1 Background 2 Centerline vortex caused by presence of nozzle block Trail discovered during CFD studies of UPWT in 2019 Asymmetric flap loading occurred during CobraMRV Control Surface Effectiveness test in 2020 while model was at 0 beta with symmetric flap deflection angles ID: 1039658
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "UPWT Check Standard Model Vortex Charact..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1. UPWT Check Standard Model Vortex Characterization1
2. Background2Centerline vortex caused by presence of nozzle block T-rail discovered during CFD studies of UPWT in 2019Asymmetric flap loading occurred during CobraMRV Control Surface Effectiveness test in 2020 while model was at 0° beta with symmetric flap deflection anglesAsymmetric loading was believed to be caused by presence of vortex following additional CFD and flap check loadsWould an internal balance be able to detect the presence of the vortex as well?
3. ObjectiveDevised an experiment using the UPWT Check Standard Model (CSM) to characterize centerline vortex using an internal balanceMove model to different locations within the test section to see changes in balance force and moment coefficients as model passes into and out of vortexCompare changes in balance loads to force/moment coefficient uncertainty from previous CSM testsTest usual CSM flow conditions along with flow conditions from CFD study3
4. Test Matrix4SweepAlphaBetaRollModel Nose1sweep from -3° to 6°0°0°centered in test section*2sweep from -3° to 6°+2°, +4°0°centered in test section3sweep from -3° to 6°0°0°±6 in.40°-3° to +3°90°, 270°centered in test section50°-3° to +3°90°, 270°off center60°0°90°, 270°-10 in. to +10 in.*CFD comparison sweepsPrimarily focused on sweeps 1-3, 6
5. Support System Motion for Model Attitude5
6. Test ConditionsConditionMachHo(psf)To(°F)Re(1x106)Q(psf)P(psf)Dewpt(°F)12.6016861252.00399.784.48-24.923.4027371502.00335.041.39-16.434.3042611502.00245.418.96-7.542.6033711254.00799.5169-12.253.4054741504.00669.982.8-2.464.3085211504.00490.737.96.272.3992280.51253.00629.20156.13-18.76Conditions 1-6 are the usual CSM conditionsCondition 7 is one of the conditions from the previous CFD studiesFocusing on conditions 1–3 for presentation
7. InstrumentationUT59A internal balance7 x 5-psia Druck transducers4 base pressure measurements2 cavity pressure measurements1 tunnel static pressure measurementPitch mechanism Q-flex accelerometer7ComponentLoadSensitivityNormal400 lbs.310.9537 (lb./mv/V)Axial40 lbs.36.9301 (lb./mv/V)Pitch1200 in-lbs.721.9365 (in-lb./mv/V)Roll200 in-lbs.191.502 (in-lb./mv/V)Yaw300 in-lbs.204.0489 (in-lb./mv/V)Side100 lbs.102.2324 (lb./mv/V)
8. Pitch Sweep Results8
9. AF Coefficient9
10. NF Coefficient10
11. SF Coefficient11
12. RM Coefficient12
13. PM Coefficient13
14. YM Coefficient14
15. Lateral Sweep Results15
16. AF Coefficient16
17. NF Coefficient17
18. Vortex Overlay - NF18
19. SF Coefficient19
20. Vortex Overlay - SF20
21. RM Coefficient21
22. PM Coefficient22
23. YM Coefficient23
24. Vortex Overlay – YM24
25. Uncertainty: Off-Centerline Pitch Sweep Comparisons25
26. Mach 2.6 Re∞ 2.0 Million/ft263 repeated pitch sweeps at tunnel centerline0, +6, -6 in. pitch sweepsα (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg)
27. Mach 2.6 Re∞ 2.0 Million/ft273 repeated pitch sweeps at tunnel centerline0, +6, -6 in. pitch sweepsα (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg)
28. Mach 3.4 Re∞ 2.0 Million/ft283 repeated pitch sweeps at tunnel centerline0, +6, -6 in. pitch sweepsα (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg)
29. Mach 3.4 Re∞ 2.0 Million/ft293 repeated pitch sweeps at tunnel centerline0, +6, -6 in. pitch sweepsα (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg) α (deg)
30. Results and DiscussionAF CoefficientPitch sweepsNo large differences at each Mach number, though slight drop in axial force when off-centerline at Mach 4.3Lateral sweepsNo large change between sweepsNF CoefficientPitch sweepsNo large change between sweepsLateral sweepsTrends appear to be mirrored as model moves laterally across test section, with a “bump” occurring near centerline at Mach 2.6Bump likely caused by presence of vortex at centerline of test sectionBump near tunnel centerline flattens as the Mach number increasesAs Mach number increases, the nozzle block moves forward exposing less of the T-rail. This causes the vortex pair to diminish in size and strengthSF CoefficientPitch sweepsSF increases more rapidly at centerline as Mach number increasesPossible indication of vortex effecting increase in SF, but tricky to identify causeLateral sweepsBump occurs at centerline for SF data as well which flattens as Mach number increases, indicating reduction in size and strength of vortex30
31. Results and DiscussionRM CoefficientPitch sweepsMore dispersion of data at lower Mach numbersFor higher Mach numbers, centerline data tracks off-center data wellLateral sweepsLikely no influence of vortexPM CoefficientPitch sweepsNo large change between sweepsLateral sweepsNo large change between sweepsYM CoefficientPitch sweepsData appears to be more spread apart, but tightens up as Mach number increasesLateral sweepsBump occurs at centerline for SF data as well which flattens as Mach number increases, indicating reduction in size and strength of vortexUncertaintyHigher uncertainty in data as model moves off centerline31
32. Future WorkAnalyze beta (CFD) sweepsContinue uncertainty analysis for pitch sweeps at Mach 4.3Analyze uncertainty for lateral sweeps at all Mach numbersPlan to add similar sweeps to next check standard test for additional data supporting facility modifications32
33. AcknowledgementsBryan FalmanJim RossJose Mondragon33
34. 34Questions?