The laminar flow characteristics of wings at a high subsonic speed are sensitive to Reynolds number, while the Reynolds number of the wind tunnel test is considerably different from that of flight, necessitating reasonable correction of the wind tunnel test data of the verification aircraft. This paper first summarizes and compares the advantages, disadvantages and applicability of Reynolds number effect correction methods based on the empirical formula and numerical simulation in the aerodynamic coefficients correction of wind tunnel test data. The influence of pseudo Reynolds number effect and model difference in wind tunnel tests providing ideas for the verification aircraft test data correction is then discussed. Combined with the numerical simulation of the variable Reynolds number, the influence law of Reynolds number on the aerodynamic characteristics of the verification aircraft is studied. Finally, the test data correction method based on the variable Reynolds number numerical simulation is used to correct the high and low speed wind tunnel test results from low Reynolds numbers to high Reynolds numbers. The results show that the variable Reynolds number numerical simulation wind tunnel test data correction method has a good effect on high and low speed wind tunnel test data of the verification aircraft with the laminar wing section, therefore providing data support for detailed design of the verification aircraft.
JIANG Youxu
,
LI Jie
,
YANG Zhao
. Data correction method of wind tunnel test for verification aircraft with laminar wing section[J]. ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2022
, 43(11)
: 526814
-526814
.
DOI: 10.7527/S1000-6893.2021.26814
[1] BUSHNELL D M. Scaling:Wind tunnel to flight[J]. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2006, 38:111-128.
[2] PRAHARAJ S, ROGER R, CHAN S, et al. CFD computations to scale jet interaction effects from tunnel to flight[C]//35th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reston:AIAA, 1997.
[3] WILLIAMS J. Technical evaluation report on the flight mechanics panel symposium on ground/flight test techniques and correlation[R]. 1983.
[4] KATZ J, WALTERS R. Investigation of wind-tunnel wall effects in high blockage testing[C]//33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reston:AIAA, 1995.
[5] MCKINNEY L, BAALS D. Wind-tunnel/flight correlation, 1981:108239628[R]. 1982.
[6] HAN Z H, CHEN J, ZHANG K S, et al. Aerodynamic shape optimization of natural-laminar-flow wing using surrogate-based approach[J]. AIAA Journal, 2018, 56(7):2579-2593.
[7] 恽起麟. 风洞实验数据的误差与修正[M]. 北京:国防工业出版社, 1996. YUN Q L. rror and correction of wind tunnel test data[M]. Beijing:National Defense Industry Press, 1996(in Chinese).
[8] ELSENAAR A. Observed Reynolds number effects on airfoils and high aspect ratio wings at transonic flow conditions[R]. 1988.
[9] PETTERSSON K, RIZZI A. Aerodynamic scaling to free flight conditions:Past and present[J]. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2008, 44(4):295-313.
[10] GHANADI F, DJENIDI L. Reynolds number effect on the response of a rough wall turbulent boundary layer to local wall suction[J]. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2021, 916:A25.
[11] SODERMAN P T, AIKEN T N. Full-scale wind-tunnel tests of a small unpowered jet aircraft with a T-tail:NASA TN D-6573[R]. Washington,D.C.:NASA, 1971.
[12] KELLER D. High-lift design for a forward swept natural laminar flow wing[J]. CEAS Aeronautical Journal, 2020, 11(1):81-92.
[13] KIM J, LEE Y. A study on effective correction of internal drag and wall interference using response surface in wind tunnel test[J]. Journal of the Korea Institute of Military Science and Technology, 2019, 22(5):637-643.
[14] KIMZEY W F, COVERT E E, ROONEY E C,et al. Thrust and drag:Its prediction and verification[M]. Reston:AIAA, 1985.
[15] KIMZEY W F, COVERT E E, ROONEY E C. Thrust and drag:Its prediction and verification[M]. Reston:AIAA, 1985:281-330.
[16] CARLSON J. Prediction of very high Reynolds nubmer compressible skin friction[C]//20th AIAA Advanced Measurement and Ground Testing Technology Conference. Reston:AIAA, 1998.
[17] SOMMER S C, SHORT B. Free-flight measurements of turbulent-boundary-layer skin friction in the presence of severe aerodynamic heating at Mach numbers from 2.8 to 7.0:NACA TN3391[R]. Washington, D.C.:NACA, 1955.
[18] RAYMER D P. Aircraft design:A conceptual approach[M]. Reston:AIAA, 1992.
[19] BARLOW J B, RAE W H, POPE A. Low-speed wind tunnel testing[M]. New York:Wiley, 1999.
[20] JACOBS E, SHERMAN A. Airfoil section characteristics as affected by variations of the Reynolds number:586[R]. Springfield:National Technical Information Service, 1939.
[21] SELIG M, DETERS R, WILIAMSON G. Wind tunnel testing airfoils at low Reynolds numbers[C]//49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. Reston:AIAA, 2011.
[22] REICHENBACH S, MCMASTERS J. A semiempirical interpolation technique for predicting full-scale flight characteristics[C]//25th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. Reston:AIAA, 1987.
[23] NICOLÍ A, IMPERATORE B, MARINI M, et al. Ground-to-flight extrapolation of the aerodynamic coefficients of the VEGA launcher[C]//25th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology and Ground Testing Conference. Reston:AIAA, 2006.
[24] PETTERSSON K, RIZZI A. Reynolds number effects identified with CFD methods compared to semi-empirical methods[C]//25th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences 2006 vol.3. Department of Aeronautical and Vehicle Engineering, 2006.
[25] YIP L P, VIJGEN P M H W, HARDIN J D, et al. In-flight pressure distributions and skin-friction measurements on a subsonic transport high-lift wing section[J]. Journal of Aircraft,1993,32(3):529-538.
[26] MACWILKINSON D G, BLACKERBY W T, PATERSON J H. Correaltion of full-scale drag predictions with flight measurements on the C-141A aircraft. Phase 2:Wind tunnel test, analysis, and prediction techniques. Volume 1:Drag predictions, wind tunnel data analysis and correlation[R].Washington,D.C.:NASA, 1974.
[27] CROOK A. Skin-friction estimation at high Reynolds numbers and Reynolds-number effects for transport aircraft:44313785[R]. Standford:Center for Turbulence Research, 2002:427-438.
[28] BLACKWELL J A. Preliminary study of effects of Reynolds number and boundary-layer transition location on shock-induced separation:NASA TN D-5003[R].Washington,D.C.:NASA,1969.
[29] XU J K, BAI J Q, ZHANG Y, et al. Transition study of 3D aerodynamic configures using improved transport equations modeling[J]. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2016, 29(4):874-881.
[30] MENTER F R, SMIRNOV P E, LIU T, et al. A one-equation local correlation-based transition model[J]. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 2015, 95(4):583-619.
[31] SA J H, PARK S H, KIM C J, et al. Low-Reynolds number flow computation for eppler 387 wing using hybrid DES/transition model[J]. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 2015, 29(5):1837-1847.
[32] WANG G, ZHANG M H, TAO Y J, et al. Research on analytical scaling method and scale effects for subscale flight test of blended wing body civil aircraft[J]. Aerospace Science and Technology, 2020, 106:106114.
[33] OYIBO G A. Generic approach to determine optimum aeroelastic characteristics for composite forward-swept-wing aircraft[J]. AIAA Journal, 1984, 22(1):117-123.
[34] LIVNE E, WEISSHAAR T A. Aeroelasticity of nonconventional airplane configurations-past and future[J]. Journal of Aircraft, 2003, 40(6):1047-1065.
CJA