Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
AEDC-TR-77-61
AERODYNAMICCHARACTERISTICSOF PERFORATED
WALLS FOR TRANSONICWIND TUNNELS
June 1977
Prepared for
DIRECTORATE OF TECHNOLOGY
ARNOLD ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT CENTER
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
ARNOLD AIR FORCE STATION, TENNESSEE 37389
NOTICES
When I). S. Government drawings specifications, or other data are used for
any purpose other than a definitely related Government procurement
operation, the Government thereby incurs no responsibility nor any
obligation whatsoever, and the fact that the Government may have
formulated, furnished, or in any way supplied the said drawings,
specifications, or other data, is not to be regarded by implication or
otherwise, or in any manner licensing the holder or any Other person or
corporation, or conveying any rights or permission to manufacture, use, or
sell any patented invention t h a t m a y in any w a y b e related thereto.
Qualified Users may obtain copies of t h i s report from the Defense
Documentation Center.
References to named commercial products in this report are not to be
considered in any sense as an endorsement of the product by the United
States Air Force or the Government.
This report has been reviewed by the Information Office (OI) and is releasable
to the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). At NTIS, it will be
available to the general public, including foreign nations.
APPROVAL STATEMENT
This technical report has been reviewed and is approved for publication.
FOR THE COMMANDER
ALEXANDER F. MONEY
Research and Development
Division
Directorate of Technology
"
ROBERT O. DIETZ
Director of Technology
UNCLASSIFIED.
READ INSTRUCTIONS
B E F O R E COMPLETING F O R M
R E P O R T D O C U M E N T A T I O N PAGE
1. R f ~ P O R T N U M B E R
2 GOVT ACCESSION NO
3. R E C I P I E N T ' $
CATALOG
NUMBER
AEDC-'YR-77-61
4.
TITLE
(and 5ubtIIlv)
$.
AERODYNAMIC C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F P E R F O R A T E D
W A L L S FOR TRANSONIC WIND T U N N E L S
7.
AUTHOR(l)
Type
8.
CONTRACT
OR GRANT NUMBER(a )
10. P R O G R A M E L E M E N T . P R O J E C T .
A R E A & WORK U N I T N U M B E R S
CONTROLI-ING
12. R E P O R T D A T E
1~. N U M E I E R O F P A G E S
IS.
TASK
June 1977
75'
SECURITy
C L A S S . ( o / t h l l report)
..
UNCLASSIFIED
15a.
16. D I S T R I B U T I O N
STATEMENT
N/A
( o f fhlll Reporl)
17.
DISTRIBUTION
tS.
SUPPLEMENTARy
II
d l f f e r e n f from Report)
NOTES
Available in DDC
19.
K E Y WORDS ( C o n t i n u e on reverse e l d e i f n e c e e l = r y
and identify
by
bJock number)
ABSTRACT
D D , JAN ?3 1473
E D t T I O N O F 1 N O V 6S IS O B S O L E T E
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
ZO. ABS'rPA CT (Continued)
of assuming proportioliallty between local p r e s s u r e and flow angle as a boundary condition for wall interference e s t i m a t e s . However, it is also shown that the thickness of
the boundary layer represents a dominant influence on the perforated wall c h a r a c t e r i s tics, with beth the slope and intercept of the characteristic being dependent on the
boundary layer. The effects on the wall characteristics of suppressing the edgetone
noise by use of screen overlays or splitter plates within discrete holes are documeated.
,
AF$C
Ae~ld
AFI
"re~
UNCLASSIFIED
_+
",
!~
A E D C - T R-77-61
~i
~-
.:
PREFACE
,'AEDc-TR-77-61
CONTENTS
I .0
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . .
2.0
DEVELOPMENT OF THEORY
~5
3.0
4.0
-i
5.0
,J
/
6.0
2. I
Potential Flow
......
2.2
W a l l Boundary Layer
. . . . .
/6 ~
14
APPARATUS
3.1
Aerodynamic*Wind
Tunnel
(IT)
. .
3.2
P r e s s u r e D i s t u r b a n c e Generators
3.3
P e r f o r a t e d W a l l Geometry
3.4
Instrumentation
. .
17
.
18
.....
2i
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
,..
21
PROCEDURE
4.1
Test Procedure
. . . . . . . . .
4.2
P r e c i s i o n of M e a s u r e m e n t s
.......
. . . . . . .
26
. . . . . .
27
Assessment of Accuracy
....
5.2
P e r f o r a t e d W a l l Characterist4cs
5.3
. . . .
....
. .
. . . . .
CONCLUDING REMARKS . . . . . . . . . . .
30
.
. . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....
27
43
48
.:
50
ILLUSTRATIONS
,
Figure
.!
I.
2. C o m p a r i s o n of the Inverse S m a l l - P e r t u r b a t i o n
Approach
~,
. . . . . . . . . . . .
3. C o m p a r i s o n of the Inverse S m a l l - P e r t u r b a t i o n
Approach
of the N o n l i n e a r R e l a t i o n s h i p
F l o w A n g l e and N o r m a l i z e d ~ W a l l
11
13
Between
Mass Flux . . . . . .
16
AE DC-TR-77-61
Figure
5. Characteristics of the Pressure Disturbance
Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
22
Z9
31
32
.....
34
Distribution
36
37
40
42
. . . . . . . .
44
46
APPENDIX
A. COMPARATIVE CROSSFLOW CHARACTERISTIC DATA FOR EACH
PERFORATED WALL GEOMETRY . . . . . . . . . .
53
NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
AED C-TR-77~1
:~
1.0 INTRODUCTION
~:IAlthough t r a n s o n i c wind t u n n e l s w i t h v e n t i l a t e d
have!been i n use f o r o v e r 25 y e a r s (Ref.
aerodynamic p r o p e r t i e s
test
s e c t i o n walls~
1), an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e
Knowledge:i
( p r e s s u r e - f l o w angle r e l a t i o n s h i p )
to o b t a i n t h i s
information.
Previous. techniques
t h r o u g h 3) f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
assumption o f
(Refs.
have r e l i e d
1"
on t h e
~:
To bypass these difficulties , the present investigation was designed to develop a new test technique thatwould yield definitive
information on ventilated wall characteristics.
An inverse technique
was calculated with the line relaxation method of Murman and Cole (Ref.
6) with the primary result being the flow angle distribution in the
vicinity of a ventilated wall.
AEDC-TR-77-6|
The theoretical approach is described in Section 2.0, with the
experimental apparatus and procedure being described in Sections 3.0 and
4.0.
It fs further
assumed that the flow can he mathematically described by small perturbations from a uniform flow with boundary conditions derived from static
pressure measurements around a control volume.
[1 - M2 - ( y +
1)~
~ x] ~xx + ~xx = 0
(1)
( d iv id e d by a reference
0 ---y
(2)
AE DC-TR-77-61
- ~ ,~,
Cp dx
I
x
,',., C I
"Pl
BOUNDARY-VALUE PROBLEM
I
I
I Cx" Cp
I
I
~,j~= Cp dx
PERFORATED WALL
FLOW
~__
37. 5 in.
2 5 in..1. I
13 in. ------~
~
I
SOLID CONTOURED WALL
12 in.
AE DC-TR-77-61
~;i~ii~
(3)
Ox (L,y) = -0.5 C
(L,y)
.
c~
CI]{D
X
,
O(x,o)
(4)
0(x,h) = -0.5
Cp (x,h)dx + 0i
[;{;
i]!I; ~CI]:
O
m
A physical interpretation
of t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e s e c o n s t a n t s i s .that.
m,-~
h
01 - 00 =
0y (o,y)dy
(5)
,O
Since the magnitude o f the potential is of no consequence, 0o was arbitrarily set to zero without loss of generality.
The selected PrOcedure for defining 01 was based on the concePt.of i:'
boundary-layer displacement thickness development on the bottom wall ,,f ~
with, of course, knowledge of the wall geometry.
AEDC-TR-77-61
Ys(X) = f ~y(X,o)dx
(6)
0
7
In general, the resulting streamline did not agree with the effective
wall geometry because the average flow inclination at the test section
_I
r! L
form crossflow on the ~ solution does allow matching of both the effective bottom wall geometry and the boundary conditions derived from
static pressure measurements.
Given the
displacement thickness, ~I' and the wall geometry, yg, ~I was computed
from
~I = h___
x I [61(xI ) - 61(o ) + yg(Xl)
_ Ys(Xl)]
(7)
AE DC-TR-77-61
~(x,y)
= ~(x,y)
(8)
i
!
The numerical technique selected to solve for $ was that of Murman
The
"
These
One of the most illustrative examples of the accuracy Of the smallperturbation approach is provided by comparison with an exact solution
for flow over a right-clrcular cylinder (Ref. 9).
As indicated i~ Fig.
and lower boundaries are compared wlth the exact solution in Fig. 2.
Two salient points of this comparison are that the inverse Solution
appears to be nominally ten percent in error, a consequence of assuming
I0
- m
EXACT
--- - ,SMALL
INVERSE
SOLUTION
PE R T U R B A T I O N
I
I
SOLUTION
0.2
"
C
0
~ m .
lY =4
I
I
~ y = 2
___--------
=2
0.!
-4
m
0
tk=.
ui
~
-2
-I
0
LI
""
'
,"
-0.ii i
-0.2L
3D
,,j
AE DC-T R-77-61
small perturbations,
calculational
as boundary conditions
degree of approximation
determined .(exact)
the
the higher-order
velocity
computed
exact solution for flow over a cylinder and showed errors up to three
times that indicated in Fig. 2.
i.
T_
flows at Mach
In these examples,
In
throughout.
differencing
is consistently utilized;
within the field that are incompatible with the exact, imposed boundary
conditions,
is utilized,
into the
and second-order
12
AE DC-T R-77-61
EXACT
SOLUTION
SMALL
PERTURBATION
INVERSE SOLUTION
"
0 03 I
0.02
M2>I
001
o
0.03
0.02
M2<I
M I =1.1
0.01
MI
,
,i
M2
;r
13
AEDC-TR-77-61
:;
flow.
2.2 W A L L B O U N D A R Y L A Y E R
As discussed by Goethert
boundary-layer
correlations
(displacement)
(Ref. I0), t h e
are attempted.
The
;,:
thickness,
flow written as
d61
6 - 61 d
d--x-- ; ~ % ~ dx ( p = u )
where 61 is the displacement
the Integral
'
,,~.
(9)
+ O - I = 0
is a constant thickness
constant displacement
Ignoring
The conventional a p p r o a c h t o
, :
Eq. (9) to solve for the mass flux was developed by G. H. Saunders of
ARO, Inc.
The two-dimenslonal,
code of Whitfleld
turbulent,
boundary-layer
prediction
14
~
:
AEDC.TR-77.61
'r
" "
"
tively s~ecified until the calculated flow angl e from Eq.. (9) matched
the potential flow results.
',~"]
--:
.,
it was
implf~itly assumed that the finite-size perforations.could be'repre sented'-as an equivalent, homogeneous porous wall and"that the no-slip ""
condition was valid (in spite of having inclined holes).
/ .
:
....
I
{
dH
Cf
% = +-----H
I
I0 + ~2 d~x ~ H 2 "
(io)
'
The parameters of significance are the shape factor, H, and the skin L
friction coefficient, Cf.
Conversely,
the Skin friction approaches zero and the shape factor becomes large
.such that dX/de->0. At moderate suction orl blowing rates with a repre L
sentative shape factor of H = 1.5 at the Mach numbers of interest, Eq.
(10) indicates X ~ 0/2.5 would be appropriate.
Some representative
. "" '
: i ,
These results
15
mh
~i
"~
5
3~
m
.BI
0=0
D ~
~.
0
04
.o
0
PO
r" o
o
r0
.o
4~
-m
m
3
IrO
.o
=J.=
=11
I0
CO
om
~>z
r-~
c
c~
[m
-
Z~
ro
3>-0
-Im
'
'
9!
/)
(=
C)
.-I
19"LL-I:J l-OO
q>
II
>,,
9V
0
0
04
AEDC-TR'77-61
3.0 APPARATUS
3.1 AERODYNAMIC WIND TUNNEL (1T)
The experimentswere conducted in the Aerodynamic Wind Tunnel (IT),
which is a continuous-flow transonic tunnel with atmospheric intake and
exhaust.. The test section is of square cross section, nominally 12 by
12 in. and 37.5 in. longm and is enclosed within a plenum chamber.
.
To
.%
prevent water vapor condensation in the test section,.stagnation temperature is normally varied within the range of 150 to 190"F as required.
.z
(floor) was attached to the nozzle exit with a flexure, and the downstream end'of the wall was suported by a remotely controllable Jackscrew.
As applied
to
17
A E D C - T R-77-61
Upstream
Unless
The dashed lines in Fig. 5a represent the boundary-layer displacement thickness development over the various contours.
The calculations
were based on the potential flow solution, with integration of the flow
inclination at the bottom wall compatible with the measured pressures at
M = 0~8.
]8
-i
AEOC-TR-77-61
INVISCID
S..TREAMLINE 7
FLOW
CONTOUR A
1
CONTOUR
'.~ ,~i...~;:
~: "/~
.=:: :,
CONTOUR
CONTOUR
CONTOUR
- "../::";~.'I.
,';~
~.",
19
AEDC-TR-77-6t
0.2
I
I
I I~"1
CONTOUR A
(" j
~0.1
Z
ILl
LI.
LI.
ILl
0
LIJ
n*
U)
(n
hi
G:
a.
-0. I
-o.2 I
0
I0
15
20
.25
TUNNEL STATION, inches
20
30
35
AEDC-TR~77-61
i
3.3
PERFORATED
WALL GEOMETRY
'
"
"
in Fig. 6.
of inserting a splitter Plate , SPL (Ref. 13) in each hole, longitudinally bisecting the hole, w l t h t h e splitter-plate dimensions being 0.012
in.lwide and 0.063 in. deep.
I
I
I
i To distinguish among the differing wall geometries the configuration code is followed by wall porosity and,~if appropriate, either SPL
or SCR to denote the noise suppression'device present (for example, D1.0!SCR).
geometries.
3.4 | N S T R U M E N T A T | O N
2]
AEDC-TR -77-61
16.1 DEG
~
,s.9
1.752--
oEG_~...<~
.-
0 0 0 0
O0
o
3.034
O0
O0
o
O0
o
0
O0
o
0
0 o
--0
O0
FLOW
"-
0.125D
_J_
0.125
a. Configuration A
Figure 6. Perforated wall geometry.
22
AEDC-TR-77-61
0.713
(2)
0
FLOW
"
0.213 D
~r-
o.125
b.~ ConfigurationB
Figure 6. Continued.
23
AEDC-TR-77-61
2 0 . 0 6 DEG
~--I. 240---.,]
20.06
-"---- 0
0
0
0
0
FLOW
0.166 D
FIXED POROSITY
"
-70.125 TYP
r = I 0 . 0
PLATE
MOTION
24
AEDC-TR-77-61
Raw data were recorded on punched paper tape, and results were
The
available from the data processor, but all results presented were processed off-line from digital magnetic tape recordings of the raw data.
Further com-
25
AEDC-TR-77-61
4.0 PROCEDURE
l;r
,~,J
at first
Eq. (I).
How-
flow within the plenum chamber actually was at a very low velocity.
The
"
For some ventilated wallsp the bottom wall angle was adjusted to
achieve changes in the mean boundary-layer thickness over the ventilated
wall.
Convergence of the bottom wall forced more flow into the plenum,
25
AEDC-TR-77-6t
The resulting
0.005
Pressure coefficient, C
0.006
Wall angle, 8w
0.02
Displacement thickness, 61
0.03
The laser velocimetry data were derived from an average of approximately 1,000 samples/point, yielding negligible random error.
Bias
errors introduced within the system or from particle lag were of unknown
magnitude.
A highly
complicated relationship exists between the precision of pressure coefficient measurements and the precision of the calculated flow angles.
Additional uncertainties arise from the assumptions of small perturbations and two-dimensional flow.
27
AEDC-TH-77-61
To obtain a qualitative appraisal of accuracy, independent measurements of the flow angles were made for selected ventilated walls I in.
from the walls and compared with calculations made for the same conditions.
dimensional basis and matching of a streamline at the bottom wall resulted in artiflcially increased outflow and decreased inflow at t h e '
ventilated wall.
To o b t a i n a n i n d i c a t i o n
of the boundary-layer
The f i r s t
program accuracy,
setup consisted
two
of
replacing the ventilated wall with a solid wall and performing all
measurements and ca~culatlons as if there were mass flux through the
wall.
28
AEDC-TR-77-61
0.08
LV DATA
CALCULATED
0.04
"
M = O.8
-0.04
#w'O
-0.08
12
16
20
24
TUNNEL STATION, inches
28
29
32
AE DC-TR-77-61
excellent, and it was therefore assumed that the boundary-layer calculations were equally valid at other tunnel stations.
Boundary-layer '~
measurements were not made on any other ventilated wall geometry, which
required the assumption that the effects of changes in wall geometry=
' if
~
i/
,i
A6.0 is
presented
a set of results
as a f u n c t i o n
obtained
of tunnel
with
station
;~
con-
i n Ftg~ 9~
result with flow angle, wall mass flux, and boundary-layer displacement
thickness being derived quantities.
For a
the resulting
30
AEDC-TR-77-61
4)
0.3
O
J:
U
C
, D
LINEOF PERFECT
(n
(/)
bJ
AGREEMENT
(
~
0 "0 O /
.
-,- 0.2
I-
~ 0.1
o/
a
ul
p.
/00.
_1
.J
j
olZo
O
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
MEASURED DISPLACEMENT THICKNESS, inches
3"1
AE DC-TR-77-61
0.05
-0.01
-0.10
0.02' I
-0.02
**~
8w= 0.5
- 0.04
CONFIG
A6.O
10
15
ZO
25
TUNNEL STATION, inchos
0.2'
BI
0.1
30
32
35
AEDC-TR-77-61
~x +
~ ~y = 0
(11)
where 8 is the Prandtl-Glauert factor and R represents an unknown porosity factor or wall permeability.
(12)
Thus, for utilization of the present results within existing theoretical wall interference prediction methods, there should exist a
linear relationship between C
linear at the upstream portion of the wall, although reasonable llnearity existed over and downstream of the bottom wall contour.
The up-
stream portion of the perforated wall was used to establish flow conditions, whereas normally four ventilated walls would be utilized at
significantly less model blockage ratios; therefore, it is suggested
that the data obtained directly above the contour were more representative of conventional conditions.
33
[2
(3
:D
',4
0.02
Cp
I
0
-0.0 Z
,e,,:-o.5
o.,
~ I L~ ~- -
CONFIG A6.0
0.04
0.06
IN FLOW
-o08
-0.028
OUTFLOW
l
-0.024
- 0 ~ 2 0 -0.016
-0.004
0.004
0.008
e
).012
AEDC-TR-77-61
To quantify the wall characteristics, a least-squares, linear fit
of the Cp-8 locus was obtained; this fitting was limited to the wall
region directly above the bottom wall contour.
Again,
it should be noted that these data were obtained with the bottom wall
parallel to the tunnel centerline with the circular arc (Contour A)
installed.
:-.
slope and the boundary-layer thicknes s were averages over the wall
extent directly above the bottom wall contours.
35
AEDC-TR-77-61
0.04
0
o.
(.t
LLJ
b.
dJ
O
(J
Ld
n-
0
E
(n
bJ
r,-
CL
0
CONFIGURATION
A6.0
M=0.6
+1"
0
-0.04
-0.04
-0.02
0
0
0
0
FLOW ANGLE, rodions
36
0.02
AEoc.TR.~,'I:S,
I0~0
0
[]
m
CONFIG
A. 6 . 0
8 7;0
C IO:Q
< 2.0
zu
j
P,
~. :1.0
(/)
0.5
qp
0.2
0.4
0.6
0,8
1.0
AVERAGE DISPLACEMENT THICKNESS/HOLE DIAMETER
a. Fixed porosity walls
Figure 12. Effect of boundary-layer displacement thickness
on the characteristic dope.
,/
3"/
A E DC-TR-77-61
I0.0
~o
~,~
5.0
~ .
"'X.o
_'~-._A _ _
.
u_
,_o
Z.O
"
0"-,8.
o i
---O.----
,.=,
\ )"~o..
A
'
X0, %.
"
5.0
o,
"
1.0
U)
--
r I 0 .
0.5
0
O k\
"K,,_
,,
REF 19
I
I
I
I
I
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
AVERAGE DISPLACEMENT THICKNESS/HOLE DIAMETER
r
b. ConfigurationD
F!gure 12. Concluded.
38
i,
AEDC-TR-77-61
Since
the tunnel wall boundary layer generally becomes thinner with increasing
Reynolds number or with increased model size, the representative wall
interference boundary condition is variable.
Furthermore, a lifting
Mokry, et al. (Ref. 18) who attributed the difference in wall boundary
conditions to a nonlinear wall characteristic.
boundary-layer thickness caused by an enlargement of the model disturbance field and additional suction at the wall.
Also
indicated in Fig. 12b are the results from a previous attempt (Ref. 19)
at quantifying the characteristics of this wall geometry.
Reasonable
o f t h e C - 8 l o c u s a p p r o x i m a t i o n was c o n s i d e r e d t o be
P
e s t i m a t e of the p r e s s u r e drop a c r o s s the w a l l s c o r -
r e s p o n d i n g to uniform flow c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n a
v a l u e s a r e found to be c o r r e l a t a b l e
test
section.
These
39
AE DC-TR-77-61
0.04
0.02
o
=
_z
-0.02
z_
D 5.0
\c,o.o
-o.o4
_u
-0.06
"= -0.08
~
-0.10
'
O I0.0
0
0.2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1.0
AVERAGE DISPLACEMENT THICKNESS/ HOLE DIAMETER
'Figure 13. Effect of boundary-layer displacement thickness
on the characteristic intercept.
4O
AEDC-TR-77-61
Current tech-
niques of wind tunnel practice include calibration of the tunnel centerline Mach number against the plenum Mach number and subsequent use of
that calibration to infer a free-stream Mach number from the plenum Mach
number, regardless of the model blockage.
The sensitivity of test sectlon Mach number to wall boundarylayer thickness suggests that the present practice of using plenum
pressure to define a free-streamMach number should be re-examlned.
This difference is
curve was calculated with the computer code described in Section 2.1,
and the supersonic llne is the result of small disturbance theory (Ref.
19).
matches the linear characteristic required for supersonic wave cancellation, and the downstream movement characteristic approximates the
41
AE DC-T R -77-61
Z"
cp
UPSTREAM
CUTOFF
DS.0
DATA FOR
M = 0.6
DESIRED
SUBSONIC
CHARACTERISTIC - - ~
" ~ D E S I RED
SUPERSONIC
" " ~. ~
CHARACTER,
~RISTIC
/!
I
DOWNSTREAM
CUTOFF
D -5.O
42
AEDC-TR-77-61
cardiod-shaped Cp-8 locus desired for subsonic flow (note the Cp 6rigin
is shifted to compensate for the different plenum Maeh numbers).
Therefore, consideration should be given to using this variable-poroslty
wall with both upstream and downstream displacement of the cutoff plate
as a function of Mach number~
As discussed in
sentedlin Appendix A.
The change in
pressure drop across the wall at zero erossflow velocity would change a
tunnel calibration but have no other significant effect.
The effect of
43
AEDC-TR-77-61
.+
0,16
BASIC WALL
0.12
SPLITTER PLATE
I
r
u
I--"
t
t
0.08
I
.]
tAJ
O: 0 4
la.
t~J
o(.1
fj~ '
SJ / SI~
t~J
n(n
uJ
r~
G.
,
/
-0.04
4- .
-0.08
-0. 12
-0. 16
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
FLOW ANGLE, rodions
0.02
).04
44
A E DC-TR:77-61
On the other hand, the screen overlay tended to close the charac-
These result@
However, referrlng
to Fig. 16, the screen overlay also straightened the characterlstlc With
downstream movement of the cutoff plate which would remove any chance of
achieving a reduced subsonic wall interference test environment.
45
AEDC-TR-77-61
0.16
BASIC WALL
0.12
SPLITTER
PLATE
SCREEN OVERLAY
I
Q,
u
I-:
0.08
Z
hi
0.04
h
tl.
b.I
0
j-~1"*
hi
n*.,=
(/)
(n
. ;/ ' I /
yfJ
-0.04
W
n.,
(1.
-0.08
-0.12
-0.16
-0.06
-G04
-0.02
0.02
46
0.04
AEDC-T
i 0.16,
BASIC WALL
~
O. 12
R-77-61
- .
SPLITTER PLATE
....
SCREEN OVERLAY
0.08
u I
ioo,
~,.
I"'-; /"7
_~.-F''j J / /
~i .0. 0 4
~i'~!- 0 . 0 8
-0.12
;,!?
-0 16
-0~06
-0.04 "
-0.02
0
FLOW ANGLE, radians
I~- ~ = 5.0 (upstream)
Figure 16. Continued.
4?
0.02
004
A E D C - T R-77-61
0.12
BASIC WALL
O.
0.08
m n l l
Z
laJ
--
U
m
h
SPLITTER
%)
I
PLATE
SCREEN O V E R L A Y
l
0.04
..o J
0
0
,,I
rim
-0.04
ILl
O.
-0.08
-0.12
-0.16
"0' 2.~).06
-0.04
-0.02
0.02
rr
0.04-
The
The
48
AEDC-TR-77-61
I.
The effects on the wall characteristic of two types of noise suppression devices, splitter plates bisecting each hole and a screen
overlaid on the airslde surface, were documented with the following
results being obtained:
I.
49
AE DC-TR-77-61
perforated
walls can be assumed linear for purposes of calculating subsonic wall interference effects.
wind tunnel test section may require a different characteristic representation to accommodate differences in mean wall i
boundary-layer thicknesses.
\
.
test
sec-
REFERENCES
I.
York, 1961.
2 ,
AEDC-TN-55-44
S.
ventional and Differential Resistance to Cross-Flow and Airflow Parallel to the Plates."
"Experiments
50
AEDC-TR-77-6t
5.
7.
Elements of Gasdynamlcs.
John
8.
Murman, E. M.
Relaxation Methods."
Theoretical Hydrodynamics.
The Macmillan
Company, 1968.
10. ~Lukaslewicz, J.
11.
AEDCrTR-76-62 (AD-A027588),
J u l y 1976.
12.
13.
"An
5]
AEDC-TR-75-88 (AD-A013728),
AEDC-TR-77-61
14.
"Suppression of Background
AIAA Journal,
15.
Cline, V. A. and
Lo, C.' F.
Proceedings of the
16.
Advisory Group I~
for
17.
AEDC-TR-69-
18.
"Wall Interference on :
February 1974.
19.
Jacocks, J. L.
AEDC-TR-70-72
W~
52
AEDC-TR-77-61
hri: :~ , : .."
APPENDIX A
, !i~.~::~'.. , . C O M P A R A T I V E C R O S S F L O W C H A R A C T E R I S T I C D A T A
FOR EACH P E R F O R A T E D W A L L G E O M E T R Y
measured with the circular arc contour installed with the bottom wall
parallel to the tunnel centerline.
numbers of 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 with offset origins in Figs. A-I
through A-8.
..
i~
53
AE DC-TR-77-61
%~,~
0,,25
.o.o.,--
_o.o,
i/o.o,
-0.2
-0.3
Figure A-1. Characteristics of configuration A6.0.
54
AEDC-TR-77-6i
,,.,~
0.213 D
30o~
~. "
'>
>
......
0.125._L
i >
~
a = 0.~I/j-l/~
Cp 0"3 - "
~'/
'
'
0"7:i
'
I" '
I
004
0.06
e
-0.3
Figure A-2., Characteristics of configuration B7.0.
SS
A E OC-T R -77-61
r-.-o.
166
1,
~
.=
03 r
06
t
07
._~_~ ~
-O.2
-O.3
Figure A-3. Characteristios of configuration C10.0.
56
AEDC-TR-77-61
0.125
X " ~ , ~
166 D
'"~::i!-~.:.~!'~:.,:~i~
I
3r
- y F/
=0.2
=0.3
a. T = 1.0 (upstream)
Figure A-4. Characteristics of configuration D.
5?
/
0.125
AEDC-TR-77-61
__~0.166
-0.06
-o.'o~ '-o.ov--~
o.'o~
-0.2
-0.3
b. T = 2.5 (upstream)
Figure A4, Continued.
58
o:o. o'.o
A EDC-TR-77-61
~f
0.166 O
J_
-f-
................. ~
..............
-1-
0125
Cp
-0.06
0.04
+ _ _ / ,
-0.02
=0.
0.02
-0.2
=0.3
c. r = 5.0 (upstream)
Figure A-4. Continued.
59
0.04
0.06
AEDC-TR-77-61
~0.166
.~'" " :~':; ~': ' " :,"::" ,'" ;"'~: ~/, , m
~:o.o~-~
-0.06
" "'"
"~:'= ::
'
--f-
0.3 r
Co.L
oo,o . a
~I
-0.2
-0.3
d. ~-- 10.0
60
o~--~,
AE DC-TR-77-61
0.125
_L
-~- 0.3
Mc~)o.2
.
0 . 8 ~
-0.2 I
-0.3
e. r = 5.0 (downstream)
Figure A 4 . Continued.
'
6]
AEDC-TR -77-6!
0.12~"
.166 D
__L ~ o ~ ~
o.,~
0.3
Cp
4-
o.2
/!
,
-0.06
-0.04
0.06
0.04
-0.2
-0.3
f. T = 2.5 (downstream)
Figure Ao4. Concluded.
'
62
AEDC-T R-77-61
0.3
M =0.5
Cp
+
o16
+
0.7
-0.06
+.
.o.o2
0.02
0.04
0.06
-0.2
-0.3
Figure A-5. Characteristics of confi~Jration A6.0 with splitter plates.
63
AEDC-TR-77-61
r
M=0.5
0.3
0,6
0.7f f _
-iv
/
-0.06
'
'
- 0 . 0 4 ~
/-t-
0.02
0.04
0.06
....
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Figure A-6, Characteristics Of configuration A6.0 with screen overlay.
AEDC-TR-77-61
"
-f-
0.125
:_".,~.'.'.':~.:...~:..~:,, / L".~:.~...-,,.
Cp
0.6
I.
-O06
-0.04
4-/
~--
I/
'
0.02
0.04
0.06
e
0.8 ~ j ~ ' S .
-0.2
-0.3
a. r = 2.5 (upstream)
Figure A-7. Characteristics of configuration D with splitter plates.
65
AEDC-TR-77-61
1
t
0.125
-o.o,-o.o,~
o.o,e
'.i:o:,o~...
-0.2
"
-0.:5
b. 7" = 5.0 (upstream)
Figure A-7. Continued.
66
AEDc'TR'77"6i
0.125
__k
. -{-
Cp 0"3 I
M =0.
0.2
q
-0.~6
:~ ~ /
-0.02
:I
0.02
10.2
67
.../
0.04
0.06
AEDC-TR-77-61
0.125
T
~+
o.~r
Cp
M=0.5
0.2
0.6
-0.06
o.7/"
,f
)/~
/.--.~---
-0.04
-0.02
- -
/
~
0.06
0.04
0.8
-0.3
d. T = -2~5 (downstream)
Figure A-7. Concluded.
L*!
68
AEDC-T
~""'~
.....
.....
N.
R-77-61
M=0.5
I1'
v-
-0.06
-o.o4
~/
,
/+
0.02
0.04
0.06
0
~'/
-0.I
-0,2
-0,3
a. T = 1.0 (upstream)
Figure A-8. Characteristics of configuration D with screen oveday.
69
AEDC-TR-77-61
~ ~ = 0.166
0.125
0.125
_L
-t-
%,
-01.06
).04
08
006;
,"'
8
-0. I
-0.2
j~
-0.3
b. T = 2.5 (upstream)
Figure A-8. Continued.
e.
70
AEDC-T,R-77-61
~~~~0.166
0 125
T
M
0'5~
=~ ~ ~
0.3
0.7
l
";
-0.0"6 ~"
I
-0.04
0.02
0104
0.06
0.8
-0. I
-0.2
-0.3
c. = 5.0 (upstream)
Figure A-8. Continued.
71
AEDC-TR-77-61
~F0.166
O'Oo'
0:% o'o
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
d. T = 10.0
I=igure A-8. Continued.
72
AEDC-TR-77-61
0.1~5 "
"i:
0.125
ID
~~ .
~i= .............~,
0.3
c~
M = 0.5"f--"*'~
-Q.'~06 . ' ~ -
o.;~
0.06
0.04
0.8
-0. I
-0.2
-0.3
e. ~"= -5.0 (downstream)
Figure A-8. Concluded.
73
AE Dc-TR-77~61
NOMENCLATURE
Cf
Pressure coefficient
~k
Tunnel h e i g h t
Tunnel length
Wall thickness
Streamwise coordinate
Transverse coordinate
yg
Ys
Streamline shape
Prandtl-Glauert
H = 61/~ 2
f ~l.l
,W
factor, B ffi (I - ~ ) I / 2
74
AEDC-TR-77-61
61
~2
Flow angle
p=
Wall porosity
Potential function
Particular solution for potential function
75