Experimental data from the Benchmark SuperCritical Wing wind tunnel test on an oscillating turntable

Heeg, Jennifer; Piatak, David J.

doi:10.2514/6.2013-1802

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To identify simpler analysis cases, the No Yes entire set of available experimental data from the OTT test was assessed for separated flow using an isentropic flow relationship and rules of thumb. 21 Simplifying the physics to a case that could be predicted by most methods, including linear methods, was the objective in choosing the primary analysis cases for AePW-2. Using the experimental information as a guide, two test cases just outside of the separated flow regime were emphasized for AePW-2 and are listed in Table 3.…”

Section: Workhop Analysis Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview and Data Comparisons from the 2^nd Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Heeg

Chwalowski

Raveh

et al. 2016

34th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the computational results generated by participating teams of the second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop and compare them with experimental data. Aeroelastic and rigid configurations of the Benchmark Supercritical Wing (BSCW) wind tunnel model served as the focus for the workshop. The comparison data sets include unforced ("steady") system responses, forced pitch oscillations and coupled fluidstructure responses. Integrated coefficients, frequency response functions, and flutter onset conditions are compared. The flow conditions studied were in the transonic range, including both attached and separated flow conditions. Some of the technical discussions that took place at the workshop are summarized.

show abstract

Section: Workhop Analysis Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview and Data Comparisons from the 2^nd Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Heeg

Chwalowski

Raveh

et al. 2016

34th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the wind tunnel experiment the flow at these conditions was slightly unsteady, with shock oscillations between about 40% to 50% chord location, as captured by the pressure transducers at 60% span station (see figure 7 of Ref. [15]). In the current study, all of the simulations converged to steady flows.…”

Section: Structural Modelmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Data includes the flutter dynamic pressure and frequency, unsteady surface pressure data while the model was at flutter, and steady pressure data for a fixed model (acquired with the PAPA locked). The second experiment is a forced excitation test, in which the wing was oscillated in pitch, about an axis at the 30% chord, via an oscillating turn table [15]. This experiment was performed in R-134a gas.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Flow Simulations for the Second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop Using the EZNSS Code

Raveh

2016

34th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents numerical simulations that were performed with the EZNSS flow solver for the second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW). The reference test cases for the AePW are based on two wind tunnel experiments of the Benchmark Supercritical Wing (BSCW), including a flutter test, and forced excitation tests. Three cases were adressed, at different transonic flow conditions: Two cases at lower Mach numbers of 0.7, 3 • angle of attack (AoA), and 0.74, 0 • AoA, and one more physically compex case at Mach 0.85, 5 • AoA. The cases were analyzed with the EZNSS code, using several computational setups and turbulence models. The simulations were able to predict accurately the flutter response and the response to prescribed motion at the lower Mach number. The higher Mach number case, which involves a strong shock, separated flow behind the shock, and some flow unsteadiness, was more challenging. In the static analysis, different turbulence models yielded different upper-surface shock positions, and none of the models were able to capture accurately the pressure recovery behind the shock. However, the unsteady aerodynamic response to prescribed pitch motion was simulated with good correlation to the wind tunnel data. The paper also presents flutter predictions based on unsteady aerodynamic reduced-order modeling (ROM) thus validating and assessing the efficiency of the ROM, and the flutter prediction methodology. 1 Downloaded by FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on June 25, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org |

show abstract

“…For a more detailed description the reader may visit the BSCW experimental data report by Heeg and Piatak 8 . Additional information may also be found in the original NASA reports.…”

Section: The Bscw Casementioning

confidence: 99%

Initial Investigation of the Benchmark SuperCritical Wing Configuration using Hybrid RANS-LES modeling

Dalenbring

Jirasek

Heeg

et al. 2013

54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Benchmark SuperCritical Wing (BSCW) wind tunnel model served as a semi-blind test case for the 2012 AIAA Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW). The geometry of the BSCW is simple but the flow field is complex and challenging. The BSCW has moderate separation, buffeting and oscillating shock motion. The result from the first AePW shows that CFD modeling based on RANS is insufficient for accurate physical modeling of this moderately separated flow. This paper presents initial CFD results from using a more suited turbulence resolving hybrid RANS-LES method. The result shows important qualitative improvements with respect to the physical modeling of the flow. NomenclatureC p = pressure coefficient c ref = reference chord length ( = 16 inches for BSCW) f = frequency, Hz M = Mach number q = dynamic pressure, psf Re = Reynolds number per chord, 1/ft Re c = Reynolds number based on wing chord V = Freestream velocity x/c = chord location, nondimensionalized by wing chord y = span-wise coordinate  = angle of attack  = ratio of specific heats (= 1.14 for R-134a, = 1.4 for Air) Acronyms AePW = Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop BSCW = Benchmark SuperCritical Wing wind tunnel model CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics DES = Detached Eddy Simulation FRF = Frequency Response Function HIRENASD = High Reynolds Number Aero-Structural Dynamics wind tunnel model LES = Large Eddy Simulation, higher order flow solver URANS = Unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Navier Stokes, most common flow solver 1 Senior Reseacher, Information-and Aeronautical Systems, Gullfossgatan 6, and AIAA Member.

show abstract

Experimental data from the Benchmark SuperCritical Wing wind tunnel test on an oscillating turntable

Cited by 20 publications

References 9 publications

Overview and Data Comparisons from the 2^nd Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Overview and Data Comparisons from the 2^nd Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Flow Simulations for the Second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop Using the EZNSS Code

Initial Investigation of the Benchmark SuperCritical Wing Configuration using Hybrid RANS-LES modeling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Experimental data from the Benchmark SuperCritical Wing wind tunnel test on an oscillating turntable

Cited by 20 publications

References 9 publications

Overview and Data Comparisons from the 2nd Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Overview and Data Comparisons from the 2nd Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Flow Simulations for the Second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop Using the EZNSS Code

Initial Investigation of the Benchmark SuperCritical Wing Configuration using Hybrid RANS-LES modeling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Overview and Data Comparisons from the 2^nd Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Overview and Data Comparisons from the 2^nd Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop