Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T23:25:00.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Compressibility effects for the AGARD-B model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

S. Tuling ,
B. Vallabh  and
M.F. Morelli
B. Vallabh
Affiliation:
CSIR, Pretoria, South Africa
M.F. Morelli
Affiliation:
CSIR, Pretoria, South Africa
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

A numerical study of the flow topologies over the 60° delta wing of the AGARD-B model at Mach 0·80 has revealed that vortex bursting occurs between 13°-15° angle-of-attack, while vortex separation occurs above 18°. These aerodynamic features have been identified as additional comparison criteria which need to be replicated for facilities using the model for calibration or inter-tunnel comparison purposes. The numerical simulations were performed using ANSYS Fluent V13, a structured mesh with near wall treatment and the Spalart-Allmaras and κ-ω SST turbulence models, and validated experimentally in a 5′ × 5′ transonic facility. Other aspects not previously identified or studied are firstly a recovery shock between the primary and secondary vortex that exists only when vortex bursting occurs, and secondly the lack of a shock between the wing and vortex when the flow topology corresponds to the centreline shock region as observed in other studies.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 119 , Issue 1214 , April 2015 , pp. 543 - 552
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2015

References

1.Hills, R. A Review of Measurements on AGARD Calibration Models, AGARDograph 64, November 1961.Google Scholar
2.Anderson, C.F. An Investigation of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of the AGARD Model B for Mach Numbers from 0·2 to 1·0, AEDC-TR-70-100, Arnold Engineering Development Centre, Arnold AFB, Tennessee, May 1970.Google Scholar
3.Damljanovic, D., Vitic, A. and Vukovic, D.Testing of AGARD-B calibration model in the T-38 trisonic wind tunnel, Scientific Technical Review, LVI, (2), 2006.Google Scholar
4.Xudong, R., Gao, C., Zijie, Z., Juntao, X, Feng, L. and Shijun, L. Boundary-Layer Transition Effects on Aerodynamic Characteristics of AGARD-B Model, 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, see also, AIAA-2012-1217, DOI: 10.2514/6.2012-1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Lombardi, G. and Morelli, M.F.M.Analysis of some interference effects in a transonic wind tunnel, J Aircraft, May-June 1995, 32, (3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Stanbrook, A. and Squire, L.C.Possible types of flow at swept leading edges, Aeronautical Quarterly, 1964, XV, pp 72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Szodruch, J.G. and Peake, D.J. Leeward Flow Over Delta Wings at Supersonic Speeds, NASA-TM-81187, April 1980.Google Scholar
8.Miller, D.S. and Wood, R.M. An Investigation of Wing Leading-Edge Vortices at Supersonic Speeds, AIAA Paper 83-1816, July 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Riou, J., Garnier, E. and Basdevant, C.Compressibility effects on the vortical flow over a 65° sweep delta wing, Physics of Fluids, 22, (10), 2010, DOI: 10.1063/1.3327286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Keller, J.J.On the interpretation of vortex breakdown, Physics of Fluids, July 1995, 7, (7).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Hall, M.G.Vortex Breakdown, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 1972, 4, pp 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Delery, J.M.Aspects of vortex breakdown, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 1994, 30, pp 1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Esducier, M.Vortex Breakdown: Observations and Explanations, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 1988, 25, pp 189–229.Google Scholar
14.Calderon, D.E., Wang, Z. and Gursul, I.Three-dimensional measurements of vortex breakdown. Experiments in Fluids, 2012, 53, (1), pp 293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Lucca-Negro, O. and O’Doherty, T.Vortex breakdown: a review, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2001, 27, pp 431–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Stallings, R.L.Low Aspect Ratio Wings at High Angles of Attack, Tactical Missile Aerodynamics, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1986.Google Scholar
17.Wentz, W.H. and Kohlman, D.L.Vortex breakdown on slender sharp-edged wings, J Aircraft, March 1971, 8, (3), pp 156–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Earnshaw, P.B. and Lawford, J.A. Low-Speed Wind-Tunnel Experiments on a Series of Sharp-Edged Delta Wings, Aeronautical Research Council R. & M. No. 3424, 1966.Google Scholar
19.Gursul, I.Review of unsteady vortex flows over slender delta wings, J Aircraft, March-April 2005, 42, (2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Gursul, I.Unsteady flow phenomena over delta wings at high angle-of-attack, AIAA J, 1994, 32, (2), pp 225–231, DOI: 10.2514/3.11976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Breitsamter, C.Unsteady flow phenomena associated with leading-edge vortices, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2008, 44, pp 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Mitchell, A.M. and Delery, J.Research into vortex breakdown control, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2001, 37, pp 385–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Gursul, I., Wang, Z. and Vardaki, E.Review of flow control mechanisms of leading-edge vortices, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2007, 43, pp 246–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Imai, G., Fuji, K. and Oyama, A.Computational Analyses of Supersonic Flows Over a Delta Wing at High Angles of Attack, 25th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, 3-8 September 2006, Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar
25.Kalkhoran, I.M. and Smart, M.K.Aspects of shock wave-induced vortex breakdown, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2000, 36, pp 63–95.Google Scholar