Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T00:52:25.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Axisymmetric afterbody experiments for CFD validation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

P. Miller ,
J. Agrell ,
J. Olsson  and
K. Sjörs
P. Miller
Affiliation:
Miller and Wilson, Aerodynamics Research, Bath
J. Agrell
Affiliation:
FFA, The Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden
J. Olsson
Affiliation:
FFA, The Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden
K. Sjörs
Affiliation:
FFA, The Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

An experiment is described which was undertaken specifically to provide CFD validation data for the case of transonic flow over nozzle afterbodies. The tests were undertaken with the AGARD standard 10° and 15° axisymmetric boat-tail geometries. Onset Mach numbers in the range 0·80-0·99 and subsonic and under-expanded jet plumes were employed in the tests. Test conditions were selected which provided a range of afterbody flow features from largely attached to shock-induced separated flows. A uniquely detailed set of surface pressure and flowfield data are presented. The flow data were acquired with a two-component laser Doppler anemometer (LDA) and define the mean and fluctuating flow components at about 500 spatial locations for each of these complex transonic flowfields. Additional information was recorded which fully defines the required computational boundary conditions.

Also presented is a detailed study of the necessary attributes of windtunnel CFD validation data. It is demonstrated that relatively high blockage experiments using cost-effective windtunnels can be used to generate CFD validation data if proper account is taken of the model/tunnel interference.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 98 , Issue 974 , April 1994 , pp. 137 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1994 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

Now DRA, Bedford

References

1. Capone, F.J. The nonaxisymmetric nozzle — it is for real. AIAA Paper 79-1810, 1979.Google Scholar
2. Chamberlin, R. and Blaha, B.J. Flight and wind tunnel investigation of the effects of Reynolds number on installed boattail drag at subsonic speeds. AIAA Paper 73-139, 1973.Google Scholar
3. Pozniak, O.M. A review of the effect of Reynolds number on after body drag. AGARD CP-301, Paper 16, 1981.1.Google Scholar
4. Bucciantini, G. Effects of buffeting and other transonic phenomenaon maneuvering combat aircraft. AGARD AR-82, 1975.Google Scholar
5. Robinson, C.E. and price, E.A. Effect of Reynolds number on the nozzle afterbody performance of the AGARD nozzle afterbody and the B-l 0·06-scale model at transonic Mach numbers. AIAA Paper 75-1321, 1975.Google Scholar
6. white, R.A., Agrell, J. and Nyberg, S.-E. Supersonic wind tunnel simulation of propulsive jets. J Spacecr Rockets,September–October 1985, 22, (5), pp 530–535.Google Scholar
7. Peters, W.L. and Kennedy, T.L. An evaluation of jet simulation parameters for nozzle/afterbody testing at transonic Mach numbers. AIAA Paper 77-106, 1977.Google Scholar
8. Burt, M., Miller, P. and Agrell, J Transonic and supersonic flow–field measurements about axisymmetric afterbodies for validation of advanced CFD codes. AGARD CP–535, Paper 9, 1993.Google Scholar
9. Peace, A.J. Turbulent flow predictions for afterbody nozzle geometries including base effects. J Propulsion Power, May-June 1991, 7, (3), pp 396–403.Google Scholar
10. Marvin, J.G. Accuracy requirements and benchmark experiments for CFD validation. AGARD CP-437, Paper 2, 1988.Google Scholar
11. Miller, P. Transonic Afterbodies: A survey of the experimental literature. Miller and Wilson Aerodynamics Research Report MW-TR-88-15, 1988.Google Scholar
12. Shrewsbury, G.D. Effect of boattail juncture shape on pressure drag coefficients of isolated afterbodies. NASA TM X-1517, 1968.Google Scholar
13. Reubush, D.E. and Runckel, J.F. Effect of fineness ratio on boattail drag of circular-arc afterbodies having closure ratios of 0.50 with jet exhaust at Mach numbers up to 1·30. NASA TN D-7192, 1973.Google Scholar
14. Mason, M.L. and Putnam, L.E. Pitot pressure measurements in flow fields behind circular-arc nozzles with exhaust jets at subsonic free-stream Mach numbers. NASA TM-80169, 1979.Google Scholar
15. Abeyounis, W.K. and Putnam, L.E. Investigation of the flow field surrounding circular-arc boattail nozzles at subsonic speeds. NASA TP-1633, 1980.Google Scholar
16. Reubush, D.E. Experimental study of the effectiveness of cylindrical plume simulators for predicting jet-on boattail drag at Mach numbers up to 1·30. NASA TN D-7795, 1974.Google Scholar
17. Galigher, L.L., Yaros, S.F. and Bauer, R.C. Evaluation of boattail geometry and exhaust plume temperature effects on nozzle afterbody drag at transonic Mach numbers. USAF AEDC Report TR-76-102, 1976.Google Scholar
18. Jacocks, J.L., Peters, W.L. and Guyton, F.C. Comparison of computational and experimental jet effects. J Aircr, November 1982, 20, (6), pp 963–968.Google Scholar
19. Putnam, L.E. and Mercer, C.E. Pitot-pressure measurements in flow fields behind a rectangular nozzle with exhaust jet for free-stream Mach numbers of 0·00, 0·60 and 1·20. NASA TM-88990, 1986.Google Scholar
20. Compton, W.B., Thomas, J.L., Abeyounis, W.K. and Mason, M.L. Transonic Navier-Stokes solutions of three-dimensional afterbody flows. NASA TM-4111, 1989.Google Scholar
21. Benek, J.A. Separated and nonseparated turbulent flows about axisymmetric nozzle afterbodies. Part I. Detailed Surface Measurements. USAF AEDC Report TR-78-49, 1979.Google Scholar
22. Benek, J.A. Separated and nonseparated turbulent flows about axisymmetric nozzle afterbodies. Part II. Detailed Flow Measurements. USAF AEDC Report TR-79-22, 1979.Google Scholar
23. Heltsley, F.L., Walker, B.J. and Nichols, R.H. Transonic nozzle-afterbody flow field measurements using a laser Doppler velocimeter. AGARD CP-348, Paper 27, 1983.Google Scholar
24. Heltsley, F.L. and Crosswy, F.L. Two-component LDV turbulence measurements in an axisymmetric nozzle afterbody subsonic flow field with a cold underexpanded jet. USAF AEDC Report TR-82-27, 1983.Google Scholar
25. Lacau, R.G., Desnoyer, D. and Delery, J. Laser velocimetric analysis of the flow downstream of missile aft-bodies. AGARD CP-336, 1982.Google Scholar
26. Bachalo, W.D. and Johnson, D.A. Transonic, turbulent boundary-layer separation generated on an axisymmetric flow model. AIAA J,March 1986, 24, (3), pp 437–443.Google Scholar
27. Anon Report of the working group on aerodynamics of aircraft afterbody. AGARD AR-226, 1986.Google Scholar
28. Bowers, D.L. and Laughrey, J.A. Survey on techniques used in aerodynamic nozzle/airframe integration. AGARD CP-498, Paper 26, 1991.Google Scholar
29. Miller, P. Commissioning phase of FFA axisymmetric afterbody tests. Miller and Wilson Aerodynamics Research Report MW-TR-91-38, 1991.Google Scholar
30. Ferri, A. (editor), Improved nozzle testing techniques in transonic flow. AGARDograph AG-208, 1975.Google Scholar
31. Zonars, D., Laughrey, J.A. and Bowers, D.L. Effects of varying Reynolds number and boundary layer displacement thickness on the external flow over nozzle boattails. AGARDograph AG-208, 1975.Google Scholar
32. Bryanston-cross, P.J., and Epstein, A. Sub-micron particle visualisation for PIV. Progre Aerosp Sci, September 1990, 27, (3), pp 237–265.Google Scholar
33. Whoric, J.M. and Hobbs, R.W. Hierachy of uncertainty sources in transonic wind tunnel testing. AGARD CP-429, Paper 5, 1987.Google Scholar
34. Miller, P. FFA afterbody tests: A summary and review of achievements. Miller and Wilson Aerodynamics Research Report MW-TR-93-51, 1993.Google Scholar