0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

An Investigation of Flow Fields Over Multi-Element Aerofoils

[+] Author and Article Information
S. R. Maddah, H. H. Bruun

Department of Mechanical and Medical Engineering, Fluid Flow Division, University of Bradford, Bradford, BD7 1DP, United Kingdom

J. Fluids Eng 124(1), 154-165 (Aug 27, 2001) (12 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1431267 History: Received January 23, 2001; Revised August 27, 2001
Copyright © 2002 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Innes, F., Pearcey, H. H., and Sykes, D. M., 1995, “Improvements in the performance of a three element high lift system by the application of airjet vortex generators,” Proc. Conference High Lift and Separation Control, Royal Aeronautical Society, University of Bath, UK, pp 25.1–25.11.
Moens, F., and Capbern, P., 1995, “Design and testing of leading-edge high-lift device for laminar flow wing applications,” Proc. Conference on High Lift and Separation Control, Royal Aeronautical Society, University of Bath, UK, pp. 7.1–7.13.
Seetharam, H. C., and Wentz, W. H. J., 1977, “A low speed two-dimensional study of flow separation on the GA(W)-1 airfoil with 30-percent chord Fowler flap,” NASA CR-2844.
Olson, L. E., and Orlow, K. L., 1981, “On the structure of turbulent wakes and merging shear layers of multielement aerofoils,” AIAA paper 81-1238.
Biber,  K., and Zumwalt,  G. W., 1993, “Flowfield measurements of a two-element airfoil with large separation,” AIAA J., 31, No. 3, pp. 459–464.
Nakayama,  A., Kreplin,  H. P., and Morgan,  H. L., 1990, “Experimental investigation of flowfield about a multielement airfoil,” AIAA J., 28, No. 1, pp. 14–21.
Braden, J. A., Whipkey, R. R., Jones, G. S., and Lilley, D. E., 1986, “Experimental study of the separating confluent boundary layer,” NASA CR-3655. also AIAA paper 86-0505.
Savory,  E., Toy,  N., Tahouri  , and Dalley,  S., 1992, “Flow regimes in the cove regions between a slat and wing and between a wing and a flap of a multielement aerofoil,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., 5, pp. 307–316.
Alemdaroglu, N., 1993, “Experimental investigation of flow around a multielement airfoil,” AGARD-CP-515.
Maddah, S. R., Gough, T., and Bruun, H. H., 2001, “Investigation of slat heel effect on flow field over multi-element aerofoils,” Proc. ASME FEDSM 2001 Conference, New Orleans, USA, session F-252-03.
Jones, J. B. C., 1993, “An optimised slat to maximise performance in both aircraft take-off and landing,” PhD thesis, University of Hertfordshire, UK.
Bruun, H. H., 1995, Hot-wire anemometry, Oxford University Press, Oxford London.
Maddah, S. R., 2000, “Study of the flow field over the multi-element aerofoils,” PhD thesis, Dept. of Mech. and Med. Engineering, Univ. of Bradford.
Coles,  D., and Wadcock,  A. J., 1979, “Flying hot-wire study of flow past an NACA 4412 airfoil at maximum lift,” AIAA J., 17, No. 4, pp. 321–329.
Mahmood, Z., Khan, M. K., Seale, W. J., and Bruun, H. H., 1995a, “Comparison of measured and computed velocity fields over a high lift aerofoil,” Proc. Seventh International Conference on computational methods and experimental measurements, Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton, UK, Capri, pp 203–211.
Mahmood, Z., Khan, M. K., and Bruun, H. H., 1995b, “Flow over high lift multiple aerofoils,” Proc. of Conference on High Lift and Separation Control, Royal Aeronautical Society.
Smith, A. M. O., 1974, “High lift aerodynamics,” AIAA paper 74-039.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Four-bar flying hot-wire mechanism, notation, and wind tunnel measurement coordinate system. The geometry is that which is used at the University of Bradford: r=60 mm,a=160 mm,c=146 mm,b=468 and 548 mm for old and new flying arm, respectively.
Grahic Jump Location
Velocity profiles for a position near the trailing edge of the aerofoil containing an intermittent unstable separation bubble: (i) curve a: velocity profile when the boundary layer is attached, and (ii) curve b: velocity profile when the flow is separated. A hot-wire probe placed at position y will detect velocities U1 and U2 corresponding to the two flow states.
Grahic Jump Location
Output signal from a single normal hot-wire probe located just outside the edge of an intermittent unstable separation bubble, demonstrating two quasi-steady flow conditions corresponding to (1) E1: an attached unstable boundary layer flow and (2) E2: an intermittent separation bubble.
Grahic Jump Location
Mean velocity values for: (a) Single aerofoil at α=5 deg; (b) two-element aerofoil at α=5 deg and δf=0 deg
Grahic Jump Location
Mean velocity values for: (a) Single aerofoil at α=10 deg; (b) two-element aerofoil at α=10 deg and δf=0 deg
Grahic Jump Location
Mean velocity values for: (a) Single aerofoil at α=15 deg; (b) two-element aerofoil at α=15 deg and δf=0 deg
Grahic Jump Location
Mean velocity vectors for three-element aerofoil at α=25 deg and δf=25 deg
Grahic Jump Location
Three-element aerofoil at α=25 deg and δf=25 deg: (a) Normalized streamwise normal Reynolds stress (u2/U2)×103; (b) normalized cross-stream normal Reynolds stress (v2/U2)×103
Grahic Jump Location
Three-element aerofoil at α=10 deg and δf=0 deg: (a) Mean velocity vectors; (b) normalized streamwise normal Reynolds stress (u2/U2)×103
Grahic Jump Location
Three-element aerofoil at α=15 deg and δf=0 deg: (a) Mean velocity vectors; (b) normalized streamwise normal Reynolds stress (u2/U2)×103
Grahic Jump Location
Three-element aerofoil at α=20 deg and δf=0 deg: (a) Mean velocity vectors; (b) normalized streamwise normal Reynolds stress (u2/U2)×103
Grahic Jump Location
The difference between streamwise mean velocity components, Ūwith-slat−Ūwithout-slat, for multi-element aerofoil at α=15 deg and δf=0 deg
Grahic Jump Location
Three-element aerofoil at α=25 deg and δf=0 deg: (a) Mean velocity vectors; (b) normalized streamwise normal Reynolds stress (u2/U2)×103
Grahic Jump Location
Three-element aerofoil at α=10 deg and δf=25 deg: (a) Mean velocity vectors; (b) normalized streamwise normal Reynolds stress (u2/U2)×103
Grahic Jump Location
(a) Maximum mean velocity over the top front of the main aerofoil for four aerofoil configurations: Three-element aerofoil, α=10, 15, 20, 25 deg: series 1: ♦, δf=0 deg; series 2: ▪, δf=10 deg, series 3: ▴, δf=25 deg. Series 4: ×, Two-element aerofoil, α=5, 10, 15, and δf=0 deg. (b) Minimum mean velocity over the trailing edge of the main aerofoil for four aerofoil configurations: (legend as in Fig. 15(a)). (c) (u2max/U2) as a function of angle of attack for four aerofoil configurations: (legend as in Fig. 15(a))
Grahic Jump Location
Representation of the flap and slat by vortices: (a) Flap representation; (b) slat representation
Grahic Jump Location
Pressure distribution for aerofoils at α=10 deg: (a) Aerofoil with retracted slat and flap; (b) three-element aerofoil with extended and deflected slat and flap (from Savory et al. 8)
Grahic Jump Location
Numerical prediction of: (a) Coefficient of lift Cl for three aerofoil configurations: Three-element aerofoil, α=10, 15, 20, 25 deg: series 1: ♦, δf=0 deg; series 2: ▪, δf=25 deg; series 3: ▴, Two-element aerofoil, α=5, 10, 15, and δf=0 deg; (b) coefficient of drag Cd for three aerofoil configurations: (legend as in a)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In