Advances in aircraft and spacecraft science

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Recommendations on dynamic pressure sensor placement for transonic wind tunnel tests

  • Yang, Michael Y. (ATA Engineering, Inc.) ;
  • Palodichuk, Michael T. (ATA Engineering, Inc.)
  • Received : 2018.09.15
  • Accepted : 2019.03.14
  • Published : 2019.11.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A wind tunnel test was conducted that measured surface fluctuating pressures aft of a ramp at transonic speeds. Dynamic pressure test data was used to perform a study to determine best locations for streamwise sensor pairs for shocked and unshocked runs based on minimizing the error in root-mean-square acceleration response of the panel. For unshocked conditions, the upstream sensor is best placed at least 6.5 ramp heights downstream of the ramp, and the downstream sensor should be within 2 ramp heights from the upstream sensor. For shocked conditions, the upstream sensor should be between 1 and 7 ramp heights downstream of the shock, with the downstream sensor 2 to 3 ramp heights of the upstream sensor. The shock was found to prevent the passage coherent flow structures; therefore, it may be desired to use the shock to define the boundary of subzones for the purpose of loads definition. These recommendations should be generally applicable to a range of expansion corner geometries in transonic flow provided similar flow structures exist. The recommendations for shocked runs is more limited, relying on data from a single dataset with the shock located near the forward end of the region of interest.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : NASA

The wind tunnel design, operation, and data collection were funded by NASA under contract number NNX15CM16C. The authors wish to thank John Wilby for his advice and valuable feedback.

References

  1. Alter, S.J., Brauckmann, G.J., Kleb B., Glass, C.E., Streett, C.L. and Schuster, D.M. (2015), "Time-accurate unsteady pressure loads simulated for the space launch system at wind tunnel conditions", Proceedings of the 33rd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., June.
  2. Coe, C.F. and Chyu, W.J. (1972), "Pressure-fluctuation inputs and response of panels underlying attached and separated supersonic turbulent boundary layers", NASA TM X-62189.
  3. Corcos, G.M. (1963), "Resolution of pressure in turbulence", J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 35(2), 192-199. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1918431.
  4. Hwang, Y.F. and Maidanik, G. (1990), "A wavenumber analysis of the coupling of a structural mode and flow turbulence", J. Sound Vib., 142(1), 135-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-460X(90)90587-P.
  5. Murray, N.E., Jansen, B.J., Yang, M.Y. and Palodichuk, M.T. (2017), "Measurements of surface pressure fluctuations and flexible panel response to a transonic reattaching flow", Proceedings of the 23rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., June.
  6. Reed, D.K., Mayle, M.N. and Nancy, D.K. (2012), "Comparison of Ares I-X flight and wind-tunnel aeroacoustic rata", J. Spacecraft Rockets, 49(4), 659-665. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A32181.
  7. Rizzi, S.A., Rackl, R.G. and Andrianov, E.V. (2000), "Flight test measurements from the Tu-144LL structure/cabin noise follow-on experiment", NASA/TM-2000-209859.
  8. Yang, M.Y., Palodichuk, M.T., Murray, N.E. and Jansen, B.J. (2017), "Prediction of structural response in transonic flow using wavenumber decomposition of fluctuating pressures", Proceedings of the 23rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., June.
  9. Yang, M.Y. and Palodichuk, M.T. (2018), "Recommendations on dynamic pressure sensor placement for transonic wind tunnel tests", Proceedings of the Noise and Vibration Emerging Methods Conference, Ibiza, Spain, May.