Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Hypersonic Fluid-Structure-Interactions on a Pitching Flat Plate Airfoil

Abstract:

Understanding the effects of unsteady flows is a critical area of hypersonic research. This paper presents a comparison of experimental results and analytical tools commonly used for the prediction of fluid structure interactions: Piston theory, Van Dyke’s theory, and Unsteady Shock Expansion theory. The investigation is carried out with a wedge-nosed flat-plate airfoil with pitching degree-of-freedom at Mach 6 flow conditions.High-speed Schlieren video is used to extract data about airfoil pitching motion and the unsteady shock structure. These data are compared to predictions from the various methods giving insight into their capability to correctly predict surface pressure and the resulting pitching motion at a reduced frequency, k=6.3×10^-3. Contrary to expectations for this quasi-steady flow regime, the analysis of the shock structure shows hysteresis, indicating additional viscous interactions.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volume 846)
• Pages: 157-162
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.846.157
• Online since: July 2016
• Authors: Kenji Yamada*, Ingo Jahn, David Buttsworth
• Keywords: Fluid Structure Interactions, Hypersonics, Pitching Airfoil

References

[1] J. McNamara, P Friedmann, Aeroelastic and Aerothermoelastic Analysis in Hypersonic Flow: Past, Present and Future, AIAA Journal Vol. 49 (2011) 1089-1122.

DOI: 10.2514/1.j050882

[2] R. Hallion, The Hypersonic Revolution: Case Studies in the History of Hypersonic Technology, Volume I, Air Force History and Museums Program, (1998).

DOI: 10.21236/ada441127

[3] R.A. East, G.R. Hutt, Comparison of Predictions and Experimental Data for Hypersonic Pitching Motion Stability, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets (1998).

DOI: 10.2514/3.25975

[4] P.W. Hanson, Aerodynamic effects of some configuration variables on the aeroelastic characteristics of lifting surfaces at Mach numbers from 0. 7 to 6. 86. NASA TN D-984, (1961).

[5] R.C. Goetz, J.L. Sewall, Experimental flutter study of a wing-fuselage configuration at a Mach number of 15. 4 and comparison with theory, NASA TN D-3046, (1965).

[6] C. Spain, T.A. Zeiler, E. Bullock, and J.S. Hodge, A Flutter Investigation of All-Moveable NASP-Like Wings at Hypersonic Speeds, AIAA Journal, (1993).

DOI: 10.2514/6.1993-1315

[7] J. McNamara, P. Friedmann, Aeroelastic and Aerothermoelastic Analysis of Hypersonic Vehicles: Current Status and Future Trends, AIAA Journal (2007).

DOI: 10.2514/6.2007-2013

[8] J.D. Watts, Flight Experience with Shock Impingement and Interference Heating on the X-15-2 Research Airplane, NASA TM X-1669, (1968).

[9] A. Arman, Study of Flow over Oscillating Airfoil Models at a Mach number of 7. 0 in Helium, NASA TN D-992, (1961).

[10] D. Dolling, Fifty Years of Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interaction Research: What Next? AIAA Journal 39 (2001) 1517-1531.

DOI: 10.2514/3.14896

[11] K. Yamada, Design and build of a pitching-plate test rig for shock tunnels, BE/ME thesis, University of Queensland, (2015).

[12] D.R. Buttsworth, Ludwieg Tunnel Facility with Free Piston Compression Heating for Supersonic and Hypersonic Testing, National Space Society of Australia, (2010).

[13] A. Widodo, D.R. Buttsworth, Stagnation temperature in a cold hypersonic flow produced by a light free piston compression facility, PhD thesis, The University of Southern Queensland, (2013).

DOI: 10.1007/s00348-013-1486-6

[14] M.J. Lighthill, Oscillating Airfoils at High Mach Numbers" Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences Vol. 20, No. 6, June, (1953).

[15] M.D. Van Dyke, A Study of Second-Order Supersonic Flow Theory, Tech. Rep. 1081, NACA, (1951).

[16] J.D. Anderson, Modern Compressible Flow with Historical Perspective, McGraw-Hill, New York, (1990).