Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
UNCLASSIFIED
AD -A20
206
COMPARISON OF BOUNDARY
LAYER TRIPS OF DISK AND
GRIT TYPES ON AIRFOIL
PERFORMANCE AT
TRANSONIC SPEEDS
DTIr
MAR 0 12 1918
J-
by
Y.Y. Chan
National Aeronautical Establishment
AERONAUTICAL NOTE
""'AWA
Ei.:
, i98
NAE-AN-56
NRC NO. 2"9P38
UNLIMITED
UNCLASSIFIED
by/par
Y.Y. Chan
National Aeronautical Establishment
AERONAUTICAL NOTE
NAE-AN-56
NRC NO. 29908
OTTAWA
DECEMBER 1988
89
G.F. Marsters
Director/direeteur
3 ,9
05
SUMMARY
he effeets on aerodynamic performance of a supercritical airfoil
applying disk or grit tripping for boundary layer transition has been
investigated for a typical supercritical airfoil at transonic speeds. It is
observed that by allowing the laminar flow passing through the space
between the disks, transition takes place a short distance downstream from
the disk trip line. The boundary layer developed downstream from the disk
trip is therefore slightly thinnor than that from a grit trip. The vortex
generating mechanism of the disks may also enhance this development.
This small difference has negligible effect on aerodynamics of the airfoil
at low lift. However, at high lift, the difference in boundary layer
developments is amplified by the strong shock wave and the severe adverse
pressure gradient. The thinner ind more energetic boundary layer
induced by the disk trip will yield higher lift, lower drag and higher
trailing edge pressure,
.,,
,.
. / ,
,--
RSUM9
On a 6tudid les effots sur les caract6ristiques adrodynamiques & des
vitesses transsoniques de lapplication h un profil a6rodynamique
supercritique type de d6clenchement de la transition de coucha limite par
des disques ou des grains, On constate qu'en laissant l'dcoulement
laminaire passe, entre les disques la transition so produit & une faible
distance en aval de la ligne de disques. La couche limits cr64e en aval des
disques est par cons6quent 16gbrement plus mince qua celle produite par
des grains. Le m6canisme de crdation de tourbillon des disques pout aussi
accroltre ce ph6nombne. Cette faible diffdrence a un offet ndgligeable sur le
comportement adrodynamique du profil en conditions de faible portance.
Cependant, en conditions de portance dlev~e, la diff6rence dans le
d6veloppement des couches limites est amplifide par la forte onde de choc et
le fort gradient de pression adverse. La couche limits plus mince crdde par
les disques donnera une portance plus dlev6e, une tratn6e plus faible et une
pression de bord do fuite plus 6levde.
A0oosion For
NTIS
c; 13A &I
DT IC TA R
Iu:
II ' on
t 1.0d 1
I
I,but
u I.on/il
Av.ni1ibl1lty CudO1
q
(iii)
Table of Contents
Page
Summary
ii
List c
Figures
List of Symbols
vii
1.
Introduction
Z.
Test Conditions
3.
Aerodynamic Effects
3.1
Forward Tripping
3.1.1
Lift
3.1.2
Drag
3.1.3
3.2
4.
Aft Tripping
3.2.1
Lift
3,2.2
Drag
10
3.2.3
10
Concluding Remarks
11
References
14
Appendix
15
Table
16
Test Conditions
17
Table II
(Iv)
Figures
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Shock wave location at the upper surface of the airfoil versus lift
at various Reynolds numbers with disk or grit trippings,
.T/c = 0.05.
7.
8.
(v)
9.
10.
xT/c = 0.30.
11.
12.
(vO)
List of Symbols
c
chord length
CD
drag coefficient,
CL
C
PT.E.
roughness height
Rec
"xSshock
wake integration
position on model
"xt
transition location
angle of attack
(vii)
1.
INTRODUCTION
Airfoil performance at transonic speed is very sensitive to
The
Carborundum
To apply the
desired location and the particles are then sprinkled on the strip or
blown into a dust cloud over the model and then settled on the strip.
This simple way of application however cannot control the particle
density precisely and in most cases,
Another
-2a sphere,
(3)
a short cylinder (a disk) or other geometric shapes(.
These
laborious.
the roughness height and the spacing for such a strip can be
it
Because of these
Thus the
roughness height could be designed with the same criterion as that for
the grit strip ultilizing the data graphs in Reference 2.
The
effectiveness of the disk type tripping has been compared with the grit
strip with the same roughness height gave the samo overall drag.
trip drag, however,
The
showed that the disk trip could be applied with more confidence than the
grit type as far as total drag was concerned.
the turbulent flow does not start right downstream of the rear-edge line
of the disks.
Laminar flow passes through the disk line through the gaps
The slight
It
single row disk strip was employed for all tests with chord Reynolds
numbers ranged from 4 to 15 million.
The single-row
disks have diameters of 0.045 inch and are spaced 0.10 inch apart.
disks are in the form of short circular cylinders.
The
mold of the disks in the form of a plastic tape with holes punched and
spaced at specific dimensions is first prepared.
the desired location of the model and the holes on the tape are then
filled with epoxy type material.
The
the strip.
Below Reynolds
The second
The description of
the facility and the test bet-up can be found in Reference 10.
3.
Aerodynamic Effects
3.1
Forward Tripping
3.1.1
Lift
with Reynolds number 15 million, grit trip data are not available.
- 6 The lift
million and below the curve with thick disks gives slightly higher
CL values at low angles of attack.
vanishes.
The maximum lift coefficient and the post stall behaviour are
However,
the lift curve turns off sooner than the thin-disk case near maximum
lift and yields a slightly lower value of CL
.
One would expect that
max
the thick-disks would induce a thicker boundary layer over the airfoil
and the large decambering effect would give low lift
opposite effect is observed for the present cases.
9 ).
However, the
Since the
vortex generators.
This
The thick
disks generate stronger vortices and thus energize the boundary layer
leading to more even developments at both sides of airfoil and hence
less decambering.
is still more
likely to separate than the thin one at high incidences because of the
amplification effect due to the shock and the adverse pressure
gradient(8I11).
resulting in a lower CL
max
- 7 The data with grit tripping agree very well with those with
thin-disk tripping at Reynolds number 4 million as both have the same
trip height.
CL
max
thicker boundary layer for the grit case than for the disk case due to
the downstream shift of the transition of the latter or the energizing
effect of the disk vortices.
3.1.2
Drag
The drag polars for the same cases are shown in Fig. 3.
Below
CL about 0.5 the difference of the drag values for the cases with
different disk heights is very small, about one to two counts at the
most for all Reynolds numbers.
disks is very small up to a disk height about twice the design value.
At lift coefficients greater than 0.5 drag is consistently higher for
the thick disc case.
as drag increases.
to that with disk tripping before the drag rise, but then rises more
rapidly for all Reynolds numbers considered.
thicker boundary layer development for the grit case, consistent with
lower lift observed in Fig. 2.
the difference in drag between the grit and the disk data is shown in
Fig. 4.
3.1.3
pressure coefficients for both disk and grit trippings are shown in
Fig. 5. The trailing edge pressure variation is consistent with the
observed drag variation,
case gives lower trailing edge pressure than the thin-disk case,
indicating again that the former induces thicker boundary layers.
The
grit case has the same level of trailing edge pressure as the disk cases
at low lift.
However,
6.
At low Reynolds
numbers the thin-disk data are closer to the grit data while the
thick-disk data give a slightly more upstream locations.
This is
At higher
Reynolds numbers the disk data for both thin and thick cases are fairly
close, while the grit data yield the most downstream location.
-9-
3.2
Aft Tripping
simulations of shock
Again
as the grit and the thick disk had about twice the thickness of the thin
disk.
The aft tripping experiment will be meaningful only if the
natural laminar boundary layer flows extend all the way to the tripping
location.
then the trip acts only as additional roughness which thicken the
turbulent boundary layer downstream.
for each Reynolds number is estimated from the data in Reference 9 and
is reproduced in Fig. 7.
3.2.1
Lift
thick disk case shows a definite lower lift due to thicker boundary
layer.
10
The grit data are consistently low for all Reynolds numbers.
For the case with Reynolds number 8 million, the grit and the thick-disk
data are practically the same up to the onset of separation.
This shows
that the boundary layer development must be fairly close for these two
cases.
The grit data, however, have lower value in the stall region
suggesting that the boundary layer for the disk case is more energetic
due to the vortex generator effect of the disks.
It shou'd be noted
3.2.2
Drag
The drag polars for the corresponding cases are shown in Fig.
9.
The thin-disk case gives the lowest drag and the thick-disk and the
clearly demonstrated.
3.2.3
11
million, the data for both disk cases are nearly identical.
At the two
higher Reynolds numbers the thick-disk case results are lower than those
for the thin disk.
thin disc cases and is very close to the thick-disk data at the higher
Reynolds numbers, although it drops off much sooner consistent with what
has been observed for the lift and drag results.
The shock locations of the corresponding cases are shown in
Fig. 12.
shock for the thin-disk case locates further downstream than for the
thick-disk case, indicating a thinner boundary layer for the thin-disk
case.
The grit data give the aft-most shock location except for the
is generally quite
small, about 1% chord except at the higher CL 's where the thin disk case
gives the aft-most location.
4.
Concluding Remarks
drawn:
1. The disk type roughness is just as effective for inducing transition
of the laminar boundary layer as grit trips.
- 12 -
the disks required for effective tripping is the same as that of the
grit trips.
2.
For a single row of uniformly distributed disks, the disks work like
vortex generators with a pair of vortices trailing downstream.
Between two adjacent disks, laminar flow passes through the space in
between and interacts with the trailing vortices.
Transition is
3.
This small
4.
At high lift, the disk trip gives slightly higher lift, lower drag
and higher trailing edge pressure, all indicating a more energetic
boundary layer development than for the grit trip.
5.
When the disk height is larger than the critical value, the
transition occurs closer to the trip line due to the stronger
vortices generated by the thicker disks.
6.
- 13 -
the airfoil.
7.
The location of the shock wave on the upper surface of the airfoil
is
Thus it
is
affected
A difference of up to
also
the
14 -
References
1.
Tunnels.
(Section
2.
Braslow, A.L.,
Knox, EC.
3.
von Doenhoff,
A.E.,
Braslow, A.L.
4.
Braslow, A.L,,
Hicks, R.M.,
Harris, R.V.
5.
Jr.
Cox, R.A.
NASA TN D-3579.
Low-Speed,
6.
Sinclair,
D.W.
Strike, W.T.
Arnold Engineering
March 1987.
15 -
References (cont'd)
7.
Wright, F.L.
Private communication,
8.
Stanewsky, E.
9.
Chan, Y.Y.
Weltraumforsch,
7 (1983) Heft 4.
242-252.
11.
Burgsmtller,
W,
National Aeronautical
National Research Council
May 1986,
Trarsitionsfixierung in
Iochgeschwindigkeitsbereich bei der
FlUgelentwicklung fUr zivile Flugezeuge,
in
fixierung, DFVLR-Mitt.
84-17.
DFVLR,
Institut
- 16 -
Appendix
TRIP
DISK
INSTALLATION
PROCEDURES
IF ONLY A
THIS WILL RESULT IN A GAP OF ONE OR TWO DISKS AT EACH WING PRESSURE
STATION WHICH IS ACCEPTABLE.
>MINIMIZE TAPE STRETCHING WHEN THE TAPE IS UNROLLED AND APPLIED TO THE
SURFACE.
Cincinnati,
Ohio
95242
2.25 lbs.
*FREON TF OR EQUIVALENT
150.
17 -
Table 1.
inches)
0.0020
0.0035
0.0050
0.0021
0.0033
0.0050
0.0017
0.0032
0.0047
0.0023
0.0034
0.0048
D H
0.0023
0.0035
0.0050
0.0020
0.0036
0.0052
0.0022
0.0034
0.0056
0.0018
0.0037
0.0055
D H
0.0019
0.0032
0.0054
U T
0.0020
0.0035
0.0048
0.0020
0.0036
0.0016
0.0033
0.0022
0.0038
0.0020
0.00345
Nominal
Averaged
0.00508
- 18 -
Grit *
Height
Rex 106
c
at/c
Disk
Height
Grit No
0.765
4.0
0.05
0.0020
220
0.0032
6.0
go I
of it
8.0
280
0.0015
10.0
" "
" "
0.765
15.0
4.0
0.05
0.0035
0.30
0.0035
6.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
0.765
0.765
4.0
180
6.0
8.0
10.0
4.0
0.30
0.0030
0.0050
6.0
8.0
10.0
-19-
-TRIP
LINE
FLOW
DIRECTION
UPPER SURFACE
FLOW
DIRECTION
STRIP
LOWER SURFACE
LINE
,200.8 -Roe
-4.2 X 10 6
0.5-
8X1
0.4 -Re
CL
0.3
0.3-
0.2-0.6
-T/
q '
0.0
Re - i X1
0.0
002
4.0.02..0312
0.,0200036
0..020.03
102
0015
-2
-1
0,0020
0,0035
0,0020
0.0035
22
,02
001
0.0022
280
-
(x
Ii-
~
u
inI
2U
-Oil
'1
-cc
cc
I~
LD
o w 0
IIN
9c
*
1A CID
CR
Wb,
4T
IR
14
't
I'
-0,
-4-6-
____
ICl
22
DISK
0.0020
k(In)
D 0.0035
X
Rea X 10-6
4.2, 6
8,10
k(in)
GRIT
0.0022
10.0015
0,002
Rea ',l10X 1068
0.0
,,.
x
0
I
0
T-0,002
Re"
o__oI_
I)
0.0
0,
8 Xo10 6
;0.002
ACDw
X lo 6
Re, -
0.0
00
xI
T0.002
0.0
0.1
0,2
0.3
0.4
CLp
-0.002
Re-
0.5
0.6
4.2X 106
0.7
FIG. 4:
0.8
23
0.2
0'05
0DISK THICKNESS
-0.0020
X DISK THICKNESS
Re. .4.2X 10 6
Rea
=0.0035
-0.0015
6 X10
CpT
0,0
Roo .SX
10 b
0,0
Re0 . 10 x( io6
Re 0 -15 x10 6
0.0
0.0
_II
0.50
0,56
0.60
0,65
0.70
0,75
0.80
CL P
- 24
LrLO
Ca
z~~
CD
110
cc
4cc
'(I
LI.
iica
"CL
IF
+W
codw
'-
III
C
L
F-1
01
\~
oil
\\
IC;
25.-
IRn
Wa
~IL
wo
Ln+
0 7
tf)
I
\-
I.
>wC
LUma
w
'I
-26.
0.6
not x 1o4,2
0.5
6.0
XT/c
0
10.0
0,4
0,3
0.2
0,1
o,0
0,2
0.3
0,4
LLL
JI
0,0
0.5
0.7
0,8
CLp
FIG. 7:
0.9
0.8
0.6
--
0.5
-Reax1
CL p
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
M-.
0.0
0.765,
0.30
MT/c
0.0060
0.0030
0.0
__
-2
-1
__0.1_
2
LL
_
3
L~
7
.28-
II
it
I
I-
Ii
'
UV,
20
14
00
0L
&
M. - 0,765,
A COw
XT/C -
29
0,30
k(In)
"03'
DISKDIK010050
3GRIT
0,0030
10 X 10O
Re,
:0,002
XX
X
0.0
T0.002
0,0
o0
o~o
Re0a- X 108
T0.002
Roe /4.2X 10
0x
00,0 02I
0 0.0
0,17
0,2 o
00,4
0,3
0.5
0 0,6 0
0.7
CLp
-0,002
0.8
-30
0.2
Ak
CPT. 9.
X"
Ro-exl
0.0
NX
010
0,786, x-ric
0,30
0.0
0.60
0165
JL
Li_
0.80
0.85
0.70
_
0,75
_L
0,00
CLP
0.n5
c;
CC
/U
LLZ
F0
\0
I.IWO
uu
I
0u
U)
Q9
REPORr/RAPPORT
NAE-AN-56
1"
lb
DISTRIBUTION (LIMITATIONS)
Unlimited
Unclassified
TITLE/SUBTITLE/TITRE/SOUS.TITRE
Comparison of Boundary Layer Trips of Disk and Grit Types on Airfoil Performance
at Transonic Speeds
AUTHOR (5)/AUTEURIS)
Y.Y. Chan
SERIFS/$iERIE
Aeronautical Note
6
CORPORATE AUTHOR/PER FORMING AGENCY/AUTEUR D-ENTREPRISE/AGENCE 0'EXECUTION
FILE/DOSSIER
DATE
LAB, ORDER
FIGS/DIAGRAMMES
PAGES
COMMANDE DU LAB,
88-12
12
38
10
11
12a
12b
NOTES
13
DESCRIPTORS (KEY WORDS)/MOTS.CLES
14
SUMMARY/SOMMAIRE