MEASURED
Ten flows have been recorded at zero incidence
Nominal freestrearn velocity
=
=
=
20 m/s
40 m/s
60 m/s
Engine rpm
120
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHOR
B L BERRIER
ORGANISATION
E-3
NOTES OF CAUTION
1
No data correction has been made for the 5% thick 'wing' sting and its support This is attached to
the underside of the body upstream of the afterbody and empennages
Its effect on the surface
measurements taken can be fudged by comparing pressures from the top and bottom centreline
stations on the afterbody
No flowfield measurements or visualisations are available to determine jet or wake characteristics
2
SUITABILITY FOR CFD CODE VALIDATION
The data are corrected to simulate 'free-air' conditions for CFD code application. There is only a very
limited amount of data available on the disks accompanying this AGARD database, with the remainder
reported , . tabular or graphical formats in unclassified NASA reports
Jet exhaust boundary conditions
are given by a nozzle pressure ratio (determined via a rake inside the nozzle) and a jet total temperature
FLOW FEATURES IDENTIFIED
The dominant flow physics found in the tests are
flow separation on the afterbody
the interaction of the jet (both fully- and under-expanded) and the external flow
the interaction of the empennages and afterbody (junction and wake flows)
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
1
Additional model geometry variables such as afherbody contour tail span and nozzle setting have
been tested and are available in graphical form
2
The model has been tested in the 15.5ft x 15.5ft octagonal Transonic Tunnel at NASA Langley
Research Center. The test section is slotted, with a nominal open area ratio of 4% which allows
boundary layer suction at supersonic conditions
3
The test case forms part of the AGARD Fluid Dynamics Panel WG17 experimental database, against
which advanced Navier-Stokes codes are being evaluated
121
CASE NUMBER
E-3
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
/
Alterooov
Sta. 71.70
Sta
40. 89
Sl
64.8P
.. "-Toto,-ressure
rOee ityoCOlI
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The model is tested in four different geometric configurations, namely
body alone
body with forward tails
body with aft tails
body with staggered tails (horizontal tails aft. vertical tail forward)
The body has an ogival nose and
Length
=
71 70 inches
Diameter
=
7.34 inches
=
2 75 inches
Boat-tail
=
20'
There are 257 surface pressure holes on the body, arranged along the port side at several circumferential
angles (some of these may be covered in some configurations by the attachment of the tail surfaces)
There are also 20 pressure holes in the root region of the vertical tail and 10 in !! , root region of each
horizontal tail. Note that the horizontal tails and the vertical tail are of slightly different shapes.
FLOWS MEASURED
Surface pressures and overall force data are available at the following nominal conditions for each of the
four configurations above
Mach Number
060
060
090
090
0.95
095
120
120
Incidence (0)
00
-30 00 30,60.90
00
-30 0.0 60
00
-30.0.
30.60
00
-30.00 3.0. 60
Reynolds Number
18.0 x
180x
224 x
224x
23 0 x
230x
24 0 x
240x
10'
106
101
106
106
106
106
101
Note that the highest nozzle pressure ratio has not been tested for the forward tails configuration at Mach
1 20 There are also ink flow surface visualisations at transonic Mach numbers mostly jet-off
There is no measurement of model surface boundary layer data.
L.I,-
...
rI
122
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHOR
D J WING
ORGANISATION
E-4
I.
L__
CASE NUMBER
E-4
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
ILO
IsTL1
FS Mwi
--
L 5.51
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The model is tested with the empennages mounted in six different combinations, namely
horizontal tails in mid-position
vertical tails in forward, mid or aft positions
- horizontal tails in aft-position
- vertical tails in forward, mid or aft positions
The body is representative of a high speed heavy combat aircraft (with faired air inlets) and has
dimensions
Length
=
1747.4 mm
Max width
254 mm
Max depth
=
127 mm
Nozzle base diameter
=
50.5 mm (internal). 56.7 mm (external)
Nozzle boat-tail
=
12950
The horizontal and vertical tail surfaces are typical moderately swept. low aspect ratio surfaces
difference between forward and aft tail positions is approximately 10% of body length
The
There are 120 surface pressure holes arranged all around the afterbody (some of these may be covered
,n some configurations by the attachment of the tail surfaces). There are a further 60 pressure taps on the
external nozzle surfaces
FLOWS MEASURED
Surface pressures are available at the following nominal conditions for each of the six configurations
Mach Number
Incidence ()
0 0 0.6. 0 8, 0 9. 1 2
0.6 0 8.09, 1 2
0
0. 4. 8
Reynolds number varies with Mach number from 3.0 x 108 to 4.4 x 106, based on the wing mean
aerodynamic chord of 444 mm
There is no measurement of model surface boundary layer data.
I.
124
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHOR
K R ROTH
ORGANISATION
E-5
V.
-2
The test
'
t
125
CASE NUMBER
E-5
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
76.20
68.58
-----30.48
- - - - - - - - - -
- -- -
11.81
_Lower
-2032
surface pressures.
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The model is a simplified blended wing-body configuration, featuring two identical center-line tet nozzles
The major dimensions are
Overall length
=
07620 m
Wing span
=
0 6858 m
Overall height
=
0,1181 m
Nozzle width
=
0 0305 m
Nozzle separation
=
0.2032 m
There are no geometric variations. There is a considerable number of surface pressure holes, with 88 taps
on the upper surface. 63 clustered radially around the front jet. 62 similarly clustered around the rear let
and 68 more on the wing lower surfaces 16 taps largely near the jets. measure unsteady pressures
FLOWS MEASURED
Testing has been conducted both with jets-off and jets-on at the following conditions
Dynamic Pressure tKPa)
000
0.72
096
1.20
144
1 68
1 92
215
239
The rear nozzle pressure ratio is always slightly greater than that at the front nozzle Each test is for an
incidence traverse of maximum range -10 to + 200 The maximum Mach number is 0 18
Force and surface pressure measurements are available for all cases Flowfield pressures. measured on
several vertical planes, are available for a single NPR and Mach number condition only ()
There is no measurement of model surface boundary layer data.
L___=,
. o
126
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
AUTHOR
I SAMUELSSON
ORGANISATION
E-6
NOTES OF CAUTION
1
The side support structure is close to the wing tip and may have some interference effect. However.
no surface pressure measurements are taken on the outer two-thirds of the wing span and so the
effects on these data should be small.
2
Transition is free and the location of transition is not known. The author does not know if this is
significant for this flow type and the results obtained
3
There are relatively large tolerances on the estimated accuracy of both the freestream conditions and
the measured data parameters.
McELLANEOUS INFORMATION
1
Testing on this model has been published in ICAS-90-3.13 (1990)
2
Variations in propellor power settings and in configuration incidence and sideslip angles have also
been teste' but are not available here.
3
The moeel has been tested in the circular 3 6m (diameter) LT1 low speed wind tunnel at FFA Bromma
The test section has solid walls
127
CASE NUMBER
E-6
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
---------------------
I
(Not to scale)
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
The propellor is common to all four configurations tested. It has been fitted to two closed nacelles of
different cross-section. which are in t1rri tested in isolation or mounted on an unswept. untwisted 1000
thick wing, giving
Configuration 1
Configuration 2
Configuration 3
propellor -
high-sided nacelle
Configuration 4
propellor
Each of the four configurations has been tested at the same nominal flow and propellor running conditions
namely
Mach number
0 15
Reynolds number
= 1 7 x 101 based on a reference length of 1672 mm
Incidence
= 0 Power coefficient = 0 23
Thrust coefficient
= 023
with the following measurements taken
Configuration
I
I
2. 3 4
2 3 4
where
a
b
c
Propellor
on
off
on
off
=
=
=
Measurements
ab
a
a.c
a
1--*
128
CASE NUMBER
E-7
TITLE
AUTHORS
J G LEISHMAN, NAI-PEI BI
ORGANISATION
NOTES OF CAUTION
1
No details are given of flow transition
2
No indication of the tunnel interference is given even though the rotor disk to tunnel cross-section
area ratio is a relatively high 27%
SUITABILITY
The data are
sidewall can
rotating flow
129
CASE NUMBER
E-7
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
25%
FLOWS MEASURED
Testing has been conducted at the following nominal conditions for each of the six conigurations
Advance ratio
Shaft angle
Pitch angle
Rotor speed
0
005.006
0065 007 0075 008. 010 0125 015 020 025
(corresponding to wind speeds between 80 and 40 m/s)
-8. -6 -4 -2'
4 6 8, 10 11. 12
1860 rpm
(corresponding to Mach 050 at the rotor tip in hover)
130
CASE NUMBER
E-8
TITLE
AUTHOR
D R STANNILAND
ORGANISATION
ARA, BEDFORD, UK
L_
CASE NUMBER
E-8
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
AREA
$PAN
NETT
-0 ME
STANO
CANARD
AREA
0 060t
SE66ISPAN
STANOARD MEAN CHORD IS0r',
LEADING EDGE 5WEEP
P
S.00
IRAILING EDiE SWEEP
000
O
N CHOR
0 360,'
IOOv
300.,m
-300 0
-45 17
4 000
0
o00
CONFIGURATION DETAILS
There are three configurations. based around a common wing component
-
Wing and fuselage (expanding aft ot wing root leading edge - shown as a solid line in the GA.
Wing and fuselage (parallel aft of wing root leading edge - shown as a chained ine in the GA)
Wing canard and fuselage lexpandinn aC
Art
'ng root ieadrnq edqe1
080
085
090
095
1 10
1 19.
1 35
at Reynolds numbers in the range 3 2 x 106 to 4 4 x 16- based on wing standard mean chord
an incidence sweep at a constant Mach number of 090 at approximately
00
20
35
55. 70
80*
L.
L_
E-9
CASE NUMBER
T/ITLE
AUTHOR
D R STANNILAND
ORGANISATION
ARA. BEDFORD. UK
NOTES OF CAUTION
E-ffective treest reamn conditions are ,lncertamn since no 'low j~nqie or Machi -tumia-r
linp/led and blockage is not smali
illhoutj liVt v
2
The effect at side-wall interference on tne nait-molei s riot pdecitied
sma/I at the conditions tested
3 Transition nas only been verified at the Lower en-ds at tne Macn w ni denice
.4
No surface flow or ttow/ie/d visu alizations are available
oiv
Or"-c
~aig
1.~t
ait nd.
ofl,t
nb-r O
-it
01
cIt' -.
z!itO
133
CASE NUMBER
E-9
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
508
PORT WING
S-.
j..........
229
152
F':I
2432
OU10RPYNrn~
I-
wth
1Wing
three pylons axisymmetrc store on middle pylon
The pylons are each to the same design and exhibit favourable interference lor low drag character~stcs
There is a consIderable number of pressure tappings covering all components
The wing upper surface has 8 static pressure stations totalling 164 pressure holes
* The wing lower surface has 17 static pressure stations clustered around each pyion lunction
256 pressure holes
-
The store has a total ot 63 pressure holes. distibuted around the whole store
totalhing
FLOWS MEASURED
For each of the three configurations surtace pressures and overall forces and moments 1from the average
of two 5-component balancesl are available for
Wigwt treplnsn tr
Mach 072
077
380
082.
084
086
103 20
40
20
CHAPTER 6
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF TEST CASES
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
1.0
INTRODUCTION
136
L.-
Transition
3.2.1
137
Two-dimensional testing
L,
L__
I3
3.3.1
"In-tunnel" evaluations
3.3.2
L.
3.3.3
'39
4.0
CONCLUSIONS
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
WGi4
IINAL
TEST
CASFS
A
2-D
TRANSONIC
SUBSONIC
.AA
A-2,A-6,A
M PERS
A-1A3. A-4
A-it. A-A1
Airfoils
BA
-4
B-1. B
B 5.B-6
3-DHigh Aspe
Ratio Wings
C_.
Slender.bodiy
C Ci5, C
C-2c-3.
C-4
C-6
iDA
_
Coflqok
Configurations
0D-2.D-3 D-5-05
E-1.E-2.-5
E-3.1-4 E-8
E-6.7
E-9
E--
A-I
ANNEX A
PPOCEDUP' FOR OBTAININC AND I SING FLOPPY DISKS
A complete set of data is available on a set of nine 3.5 inch floppy disks. These disks are on file at the various National
Centers listed below. Specific details. costs, and procedures for obtaining a copy of the floppy disks varies front one center to
the other. Therefore, interested parties must contact the appropriate location within their country or the center that is most
geographically convenient.
Information regarding procedures to be followed in using the data is provided on the disks. In addition, on the following page.
information regarding the contents of the disks, procedures to extract the data from an archise file, and the hard disk size
needed for the various uncompressed datasets is provided.
Fachinformationszentrum Karlsruhe
Gesellschaft fur wissenchaftlich-technische Information
mbh
D-76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshaten
GERMANY
Person to contact: Dr. Claus von Consbruch
Tel:(49)7247/808-400
7
Fax:(49) 247/808-133
ONERA - DED
B.P. 72
92322 Chetillon Cedex
France
Person to contact: Mme F. Lhullier
Tel:33(1)4673 3799
Fax:33(1)4673 4141
Aeronautica Militare
Ufficio del Delegato Nazionale all AGARD
Aeroporlo Militate Pratica di Mare
00040 - Pomezia (RM)
ITALY
Person to contact: Colonel F. Celegato
Tel;39 6 91092683
Fax:39 6 9105887
&___
A-2
To reduce the amount of diskspace needed for distribution of the data all datasets are
compressed in self-extracting archive files.
For most of the datasets, this means that all data are available in one file, the name
of these archive files is SET nr. EXE where nr is the set number (e.g. SETAI.EXE
contains all data of dataset Al). For two larger datasets (sets C4 and E6), the data
have been split over more than one archive file to avoid very large files. In that case
the file names are SET-or-i.EXE where nr is again the dataset number and i is the
sequence number of the file (e.g. SETC4_2.EXE is the 2nd file of dataset C4).
To extract the data from an archive file, copy that archive file to an appropriate
directory on a harddisk of your (IBM compatible, DOS operating system) personal
computer. Move to that directory and give the DOS-command
SET nr -x
or
SET nr i -x
which will extract all datafiles from the archive file SET-nr.EXE. In all cases the
user will be asked to confirm that data should be extracted from the archive, in some
cases confirmation will be asked that new subdirectories may be created which is
necessary to avoid duplicate filename problems. After the extraction process has
completed, the dataset is available in the same form as provided by the author(s) of
the dataset (in addition, the archive file remains available unchanged).
The complete database is available on nine 3.5" DOS-format floppy disks with 1.44Mbytes
capacity. The contents of the disks is as follows:
datasets
datasets
datasets
datasets
datasets
datasets
datasets
datasets
datasets
A
A
B
C
C
C
D
E
E
disk I contains
disk 2 contains
contains
disk I contains
disk 2 contains
disk 3 contains
contains
disk I contains
disk 2 contains
sets Al, A2, A3, A4, A5, A7, AS, A9, AI0, All, A12 and A13
set A6
sets Bl, B2, B3, B4, B5 and B6
sets Cl, C2, C3, CS and C6
the first half of set C4 (archive files C4_1, C4_2 and C4_3)
archive files C4_4, C4_5 and C4_6
sets Dl, D2, D3, D4 and D5
sets El, E2, E3, E4, E5, E7, E8 and E9
set E6 in the archive files E6_1, E6_2, E6_3 and E6_4
The following table gives an overview of the harddisk size needed for the various
uncompressed datasets.
dataset
authors
organisation
Al
W. Bartelsheimer
K.H. Horstman
W. Puffert-Meissner
I.R.M. Moir
P.R. Ashill
D.J. Jones
Y. Nishimura
V.D. Chin
C.J. Dominic
F.T.Lynch
D.L. Rodrigruez
P. Guntermann
DLR Braunschweig
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
DRA Farnborough
DRA Bedford
IAR/NRC Ottawa
extent of data
(Kbytes uncompressed)
128
121
39
772
McDonnel Douglas
2558
RWTH Aachen
2700*
G.Dietz
A7
A8
A9
L.H.J. Absil
D.M. Passchier
S.O.T.H. Han
B. van den Berg
J.H.M.
Gooden
Delft Univ.
of Technology
NLR
NLR
133
341
107
A-3
dataset
allhor
.zi.iti
AI0
A. Mignosi
J.P. Archambaud
E. Stanewsky
A.M. Rodde
J.P. Archambaud
G.G. Mateer
H.L. Seegmiller
J.
Szodruch
G.W. Brune
ONERA
All
A12
A13
B1
M.C.P.
M.A.
Firmin
extent ot aata
(KBytes uncompressed)
137
OLR Goettingen
ONERA
123
NASA-Ames
146
Boeing
76
DRA Farnborough
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
M.J. Simmons
J.L. Fulker
G. Redeker
H.Sobieczy
M. Olsen
H.L. Seegmiller
DRA Bedford
DRA Bedford
DLR/DRA/ONERA/NLR
DLR Goettin9cn
NASA Ames
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
H. Esch
H.P. Kreplin
K. Hartmann
D. Barberis
D. Barberis
P. Champigny
DLR Cologne
DLR Goettingen
DLR Goettingen
ONERA
ONERA
ONERA
167
2575
402
7094
3345
201
D1
D2
D3
A. Elsenaar
D. Barberis
N.G. Verhaagen
J.E.J.
Maseland
K. Hartmann
K.A. Butefisch
H. Pszolla
D. Staniland
NLR
ONERA
Delft Univ.
of Technology
DLR Goettingen
449
760
561
ARA
662
R. Radespiel
A. Quast
D. Eckert
R. Kiock
W. Baumert
B.L. Berrier
D.J. Wing
K.R. Roth
I. Samuelsson
J.G. Leishman
Nai-pei Bi
0. Staniland
D. Staniland
DLR Braunschweig
757
D4
D5
El
E2
93
E4
95
86
E7
E8
E9
DNW
DLR Braunschweig
DLR Goettingen
NASA Langley
NASA Langley
NASA Ames
FPA
Univ. of Maryland
ARA
ARA
158
133
335
157
677
200
63
11
6
328
4273
148638
560
1719
McDonnald
authors if
more details
z
*
U.
*-
01
._
E
U) W
LL u,
0: 2
o
2
~92 6kL
:s
0
(D
CO
W
.0
<
(A
cr0
co
U.
(
-12
,C
0OU)
En
>
>0. (D(A
U)
C.LU
10
Co
m
10CL
U)
C
ED
)
UU.
w I
(U
2-
*~
*I
>
F-
LL
Cc
EI
4)
u)
in
w o
<)(U
Ew
0L
0Z5
U)
U-
A0 I
F- 0 ElOW
<
co ")
Oz
o4)
F-
L_____
___
LD
a)
<
E-6
>1
0lE
<)
0(U)U
<
>.
:
E4
(D
c '
rc
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - --
- - - >- <-
- - - - - - - -
- - - - -I
. .
. .
CL
iz
S E
wU
<Z
CJ0
U)
U) (Dn
LL
<L
$2
rr-aLL
LL
<4
4)
(mL
fIi
L,
Li
E
.<L
<j
E
Et
00)C
*~Z
4E
4)0
0
~>
0)
-5
<
m n4
m
Ir
0(Li0) LL
--------
F1
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
I. Recipient's Reference
2. Originator's Reference
AGARD-AR-303
3. Further Reference
ISBN 92-836-1002-4
4. Security Classification
of Document
UNCLASSIFIED
Volume I
5. Originator
6. Title
9. Date
8. Author(s)/Editor(s)
August 1994
Multiple
1I. Pages
156
Multiple
13. Keywords/Descriptors
14. Abstract
This report presents the results of a study by Working Group 14 of the AGARD Fluid
Dynamics Panel. This group was formed to establish an accessible, detailed experimental
data base for the validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) codes.
The thirty nine test cases that are documented cover the subsonic, transonic, and supersonic
flow regimes and five classes of geometries. Included in the five classes of geometries are:
Two Dimensional Airfoils; Three Dimensional Wings, designed for predominantly attached
flow conditions: Slender Bodies, typical of missile type configurations, Delta Wings,
characterized by a conical type of vortex flow; and Complex Configurations. either in a
geometrical sense or because of complicated flow interactions.
The report is presented in two volumes. Volume I provides a review of the theoretical and
experimental requirements. a general introduction and summary of the test cases, and
recommendations for the future. Volume ii contains detailed information on the test cases.
The relevant data of all test cases has been compiled on floppy disks, which can be obtained
through National Centers.
,L.
E1
72
'a
ti
.J
71
S0
<
.0
0L
C,
V>
t40
LL
Wi'0
7;-
.0<~~
LL~
<
73
LLL
Q~
<. Co
OL
0V
,
OH,
01
,0 v 9.
< <t~
>o
>o
<Jl.
<i
'A
o<
U
Z0>>
-
<.
-E
LU
.F-
EO;~
~~0
.0
U.
t: UJz
0. 0
ZO
00
CV<
8~
<U
U.
<7
>
o
LL
>
-0 i
04.
c
0
<~
o<~
'2
a3
oE
'o
UiO
tu
&
v U
0E
Im
~Z2
0
zo
E77~
E"f~
,~-
-5
z
E
~