0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Influence of Passive Flow-Control Devices on the Pressure Fluctuations at Wing-Body Junction Flows

[+] Author and Article Information
Semih M. Ölçmen

 The University of Alabama, Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics Department, P.O. Box 870280, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0280solcmen@eng.ua.edu

Roger L. Simpson

 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Aerospace and Ocean Engineering Department, 215 Randolph Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061simpson@aoe.vt.edu

J. Fluids Eng 129(8), 1030-1037 (Feb 23, 2007) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2746917 History: Received June 06, 2006; Revised February 23, 2007

The effectiveness of passive flow-control devices in eliminating high surface rms pressure fluctuations at the junction of several idealized wing/body junction flows was studied. Wall-pressure fluctuation measurements were made using microphones along the line of symmetry at the wing/body junction of six different wing shapes. The wings were mounted on the wind tunnel floor at a zero degree angle-of-attack. The six wing shapes tested were: a 3:2 semi-elliptical-nosed NACA 0020 tailed generic body shape (Rood wing), a parallel center-body model, a tear-drop model, a Sandia 1850 model, and NACA 0015 and NACA 0012 airfoil shapes. Eight different fence configurations were tested with the Rood wing. The two double-fence configurations were found to be the most effective in reducing the pressure fluctuations. Two of the single fence types were nearly as effective and were simpler to manufacture and test. For this reason one of these single fence types was selected for testing with all of the other wing models. The best fence flow-control devices were found to reduce rms wall-pressure fluctuations by at least 61% relative to the baseline cases.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic drawing of wing/body junction flow and the placement of microphones

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Models and the fences used in the current investigation. Figure does not reflect the relative sizes. Model details are given in Table 1.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Schematic describing fence configurations. The fence of width XF is placed at height of YF from the tunnel floor.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

prms∕qref, skewness, and flatness profiles obtained for Model 0 using fence 2. Approach boundary layer separates at x∕t=−0.45, −0.41, −0.45, −0.436, −0.49, −0.433, for no fence, fences 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

prms∕qref, skewness, and flatness profiles obtained for Model 0 using fences M20, P20 and R175. Approach boundary layer separates at x∕t=−0.45, −0.451, −0.398, −0.535, for no fence, fences M20, P20, and R175, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

prms∕qref, skewness, and flatness profiles obtained for Model 0 using double fences. Approach boundary layer separates at x∕t=−0.45, −0.475, −0.458, for no fence, double fences 23 and 33, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

prms∕qref, skewness, and flatness profiles obtained for Model 1 using different fences. Approach boundary layer separates at x∕t=−0.393, −0.308, −0.376, −0.435, for no fence, fences 22, 23 and 24, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

prms∕qref, skewness, and flatness profiles obtained for Model 2 using different fences. Approach boundary layer separates at x∕t=−0.518, −0.443, −0.439, −0.445, for no fence, fences 22, 23, and 24, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

prms∕qref, skewness, and flatness profiles obtained for Model 3 using different fences. Approach boundary layer separates at x∕t=−0.157, −0.208, −0.197, −0.203, for no fence, fences 22, 23, and 24, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

prms∕qref, skewness, and flatness profiles obtained for Model 4 using different fences. Approach boundary layer separates at x∕t=−0.294, −0.258, −0.295, −0.299, for no fence, fences 22, 23, and 24, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

prms∕qref, skewness, and flatness profiles obtained for Model 5 using different fences. Approach boundary layer separates at x∕t=−0.339, −0.283, −0.333, −0.281, for no fence, fences 22, 23, and 24, respectively.

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