C/e
AEDCTR7761
AERODYNAMICCHARACTERISTICSOF PERFORATED
WALLS FOR TRANSONICWIND TUNNELS
PROPULSION WIND TUNNEL FACILITY
ARNOLD ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT CENTER
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
ARNOLD AIR FORCE STATION, TENNESSEE 37389
June 1977
Final Report for Period January 1,1975  ,lanuary 1, 1977
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
Prepared for
DIRECTORATE OF TECHNOLOGY
ARNOLD ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT CENTER
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
ARNOLD AIR FORCE STATION, TENNESSEE 37389
NOTICES
When I). S. Government drawings specifications, or other data are used for
any purpose other than a definitely related Government procurement
operation, the Government thereby incurs no responsibility nor any
obligation whatsoever, and the fact that the Government may have
formulated, furnished, or in any way supplied the said drawings,
specifications, or other data, is not to be regarded by implication or
otherwise, or in any manner licensing the holder or any Other person or
corporation, or conveying any rights or permission to manufacture, use, or
sell any patented invention t h a t m a y in any w a y b e related thereto.
Qualified Users may obtain copies of t h i s report from the Defense
Documentation Center.
References to named commercial products in this report are not to be
considered in any sense as an endorsement of the product by the United
States Air Force or the Government.
This report has been reviewed by the Information Office (OI) and is releasable
to the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). At NTIS, it will be
available to the general public, including foreign nations.
APPROVAL STATEMENT
This technical report has been reviewed and is approved for publication.
FOR THE COMMANDER
ALEXANDER F. MONEY
Research and Development
Division
Directorate of Technology
"
ROBERT O. DIETZ
Director of Technology
UNCLASSIFIED.
READ INSTRUCTIONS
B E F O R E COMPLETING F O R M
R E P O R T D O C U M E N T A T I O N PAGE
1. R f ~ P O R T N U M B E R
2 GOVT ACCESSION NO
3. R E C I P I E N T ' $
CATALOG
NUMBER
AEDC'YR7761
4.
TITLE
(and 5ubtIIlv)
$.
AERODYNAMIC C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F P E R F O R A T E D
W A L L S FOR TRANSONIC WIND T U N N E L S
7.
AUTHOR(l)
Type
OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
Final Report  January 1, 1975January 1, 1977
6:
PERFORMING ORG, REPORT NUMBER
8.
CONTRACT
OR GRANT NUMBER(a )
J. L. jdc'ocks, ARO, Inc.
9.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATqON NAME AND ADDRESS
10. P R O G R A M E L E M E N T . P R O J E C T .
A R E A & WORK U N I T N U M B E R S
Arnold Engineering Development Center (DY)
Air Force Systems C o m m a n d
Arnold Air Force Station~ Tennessee 37389
I ].
CONTROLIING
Program Element 65807F
OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS
12. R E P O R T D A T E
~krn01drEngineering Development Center (DYFS)
AirlForce Systems C o m m a n d
~,rn01clAi~" Force Stetion~ Tennessee 37389
1~. N U M E I E R O F P A G E S
14. M O N I T O R I N G A G E N C Y N A M E & A D D R E S S ( I / ~J/ferenf t r o m C o n f r o ~  l n l ~ O / l i c e )
IS.
TASK
June 1977
75'
SECURITy
C L A S S . ( o / t h l l report)
..
UNCLASSIFIED
15a.
16. D I S T R I B U T I O N
STATEMENT
OECLASS~FIC ATION ' DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE
N/A
( o f fhlll Reporl)
Approved for public r e l e a s e , distribution unlimited.
17.
DISTRIBUTION
S T A T E M E N . T ( O I fhe mbatralct entered In B l o c k 20.
tS.
SUPPLEMENTARy
II
d l f f e r e n f from Report)
NOTES
Available in DDC
19.
K E Y WORDS ( C o n t i n u e on reverse e l d e i f n e c e e l = r y
and identify
by
bJock number)
transonic wind tunnels
perforation
walls
aerodynamic characteristics
20.
ABSTRACT
(CoOthue on reverlle oide I I neceseory e n d I d e n t i t y by b l o c k n u m b e r l
A combined experimentaltheoretical approach is developed for determination of the
crossflow characteristics of ventilated walls. The technique is based on m e a s u r e m e n t
Of static p r e s s u r e s at the boundaries of a twodimensional flow, calculation of the interior flow properties with MurmanCole type finite difference techniques, and Calculation of the boundarylayer development on and m a s s flux distribution through the ventilated wall using PatankarSpalding type solution techniques. Results verify the validity
FORM
D D , JAN ?3 1473
E D t T I O N O F 1 N O V 6S IS O B S O L E T E
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
ZO. ABS'rPA CT (Continued)
of assuming proportioliallty between local p r e s s u r e and flow angle as a boundary condition for wall interference e s t i m a t e s . However, it is also shown that the thickness of
the boundary layer represents a dominant influence on the perforated wall c h a r a c t e r i s tics, with beth the slope and intercept of the characteristic being dependent on the
boundary layer. The effects on the wall characteristics of suppressing the edgetone
noise by use of screen overlays or splitter plates within discrete holes are documeated.
,
AF$C
Ae~ld
AFI
"re~
UNCLASSIFIED
_+
",
!~
A E D C  T R7761
~i
~
.:
PREFACE
The work reported herein was conducted by the Arnold Engineering
Development Center (AEDC), Air Force Systems Command (AFSC), under
Program Element 65807F.
The results were obtained by ARO, Inc., AEDC
Division (a Sverdrup Corporation Company), operating contractor for
the AEDC, AFSC, Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee, under ARO Project
Numbers P32A29A, P32ACOA, and P32AJ5A.
J. L. Jacocks, ARO, Inc.
The author of this report was
The manuscript (ARO Control No. AROPWTTR
7730) was submitted for publicatlon on April 25, 1977.
,'AEDcTR7761
CONTENTS
I .0
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . .
2.0
DEVELOPMENT OF THEORY
~5
3.0
4.0
i
5.0
,J
/
6.0
2. I
Potential Flow
......
2.2
W a l l Boundary Layer
. . . . .
/6 ~
14
APPARATUS
3.1
Aerodynamic*Wind
Tunnel
(IT)
. .
3.2
P r e s s u r e D i s t u r b a n c e Generators
3.3
P e r f o r a t e d W a l l Geometry
3.4
Instrumentation
. .
17
.
18
.....
2i
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
,..
21
PROCEDURE
4.1
Test Procedure
. . . . . . . . .
4.2
P r e c i s i o n of M e a s u r e m e n t s
.......
. . . . . . .
26
. . . . . .
27
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1
Assessment of Accuracy
....
5.2
P e r f o r a t e d W a l l Characterist4cs
5.3
Effect of Noise Suppression Devices
. . . .
....
. .
. . . . .
CONCLUDING REMARKS . . . . . . . . . . .
30
.
. . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....
27
43
48
.:
50
ILLUSTRATIONS
,
Figure
.!
I.
Schematic of Physical Model and CorrespondingMath
Model
2. C o m p a r i s o n of the Inverse S m a l l  P e r t u r b a t i o n
Approach
~,
w i t h a n Exact Solution for F 1 0 w over a RightC i r c u l a r Cylinder
. . . . . . . . . . . .
3. C o m p a r i s o n of the Inverse S m a l l  P e r t u r b a t i o n
Approach
w i t h Exact Solutions for F l o w T h r o u g h O b l i q u e S h o c k s
4. I l l u s t r a t i o n
of the N o n l i n e a r R e l a t i o n s h i p
F l o w A n g l e and N o r m a l i z e d ~ W a l l
11
13
Between
Mass Flux . . . . . .
16
AE DCTR7761
Figure
5. Characteristics of the Pressure Disturbance
Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
6. Perforated Wall Geometry . . . . . . . . . .
22
7. Comparison of Calculated Flow Angle Distributions
with Laser Velocimetry Measurement . . . . . .
Z9
8. Comparison of Calculated and Measured BoundaryLayer
Displacement Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
9. Representative Variation of Pressure Coefficient, Flow
Inclination, Wall Mass Flux, and BoundaryLayer
Displacement Thickness with Tunnel Station . . . . . . .
32
10. Representative Locus of Pressure Coefficient and Flow
Inclination  the Wall Characteristic
.....
34
11. Variability of the Wall Characteristic with Changes
in the Imposed Pressure
Distribution
36
12. Effect of BoundaryLayer Displacement Thickness on the
Characteristic Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
13. Effect of BoundaryLayer Displacement Thickness on the
Characteristic Intercept . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
14. Comparison of the VarlablePoroslty Wall Characteristics
for Upstream and Downstream Displacement of the
Cutoff Plate .
42
15. Effect of Noise Suppression Devices on the
Characteristics of C o n f l g u r a t l o n A
. . . . . . . .
44
16. Effect of Noise Suppression Devices on the Characteristics of Configuration D . . . . . . . . .
46
APPENDIX
A. COMPARATIVE CROSSFLOW CHARACTERISTIC DATA FOR EACH
PERFORATED WALL GEOMETRY . . . . . . . . . .
53
NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
AED CTR77~1
:~
1.0 INTRODUCTION
~:IAlthough t r a n s o n i c wind t u n n e l s w i t h v e n t i l a t e d
have!been i n use f o r o v e r 25 y e a r s (Ref.
aerodynamic p r o p e r t i e s
test
s e c t i o n walls~
1), an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e
o f the w a l l s has y e t to be developed.
of the wall crossflow characteristics
Knowledge:i
( p r e s s u r e  f l o w angle r e l a t i o n s h i p )
i s r e q u i r e d f o r s e v e r a l reasons, b u t an accurate, method has n o t been
available
to o b t a i n t h i s
information.
Previous. techniques
t h r o u g h 3) f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
assumption o f
(Refs.
have r e l i e d
1"
on t h e
e q u i v a l e n c e between f l o w angle a t t h e w a l l and mass f l u x
through the wall.
However, Rae (as r e p o r t e d i n Ref. 4 ) d e m o n s t r a t e d
t h a t t h e b o u n d a r y  l a y e r development on the w a l l Created a n o n l i n e a r
i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e between mass f l u x and f l o w a n g l e .
,,~Direct measurement of the local static pressure and flow angle in
the vicinity of a ventilated wall can be accomplished~, as s h o w n b y
~t
Berndt (Ref. 5).
This approach is feasible for documentation o f t h e
characteristics of a given wall geometry~ but becomes inefficlent as the
number of wall configurations is increased.
~:
To bypass these difficulties , the present investigation was designed to develop a new test technique thatwould yield definitive
information on ventilated wall characteristics.
An inverse technique
was~selected wherein sufficient yet tractable static pressure measurer
ments made at the boundaries of a twodimensional flow would a l l o w
calculation of the remaining flow variables.
The potential flow field
was calculated with the line relaxation method of Murman and Cole (Ref.
6) with the primary result being the flow angle distribution in the
vicinity of a ventilated wall.
The measured pressures and inferred flow
angles were then used to calculate the boundarylayer developmen ~ on and
massflux distribution through the Ventilated wall.
AEDCTR776
The theoretical approach is described in Section 2.0, with the
experimental apparatus and procedure being described in Sections 3.0 and
4.0.
Section 5.0 presents the results, including independent measure
ments made to verify the accuracy of the theoretical calculations.
2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF THEORY
2.1 POTENTIAL FLOW
The basic hypothesis of the present work is presented pictorially
in Fig. I.
It is assumed that a twodimensional transonic flow fle;id /!
can be established within a region bounded by a contoured solid (bottom)
wall, solid plane sidewalls, and a ventilated (top) wall.
It fs further
assumed that the flow can he mathematically described by small perturbations from a uniform flow with boundary conditions derived from static
pressure measurements around a control volume.
The llne relaxation
technique of Murman and Cole (Ref. 6) provides the calculatlonal tool to
solve the resulting boundaryvalue problem.
The result is t h e dlstrl
bution of flow angle in the vicinity of the ventilated wall.
The small perturbation, twodlmenslonal, potential flow equation ~
descriptive of internal transonic flow is given (Ref. 7) by
[1  M2  ( y +
1)~
~ x] ~xx + ~xx = 0
where ~x and ~y are the p e r t u r b a t i o n v e l o c i t i e s
(1)
( d iv id e d by a reference
v e l o c i t y ) p a r a l l e l and normal to the tunnel a x i s and M i s a reference
Mach number.
To the degree of approximation inherent w i t h i n Eq. (1) the
local pressure coefflclent, Cp, and flow angle, 8, are given b y
Cp = 2 ~x
0 y
(2)
AE DCTR7761
 ~ ,~,
Cp dx
I
x
,',., C I
"Pl
BOUNDARYVALUE PROBLEM
I
I
I Cx" Cp
I
I
~,j~= Cp dx
PERFORATED WALL
FLOW
~__
37. 5 in.
2 5 in..1. I
13 in. ~
~
I
SOLID CONTOURED WALL
Figure 1. Schematic of physical model and corresponding math model.
12 in.
AE DCTR7761
Measurements of static pressureat the boundaries of a control volu~ne~as,
indicated in Fig. I can be used to specify sufficient boundary condly ,A~;,
tions of mixed type to obtain a solution of Eq. (I). Specifica!l~,~
~;i~ii~
natural boundary conditions at the upstream and downstream planes~of~the,
control volume are given by
4x (o,y) ffi0.5 Cp (o,y)
(3)
Ox (L,y) = 0.5 C
(L,y)
.
c~
Boundary conditions of the Diri~chlet type are obtained b y Integratibn of
the measured pressures at the top and bottom boundaries by
"~'~ " ,
CI]{D
X
,
O(x,o)
0.5 j" Cp (x,o)dx + ~o
0
(4)
0(x,h) = 0.5
Cp (x,h)dx + 0i
[;{;
i]!I; ~CI]:
O
m
where two constants of integration (0o and 01) rp~maln to be evaluated.
A physical interpretation
of t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e s e c o n s t a n t s i s .that.
their difference represents the average flow inclination at the upstream
boundary of the test section, or
m,~
h
01  00 =
0y (o,y)dy
(5)
,O
Since the magnitude o f the potential is of no consequence, 0o was arbitrarily set to zero without loss of generality.
The remaining constant
of integration cannot be evaluated" from the Static pressure measurements
alone but requires an additional item of information relating to flow
inclination or geometry.
The selected PrOcedure for defining 01 was based on the concePt.of i:'
boundarylayer displacement thickness development on the bottom wall ,,f ~
with, of course, knowledge of the wall geometry.
For each flow condl
tion, a preliminary solution of the flow field compatible with the
AEDCTR7761
measured pressures was numerically obtained assuming ~I = O, say ~(x,y).
The elevation, Ys' of the streamline through the coordinate origin was
then computed from numerical differentiation and integration of this
solution in the form of
X
Ys(X) = f ~y(X,o)dx
(6)
0
7
In general, the resulting streamline did not agree with the effective
wall geometry because the average flow inclination at the test section
_I
r! L
entrance cannot be assumed a priori.
However, superposition of a uni
form crossflow on the ~ solution does allow matching of both the effective bottom wall geometry and the boundary conditions derived from
static pressure measurements.
The required crossflow was determined
explicitly by forcing agreement between the computed streamline (with
rotation) and the effective wall elevation at two points, x = 0 and
x = x I. T h e resulting rotated streamline generally agreed with the
effective geometry for all values of x, with allowance for the expected
i
accuracy level because of the small perturbation assumption.
Given the
displacement thickness, ~I' and the wall geometry, yg, ~I was computed
from
~I = h___
x I [61(xI )  61(o ) + yg(Xl)
_ Ys(Xl)]
(7)
The displacement thickness at the test section entrance, ~i(o), was
measured and found to be weakly dependent on Mach number and, for
convenience, a nominal value of 0.07 in. was used for all calculations.
During the first portion of experiments, the displacement thickness was
measured at the test section exit for each flow condition and used in
Eq. (7), whereas for the later experiments, x I was fixed at the middle
of the test section with 61 = 0.04 in., which was representative of
measured values.
AE DCTR7761
Superposition of the uniform crossflow does not require extenslve
recomputation of the flow field because Eq. (I) is linear in this r@Bpect,
and the final solution is given by
~(x,y)
= ~(x,y)
(8)
i
!
The numerical technique selected to solve for $ was that of Murman
and Cole (Ref. 6).
A computer code was written specifically for a
finite control volume with boundary conditions applicable to the present
problem.
The flnitedlfference representation of Eq. (I) was coded With
a mesh of uniform spacing in each of the coordinate directions.
The
difference operator was varied among elliptic, parabolic, hyperbolic,
and a special shockpolnt differencing (Ref. 8) according to the local
Mach number and velocity gradient.
Boundary conditions were applied at
the boundaries of the mesh.
"
Several idealized numerical experiments were conducted to verify
the accuracy of the coding and the practicality of the solution.
These
studies included verification of stability, ability to rapidly converge
with imbedded shocks, selfconslstency between inverse and direct solutions, and comparisons with other exact and approximate solutlons.
One of the most illustrative examples of the accuracy Of the smallperturbation approach is provided by comparison with an exact solution
for flow over a rightclrcular cylinder (Ref. 9).
As indicated i~ Fig.
2, a control volume was selected in the vicinity o f a cylinder immersed
in uniform incompressible potential flow.
Both the exact pressure
coefficient distribution on the streamline representing the bottom wall
and the distributlon on the other three boundaries were used to solve
for the inclusive flow field.
The calculated flow angles at the upper
and lower boundaries are compared wlth the exact solution in Fig. 2.
Two salient points of this comparison are that the inverse Solution
appears to be nominally ten percent in error, a consequence of assuming
I0
 m
EXACT
  ,SMALL
INVERSE
SOLUTION
PE R T U R B A T I O N
I
I
SOLUTION
0.2
"
C
0
~ m .
lY =4
I
I
~ y = 2
___
=2
0.!
4
m
0
tk=.
ui
~
2
I
0
LI
""
'
,"
0.ii i
0.2L
3D
Figure 2. Comparison of the inverse smallpe~urbati'on approach with
an exact solution for flow over a rightcircular cylinder.
,,j
AE DCT R7761
small perturbations,
calculational
and that, beglnning with symmetric inputs,
scheme yields symmetric results.
M = 0.1 was assumed for these computations,
characteristic
It should be noted that
but the nonlinear transonic
of Eq. (I) was retained.
It can be argued that the use of experimentally
pressure coefficients
as boundary conditions
degree of approximation
implicit in Eq. (I).
determined .(exact)
is inconsistent with the
This hypothesis was
examined by using as boundary conditions pressure coefficients
by subtracting
butions.
the
the higherorder
velocity
computed
terms from the exact distri
The resulting calculated flow angles were compared wit6 the
exact solution for flow over a cylinder and showed errors up to three
times that indicated in Fig. 2.
It was concluded that the inverse
solution approach in combination with tangential rather than normal
boundary conditions were in concert and would yield results c o m p a t i b l e
with the real flow.
i.
A second class of illustrative
T_
examples of the usefulness of the
/I
technique is based on uniform flow through an oblique planar shock.
Fig. 3, two examples are given that were constructed
from the exact
solution to the Euler equations.
flows at Mach
In these examples,
In
numbers of 1.1 and 1.2 were turned by a shock at angles of 75 and 60
deg, respectively.
The major difference between the two'is that the
stronger shock results in subsonic flow, whereas
supersonic
throughout.
differencing
For the supersonic
is consistently utilized;
the other flow is
fl0w, backward or upstream
hence errors are accumulated
within the field that are incompatible with the exact, imposed boundary
conditions,
and a reflection back into the field occurs at the boundaries.
For th& subsonic downstream flow, central differencing
permitting communication
of the imposed boundary conditions
field with correspondingly
not unexpected,
is utilized,
more accurate results.
into the
These findings were
since it was known (Ref. 6) that the hyperbolic differ ~'
encing operator was only accurate to the firstorder',
accuracy was characteristic
and secondorder
of the elliptic differencing operator.
12
AE DCT R7761
EXACT
SOLUTION
SMALL
PERTURBATION
INVERSE SOLUTION
"
0 03 I
0.02
M2>I
001
o
0.03
0.02
M2<I
M I =1.1
0.01
MI
,
,i
M2
;r
Figure 3. Comparison of the inverse smallperturbation approach with
exact solutions for flow through oblique shocks.
13
AEDCTR7761
From these numerical experiments,
it was concluded that the calcu
lated flow angles in the vicinity of a ventilated wall would be of,
usable accuracy for entirely subcritlcal
:;
flows, but that the adequ@cy of
the procedure would require close reassessment
large region of supercritical
for conditions with ,a
flow.
2.2 W A L L B O U N D A R Y L A Y E R
As discussed by Goethert
boundarylayer
correlations
(displacement)
(Ref. 6) and Lukasiewicz
(Ref. I0), t h e
thickness is an important parameter i f
of ventilated wall characteristics
are attempted.
The
;,:
presence of a boundary layer also results in a nonlinear relationship
between flow inclination and wall mass flux as illustrated by Rae (Ref.
4).
This effect can be readily appreciated by considering
continuity equation for twodimenslonal
thickness,
flow written as
d61
6  61 d
dx ; ~ % ~ dx ( p = u )
where 61 is the displacement
the Integral
'
,,~.
(9)
+ O  I = 0
is a constant thickness
inclusive of the boundary layer where the streamwlse mass flux p u
is evaluated,
8 the flow inclination at 6 , and I is the mass flux
through the wall normalized by p u .
adopted for e and I is such
constant displacement
Note that the sign c o n v e n t i o n
that suction (outflow) is positive.
the effects of pressure gradients,
Ignoring
equality of e and I would require
thickness, which generally does not occur. :
The conventional a p p r o a c h t o
the calculation of boundarylayer.
development over a porous wall requires specification of the wal ! mass~
flux as an independent parameter.
Since flow angle outside of the,
boundary layer was known for the present approach,
, :
a method for using , .
Eq. (9) to solve for the mass flux was developed by G. H. Saunders of
ARO, Inc.
The twodimenslonal,
code of Whitfleld
turbulent,
boundarylayer
prediction
(Ref. 11), based on that of Patankar and Spalding
14
~
:
AEDC.TR77.61
'r
(Ref~.Jr12i;~,was modified to incorporate the integral continuity equation
" "
to relite'wall mass flux to flow angle. ~ For each streamwlse i n c r e m e n t . '
Withih~the boundarylayer calculation,
"
the wall mass flux was'~itera 
tively s~ecified until the calculated flow angl e from Eq.. (9) matched
the potential flow results.
The end result of these"calc~lations Was ~
',~"]
:
the wall massflux distribution, boundarylayer development, and the
distribution of other parameters such as skin friction and boundary. ''~'.',
layer shape factor.
.,
The results must be.interpreted with caution
becaus'e , in addition to the usual boundarylayer approximations,
it was
implf~itly assumed that the finitesize perforations.could be'repre sented'as an equivalent, homogeneous porous wall and"that the noslip ""
condition was valid (in spite of having inclined holes).
~:~Another functional relationship between mass flux and flow a n g l e
can be derived (Ref. 4) from a combination of the integral continuity
and momentum equations and is given by
/ .
:
....
I
{
dH
Cf
% = +H
I
I0 + ~2 d~x ~ H 2 "
dC [61(I +.H) + $ (I  M2)]
+71 ~dx
(io)
'
The parameters of significance are the shape factor, H, and the skin L
friction coefficient, Cf.
For large suction, the'shape factor approaches
unity and the sklnfrlctlon coefficient is of comparable magnitude t0~
the mass flux which results in X ~ 0.
Conversely,
for large 51owing;
the Skin friction approaches zero and the shape factor becomes large
.such that dX/de>0. At moderate suction orl blowing rates with a repre L
sentative shape factor of H = 1.5 at the Mach numbers of interest, Eq.
(10) indicates X ~ 0/2.5 would be appropriate.
Some representative
comparisons of the relationship between mass flux and flow angle as
. "" '
computed from Whitfield's code are presented in Figl 4.
: i ,
These results
are i n ~ e e o r d with Eq. (10) and clearly illustrate the'noniinearity.
between flow inclination and normalized wall mass fiux.~
15
mh
~i
"~
5
3~
m
.BI
0=0
D ~
~.
0
04
.o
0
PO
r" o
o
r0
.o
4~
m
m
3
IrO
.o
=J.=
=11
I0
CO
om
~>z
r~
c
c~
[m

Z~
ro
3>0
Im
'
'
NORMALIZED WALL MASS FLUX,
9!
/)
(=
C)
.I
19"LLI:J lOO
q>
II
>,,
9V
0
0
04
AEDCTR'7761
3.0 APPARATUS
3.1 AERODYNAMIC WIND TUNNEL (1T)
The experimentswere conducted in the Aerodynamic Wind Tunnel (IT),
which is a continuousflow transonic tunnel with atmospheric intake and
exhaust.. The test section is of square cross section, nominally 12 by
12 in. and 37.5 in. longm and is enclosed within a plenum chamber.
.
. Stagnation pressure is fixed at approximately 2,850 psfa wlth slight
v~rlations attributable to tunnel resistance and ambient pressure.
To
.%
prevent water vapor condensation in the test section,.stagnation temperature is normally varied within the range of 150 to 190"F as required.
.z
Supersonlc flows are established in the blach number range of 1.1 to
i
1.5 with a twodimensionalflexiblenozzle.
Subsonic and transonic
flows~'are obtained with a sonic nozzle contour in conjunction with
adjustments in the tunnel backpressure and with plenum suction through
t~J
an auxillary evacuation system.
The tunnel test section configuration consisted of solid, planar
sldewalls with several contoured, solid bottom walis to generate dlff~rlng pressure distributions within the testreglon.
The bottom wall
(floor) was attached to the nozzle exit with a flexure, and the downstream end'of the wall was suported by a remotely controllable Jackscrew.
Using the Jackscrew, variations in wall angle, 8w, of 1 deg
reiatlve to the'tunnel centerllne were set (convergence is considered
positive).
The ventilated wall specimens were installed at the top
(ceiling) of the test section, parallel to the tunnel centerline.
As applied
to
thetunnel geometry, the coordinate system of'Fig. I
is referenced to the nozzle exit, bottom wall, with t h e xaxis parallel
to the tunnel centerllne.
units of inches, with a x i a l
All length dlmensions where cited are in
location usually phrased as tunnel station,
that is, the distance downstream from the nozzle exit.
17
A E D C  T R7761
3.2 PRESSURE DISTURBANCE GENERATORS
Lifting models in conventional ventilated wind tunnels generate
farfield disturbances which, after interacting with the tunnel boundary
as a whole, can be treated as simple pressure distributions imposed on
the ventilated walls.
To simulate the resulting pressure distributions
in a manner amenable to analysis, several twodimensional bottomwall
bumps were fabricated with rather arbitrary contours as disturbance
generators.
The profiles of the contours are presented in Fig. 5a.
Each bump (nominally 12 in. in length) including a flat plate (Contour
F) was installed with the leading edge at tunnel station 13.
Upstream
and downstream of the contours, flatplate extensions were used.
Unless
indicated otherwise, data presented were obtained using the thickest
bump (Contour A) with the bottom wall parallel to the tunnel centerline.
The dashed lines in Fig. 5a represent the boundarylayer displacement thickness development over the various contours.
The calculations
were based on the potential flow solution, with integration of the flow
inclination at the bottom wall compatible with the measured pressures at
M = 0~8.
The resulting effective aerodynamic contours changed as
functions of Mach number, wall angle, and ventilated wall geometry.
Boundarylayer separation evidently occurred on all of the bottom wall
contours (except the flat plate) so that the only viable method of
solving for the interior potential flow field was the inverse technique.
An illustration of the types of pressure distributions achieved at
the ventilated wall with the various disturbance generators is given in
Fig. 5b.
Again, it should be noted that variations in Mach number,
bottom wall angle, or ventilatedwall geometry significantly affected
the resulting pressure distributions.
]8
i
AEOCTR7761
INVISCID
S..TREAMLINE 7
FLOW
CONTOUR A
" " :.'"
1
CONTOUR
.~'~. ,.~ .'.: .'.::7".~i,:~.; '
'.~ ,~i...~;:
~: "/~
.=:: :,
CONTOUR
CONTOUR
CONTOUR
 "../::";~.'I.
,';~
~.",
a. Geometric and effective contours
Figure 5. Characteristicsof the pressuredisturbance generators.
19
AEDCTR776t
0.2
I
I
I I~"1
CONTOUR A
(" j
~0.1
Z
ILl
LI.
LI.
ILl
0
LIJ
n*
U)
(n
hi
G:
a.
0. I
o.2 I
0
I0
15
20
.25
TUNNEL STATION, inches
b. Pressure distributions at the ventilated wall
Figure 5. Concluded.
20
30
35
AEDCTR~7761
i
3.3
PERFORATED
WALL GEOMETRY
'
"
"
Four basic wall configurations were tested, denoted A through D,
With each being based on the 60deg i n c l i n e d h o l e p e r f o r a t e d w a l l d e i
vel~ped at AEDC (Ref. I).
i,
in Fig. 6.
Pertinent dimensions of each wail are give n
Configuration D (Fig~ 6c) was a varlableporoslty wail
conistlng" of two matchdrilled plates with the airside plate held
stationary and the backside or cutoff plate translated streamwise to
achieve variations in porosity.
For convenience, upstream movement of
theicutoff plate for decreasing porosity is labeled positive porosity
and:downstream movement negative.
Perforated walls in transonic wind tunnels generate noise, termed
edg~tones, that is thought to degrade the quality of model test data.
Two methods of suppressing the edgetoneshave been developed (and configurations A and D weretested with each).
One modification consisted
of inserting a splitter Plate , SPL (Ref. 13) in each hole, longitudinally bisecting the hole, w l t h t h e splitterplate dimensions being 0.012
in.lwide and 0.063 in. deep.
The second modification Consisted of a
. screen attached to the airside plate surface; in this instance the
screen was of 40 by 60 mesh with 0.006 in. wire diameter.
]
I
I
I
i To distinguish among the differing wall geometries the configuration code is followed by wall porosity and,~if appropriate, either SPL
or SCR to denote the noise suppression'device present (for example, D1.0!SCR).
Data are presented for 20 distinct ventilated w a l l
geometries.
3.4  N S T R U M E N T A T  O N
Primary tunnel parameters and the respective instrumentation used
to sense and measurethe parameters included: plenum pressure measured
by a servodriven precision mercury manometer; stagnation and diffuser
e x i t pressures measured wit~ straingage transducers referenced to the
2]
AEDCTR 7761
16.1 DEG
~
,s.9
1.752
oEG_~...<~
.
0 0 0 0
O0
o
3.034
O0
O0
o
O0
o
0
O0
o
0
0 o
0
O0
FLOW
"
0.125D
_J_
0.125
a. Configuration A
Figure 6. Perforated wall geometry.
22
AEDCTR7761
0.713
(2)
0
FLOW
"
0.213 D
~r
o.125
b.~ ConfigurationB
Figure 6. Continued.
23
AEDCTR7761
2 0 . 0 6 DEG
~I. 240.,]
20.06
" 0
0
0
0
0
FLOW
0.166 D
FIXED POROSITY
"
70.125 TYP
r = I 0 . 0
PLATE
MOTION
VARIABLE POROSITY (UPSTREAM)
VARIABLE POROSITY (DOWNSTREAM)
c. ConfigurationC and D
Figure 6. Concluded.
24
AEDCTR7761
plenum pressure; and stagnation temperature measured with an ironconstantan thermocouple.
Other pressure measurements were accomplished
with five 48port Scanivalves@using straingage transducers referenced
to plenum pressure.
system.
These data were recorded with an onllne computer
Raw data were recorded on punched paper tape, and results were
tabulated in engineering units to aid in conducting the tests.
The
paper tape was subsequently processed to obtain the results presented
herein.
Flow angularity measurements were obtained in the proximity of
selected ventilated walls using laser velocimetry (LV) with a system
described in Ref. 15.
This system is a twocomponent, dualscatter,
moving frlngetype system operated in the offaxis, backscatter co1lection mode.
Online indication of the two velocity components was
available from the data processor, but all results presented were processed offline from digital magnetic tape recordings of the raw data.
Static pressure measurements in the vicinity of the ventilated walls
were first made uslng a 0.51n.diam static pipe extending from the
stagnation chamber through the nozzle and test section.
With the pipe
centerline nominally 1.25 in. below a perforated wall, it was discovered
that the measured pressures were slightly dependent on the orientation
of the orifice.
The crossflow velocity componen t induced a variation in
static pressure around the circumference of the pipe.
Further com
plications, such as o r i f i c e  e d g e a b e r r a t i o n s and n o n r e p a l r a b l e l e a k s ,
forced abandonment of the statlcpipe concept, although some data are
presented.
The test section sidewall was selected as the location for
the alllmportant static pressure measurements near the ventilated
walls.
The measurements required for upstream and downstream boundary
conditions were also made at the tunnel sidewall; however, pressure
measurements for the bottom w a l l w e r e obtained on'the centerline.
25
AEDCTR7761
A limited number of boundarylayer surveys was made with multipler ~
tube pitot pressure rakes.
These data were reduced to the conventional
parameters of displacement and momentum thicknesses assuming isoenergetic
flow with Prandtl number equal to one.
4.0 PROCEDURE
l;r
4.1 TEST PROCEDURE
,~,J
Tunnel test section conditions were unconventional in that there
was, in general, no region of uniform flow.
The disturbance field of
the contoured bottom Wails extended into the nozzle sothat,
glance, there is no freestreamMach number for use in
at first
Eq. (I).
How
ever, the presence of one ventilated wall allows the introduction of a
pseudo Math number, the socalled plenum Math n,,ber, which is simply a
Math number computed on the basis of an Isentroplc expansion from the
stagnation pressure to the plenum pressure.
It is emphasized that the
flow within the plenum chamber actually was at a very low velocity.
The
pressure differences across ventilated walls are normally small; hence,
the plenum Math number is a good approximation to the nonexistent farfield or freestream Mach number.
Test conditions were established by adjusting the plenum suction
flow rate and the diffuser exit pressure in such a way that the desired,
Math number was set while simultaneously maintaining reasonably uniform
pressure gradients at the downstream end of the test s e c t i o n . Data were
obtained, for each configuration at Math numbers between 0.5 and 0.85;
Limited data were acquired between Math numbers of 0.9 and 1.2.
"
For some ventilated wallsp the bottom wall angle was adjusted to
achieve changes in the mean boundarylayer thickness over the ventilated
wall.
Convergence of the bottom wall forced more flow into the plenum,
thereby thinning the boundary layer.
yielded the opposite effect.
25
Divergence of the bottom wall
AEDCTR776t
4.2 PRECISION OF MEASUREMENTS
Uncertainties in the pressure measurements have been estimated at
the 95percent confidence level considering the effects of the precision
and repeatability of the instrumentation.
For most of the pressure
measurements, three or more individual data points were acquired in
sequence and averaged to minimize the influence of lowfrequency, smaliamplitude oscillations in the tunnel flow.
These effects were combined
using the Taylor series method of error propagation.
The resulting
uncertainties in the basic parameters are:
Mach number, M
0.005
Pressure coefficient, C
0.006
Wall angle, 8w
0.02
Displacement thickness, 61
0.03
The laser velocimetry data were derived from an average of approximately 1,000 samples/point, yielding negligible random error.
Bias
errors introduced within the system or from particle lag were of unknown
magnitude.
5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 ASSESSMENT OF ACCURACY
Calculation of t h e flow angularity distribution rather t h a n making
direct measurements leads to results of unknown accuracy.
A highly
complicated relationship exists between the precision of pressure coefficient measurements and the precision of the calculated flow angles.
Additional uncertainties arise from the assumptions of small perturbations and twodimensional flow.
27
AEDCTH7761
To obtain a qualitative appraisal of accuracy, independent measurements of the flow angles were made for selected ventilated walls I in.
from the walls and compared with calculations made for the same conditions.
These results are presented in Fig. 7 in the form of flow angle
as a function of tunnel station for wall configurations A6.0, BT.0, and
CI0.0.
Limited transverse surveys with the LV system indicated the flow
in the vicinity of the perforated walls was twodimensional with no
perturbations from discrete holes detectable I in. from the wall.
The general agreement between the two independent estimates of flow
angle is considered excellent.
It is evident that the inverse technique
yields results of good accuracy and is experimentally far less demanding
thandirect measurements.
For the larger crossflow velocities (flow
angle) the comparisons in Fig. 7 indicate possible contamination of the
results by boundarylayer growth on the sidewalls since the LV data are
generally of larger magnitude.
Enforcement of continuity on a two
dimensional basis and matching of a streamline at the bottom wall resulted in artiflcially increased outflow and decreased inflow at t h e '
ventilated wall.
To o b t a i n a n i n d i c a t i o n
of the boundarylayer
types of experiments were conducted.
The f i r s t
program accuracy,
setup consisted
two
of
replacing the ventilated wall with a solid wall and performing all
measurements and ca~culatlons as if there were mass flux through the
wall.
The resulting magnitude of the computed mass flux was approxi
mately 10 percent of that obtained with ventilated walls of moderate
porosity.
Again, the.sidewall boundarylayer growth is suspected as the
major cause of this discrepancy.
Since the extremes of wall mass flux
decreased with decreasing wall porosity, it is evident that the'relative
accuracy of the resuAts is dependent on wall porosity.
28
AEDCTR7761
0.08
LV DATA
CALCULATED
0.04
"
M = O.8
0.04
#w'O
0.08
12
16
20
24
TUNNEL STATION, inches
28
Figure 7. Comparison of calculated flow angle distributions with
laser velocimetry measurement.
29
32
AE DCTR7761
The second experiment consisted of measuring the boundarylayer
profile at tunnel station 30 on configuration A6.0 with each of the
bottom wall contours, with wall angle and Mach number as test variables ~.
The resulting comparison of measured and calculated displacement thick"
nesses is presented in Fig. 8.
The agreement of the two was considered
excellent, and it was therefore assumed that the boundarylayer calculations were equally valid at other tunnel stations.
Boundarylayer '~
measurements were not made on any other ventilated wall geometry, which
required the assumption that the effects of changes in wall geometry=
were fully reflected in the resulting distribution of flow inclination.
Since the calculated displacement thickness evidenced signlficant
variation over the ventilated wall extent, the selected approach for ~
analysis was to obtain the average thickness directly above the bottom
wall contours.
' if
5.2 PERFORATED WALL CHARACTERISTICS
~
i/
,i
5.2.1 Defini~on of the Wall Characteris~c
As a means o f i n t r o d u c t i o n ,
figuration
A6.0 is
presented
a set of results
as a f u n c t i o n
obtained
of tunnel
with
station
;~
con
i n Ftg~ 9~
Note that the static pressure distribution is the only experimental r~
result with flow angle, wall mass flux, and boundarylayer displacement
thickness being derived quantities.
The measured pressure dlstrlbution
was in general not sufficiently regular for the numerical computational
procedure, and a moderate amount of data smoothing was employed.
given fraction of irregularity in pressure coefficient,
For a
the resulting
irregularity in flow angle was magnified with mass flux irregularities
magnified again.
This amplification of errors introduces fluctuations
in the crossflow characteristic that have no physical meaning and should
be ignored.
As a consequence, the calculated wall mass flux was con
sidered to be of insufficient accuracy to allow correlation of the wall
characteristics and the flow angle was used for this purpose.
30
AEDCTR7761
4)
0.3
O
J:
U
C
, D
LINEOF PERFECT
(n
(/)
bJ
AGREEMENT
(
~
0 "0 O /
.
, 0.2
I
~ 0.1
o/
a
ul
p.
/00.
_1
.J
j
olZo
O
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
MEASURED DISPLACEMENT THICKNESS, inches
Figure 8. Comparison of calculated and measured boundarylayer
displacement thickness.
3"1
AE DCTR7761
0.05
0.01
0.10
0.02' I
FLOW ANGLE, 'odians
MASS FLUX
0.02
**~
8w= 0.5
 0.04
CONFIG
A6.O
10
15
ZO
25
TUNNEL STATION, inchos
0.2'
BI
0.1
30
Figure 9. Repro$ontativovariation of pressureoo~icient, flow
inclination, wall mass flux, and bounda~/I~/or displacement thickness with tunnel station.
32
35
AEDCTR7761
Techniques are available (Refs. 16 and 17) for wall interference
correction of model test data, but little information is available
concerning the proper boundary condition to represent the wind tunnel
walls.
The classical perforated boundary condition typically employed
for subsonic wall interference calculations may be written as
~x +
~ ~y = 0
(11)
where 8 is the PrandtlGlauert factor and R represents an unknown porosity factor or wall permeability.
Equation (11) is a linearized
approximation to viscous flow through a porous medium where the average
velocity normal to the wall is assumed proportional to the pressure drop
through the wall, and the pressure outside the wall is assumed equal to
the freestream pressure.
wall characteristics,
In terms of experimental data for perforated
the locus of pressure coefficient and flow angle
provides the required boundary condition in the form of
dC
= I
~
R
2 dO
(12)
Thus, for utilization of the present results within existing theoretical wall interference prediction methods, there should exist a
linear relationship between C
and e. A representative crossplot of
P
pressure coefficient as a function of flow angle is presented in Fig. 10
wherein the streamwlse path is denoted by directional arrows and the
leading (LE) and trailingedge (TE) tunnel stations of the bottom wall
contour were as indicated.
The characteristics were obviously not
linear at the upstream portion of the wall, although reasonable llnearity existed over and downstream of the bottom wall contour.
The up
stream portion of the perforated wall was used to establish flow conditions, whereas normally four ventilated walls would be utilized at
significantly less model blockage ratios; therefore, it is suggested
that the data obtained directly above the contour were more representative of conventional conditions.
33
[2
(3
:D
',4
0.02
Cp
I
0
0.0 Z
,e,,:o.5
o.,
~ I L~ ~ 
CONFIG A6.0
0.04
0.06
IN FLOW
o08
0.028
OUTFLOW
l
0.024
 0 ~ 2 0 0.016
O. OIZ 0. 008
0.004
0.004
0.008
e
Figure 10. Representativelocus of pressure coefficient and flow
inclination  the wall characteristic.
).012
AEDCTR7761
To quantify the wall characteristics, a leastsquares, linear fit
of the Cp8 locus was obtained; this fitting was limited to the wall
region directly above the bottom wall contour.
The resulting slope and
intercept were taken to be the primary descriptors of the ventilated
wall characteristics.
Representative Cp8 loci for each wa1 configuration are given in
Appendix A.
The origin of each curve is displaced fo9 clarity.
Again,
it should be noted that these data were obtained with the bottom wall
parallel to the tunnel centerline with the circular arc (Contour A)
installed.
5.2.2 Influence of BoundaryLayer Thickness on the Characteristic Slope
L
The effect of changes in the imposed pressure distribution as
achlevedlwith the differing bottom wall contours and wall angle is
presented in Fig. 11.
A6.0 at M = 0.6.
These results were obtained with configuration
It is clear that a unique wall characteristic does not
exist in the sense of previous investigations. The shape of the C 8
f
:.
locus is dependent On the pressure distribution.
Furthermore, the mean
slope decreases as the boundary layer is thickened because of either
bottom wall divergence or reduced contour height.
A quantitative description of the Wall characteristic dependence on
the boundarylayer displacement thickness is presented in Fig. 12.
These data were obtained with variations of the bottom wall geometry.
If the characteristic is reasonably linear (see Appendix A), then the
slope is correlated by the ratio of the averag e displacement thickness
to the hole diameter w i t h the exception of a few (inexplicable) outlying
points, the correlation indicating decreased slope with increased
thickness.
This approach was consistent in that both the eharacterlstlc
slope and the boundarylayer thicknes s were averages over the wall
extent directly above the bottom wall contours.
35
AEDCTR7761
0.04
0
o.
(.t
LLJ
b.
dJ
O
(J
Ld
n
0
E
(n
bJ
r,
CL
0
CONFIGURATION
A6.0
M=0.6
+1"
0
0.04
0.04
0.02
0
0
0
0
FLOW ANGLE, rodions
Figure 11. Variability of the wall characteristic with changes
in the imposed pressure distribution.
36
0.02
AEoc.TR.~,'I:S,
I0~0
0
[]
m
CONFIG
A. 6 . 0
8 7;0
C IO:Q
< 2.0
zu
j
P,
~. :1.0
(/)
0.5
qp
0.2
0.4
0.6
0,8
1.0
AVERAGE DISPLACEMENT THICKNESS/HOLE DIAMETER
a. Fixed porosity walls
Figure 12. Effect of boundarylayer displacement thickness
on the characteristic dope.
,/
3"/
A E DCTR7761
I0.0
~o
~,~
5.0
~ .
"'X.o
_'~._A _ _
.
u_
,_o
Z.O
"
0",8.
o i
O.
,.=,
\ )"~o..
A
'
X0, %.
"
5.0
o,
"
1.0
U)

r I 0 .
0.5
0
O k\
"K,,_
,,
REF 19
I
I
I
I
I
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
AVERAGE DISPLACEMENT THICKNESS/HOLE DIAMETER
r
b. ConfigurationD
F!gure 12. Concluded.
38
i,
AEDCTR7761
It is evident that the slope of the wall characteristic, and hence
the boundary condition for wall interference estimates, is dependent on
the relative thickness of the wall boundary layer.
Anything that changes
the boundarylayer thickness will change the wall characteristic.
Since
the tunnel wall boundary layer generally becomes thinner with increasing
Reynolds number or with increased model size, the representative wall
interference boundary condition is variable.
Furthermore, a lifting
model in a ventilated wind tunnel would generate disturbances at the
wail such that, in general, the ceiling boundary layer would be thicker
than that on the floor with resulting disparity in floor/ceiling boundary conditions.
This conclusion is consistent with the flndingsof
Mokry, et al. (Ref. 18) who attributed the difference in wall boundary
conditions to a nonlinear wall characteristic.
Reference 18 also de
monstrated that increased Math number increased the wall characteristic
slope.
This trend may now be interpreted to be the result of decreased
boundarylayer thickness caused by an enlargement of the model disturbance field and additional suction at the wall.
The characteristics of configuration D with upstream movement of
the cutoff plate are summarized in Fig. 12b. The variable porosity
feature provides good control over the wall boundary condition.
Also
indicated in Fig. 12b are the results from a previous attempt (Ref. 19)
at quantifying the characteristics of this wall geometry.
Reasonable
agreement is evident (same order of magnitude) except at fivepercent
porosity where no explanation of this discrepancy is apparent.
5.2.3 Influence of the BoundaryLayer Thickness on the Tunnel Calibration
The i n t e r c e p t
the best available
o f t h e C  8 l o c u s a p p r o x i m a t i o n was c o n s i d e r e d t o be
P
e s t i m a t e of the p r e s s u r e drop a c r o s s the w a l l s c o r 
r e s p o n d i n g to uniform flow c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n a
v a l u e s a r e found to be c o r r e l a t a b l e
test
section.
These
wfth the average boundarylayer
displacement thicknesses as presented in Fig. 13.
39
These data indicate
AE DCTR7761
0.04
0.02
o
=
_z
0.02
z_
D 5.0
\c,o.o
o.o4
_u
0.06
"= 0.08
~
0.10
'
O I0.0
0
0.2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1.0
AVERAGE DISPLACEMENT THICKNESS/ HOLE DIAMETER
'Figure 13. Effect of boundarylayer displacement thickness
on the characteristic intercept.
4O
AEDCTR7761
significant variation of the wall pressure differential with changes in
boundarylayer displacement thickness, which in turn'affects the Mach
number precision of conventional transonic wind tunnels.
Current tech
niques of wind tunnel practice include calibration of the tunnel centerline Mach number against the plenum Mach number and subsequent use of
that calibration to infer a freestream Mach number from the plenum Mach
number, regardless of the model blockage.
Since the model installation
tends to reduce the wall boundarylaYer thickness relative to that
occurrlng in the empty tunnel, the calibration becomes inapplicable.
Admittedly, the error in Mach number would be small, but nonetheless
present.
A further source of imprecision in Mach number results from
calibration at one Reynolds number and thence applying that calibration
for tests at all available Reynolds numbers.
The sensitivity of test sectlon Mach number to wall boundarylayer thickness suggests that the present practice of using plenum
pressure to define a freestreamMach number should be reexamlned.
5.2A VariablePorosityWall Geometry
As discussed in Section 3.3, the varlableporosfty wall (configuration D) was tested with both upstream and downstream displacement of
the cutoff plate.
Examination of the C 8 locl in Fig. A4 (Appendix
P
A) clearly indicates distinct differences in the wall characteristics as
a result of the cutoff plate movement direction.
This difference is
illustrated in more detail in Fig. 14, along wlth the theoretically
required wall characteristics for alleviation of subsonic wall interference or supersonic wave reflection.
The subsonic interferencefree
curve was calculated with the computer code described in Section 2.1,
and the supersonic llne is the result of small disturbance theory (Ref.
19).
Configuration D with upstream cutoff plate movement reasonably
matches the linear characteristic required for supersonic wave cancellation, and the downstream movement characteristic approximates the
41
AE DCT R 7761
Z"
cp
UPSTREAM
CUTOFF
DS.0
DATA FOR
M = 0.6
DESIRED
SUBSONIC
CHARACTERISTIC   ~
" ~ D E S I RED
SUPERSONIC
" " ~. ~
CHARACTER,
~RISTIC
/!
I
DOWNSTREAM
CUTOFF
D 5.O
Figure 14. Comparison of the variableporosity wall characteristics
for upstream and downstream displacementof the cutoff plate.
42
AEDCTR7761
cardiodshaped Cp8 locus desired for subsonic flow (note the Cp 6rigin
is shifted to compensate for the different plenum Maeh numbers).
Therefore, consideration should be given to using this variableporoslty
wall with both upstream and downstream displacement of the cutoff plate
as a function of Mach number~
5.3 EFFECT OF NOISE SUPPRESSION DEVICES
Several techniques (Refs. 13 and 14) have been developed for suppression of the edgetones, but it was not known what effect these wall
modifications had upon the crossflow characteristic.
As discussed in
Section 3.3, two types of noise suppression devices were investigated:
splitter plates (SPL) bisecting each hole and a screen overlay (SCR) on
the airside surface.
The crossflow characteristics obtained are pre'
sentedlin Appendix A.
For purposes of discussion, some data for wall configuration A
are reproduced as Fig. 15.
The changes in the characteristic resulting
from the splitterplate modification were an increased pressure drop
across the wall and an enlarged spread of doublevaluedness in C
~P
for fixed 8. The multiplevalue pressure for a given flow inclination,
particularly inflow, is indicative of sensitivity to boundarylayer
thickness and is thought to be evidence that the wave cancellation
properties of the wall would be adversely affected.
The change in
pressure drop across the wall at zero erossflow velocity would change a
tunnel calibration but have no other significant effect.
Results obtained with the screen overlay evidence an opposite trend
in the inflow region of the wall characteristic relative to the splitter
plate.
The multiplevalued area was enlarged but resulted in a negative
pressure shift with increased boundarylayer thickness.
The effect of
this change on the wave cancellation properties" of the wall is unknown.
The screen solidity was 30 percent, and one would intuitively expect
43
AEDCTR7761
.+
0,16
BASIC WALL
0.12
SPLITTER PLATE
I
r
SCREEN OVERLAY "   I " " ' t
Q.
u
I"
t
t
0.08
I
.]
tAJ
O: 0 4
la.
t~J
o(.1
fj~ '
SJ / SI~
t~J
n(n
uJ
r~
G.
,
/
0.04
4 .
0.08
0. 12
0. 16
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
FLOW ANGLE, rodions
0.02
).04
Figure 15. Effect of noise suppression devices on the characteristics
of configuration A.
b,
44
A E DCTR:7761
that the wall characteristic slope should have increasedaccordlngly,
but the leastsquares slope was increased only 10 percent Or less" relative to that of the basic wall.
The effect of the noise suppression devices on the characteristics
of wali con flguration D are presented in Fig. 16 for selected porosities.
Again, the splitter plate tended to open'up the characteristic, which is
belleved to adversely affect the Wave cancellation propertles'of the
wall.
On the other hand, the screen overlay tended to close the charac
terlstlc and yielded practically slnglevalued curves.
These result@
indicate that a screen overlay on the variableporosity wall would
improve the supersonic wave cancellation properties.
However, referrlng
to Fig. 16, the screen overlay also straightened the characterlstlc With
downstream movement of the cutoff plate which would remove any chance of
achieving a reduced subsonic wall interference test environment.
In most instances, the screen overlay on configuration D tended to
[
reduce the characteristic slope.
The slope change does not affect the
utility of the wall because the varlableporoslty feature retains control
of the wall characteristic.
45
AEDCTR7761
0.16
BASIC WALL
0.12
SPLITTER
PLATE
SCREEN OVERLAY
I
Q,
u
I:
0.08
Z
hi
0.04
h
tl.
b.I
0
j~1"*
hi
n*.,=
(/)
(n
. ;/ ' I /
yfJ
0.04
W
n.,
(1.
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.06
G04
0.02
0.02
FLOW ANGLE, rodions
a. ~" = 2.5 (upstream)
Figure 16. Effect of noise suppression devices on the characteristics
of configuration D.
46
0.04
AEDCT
i 0.16,
BASIC WALL
~
O. 12
R7761
 .
SPLITTER PLATE
....
SCREEN OVERLAY
0.08
u I
ioo,
~,.
I"'; /"7
_~.F''j J / /
~i .0. 0 4
~i'~! 0 . 0 8
0.12
;,!?
0 16
0~06
0.04 "
0.02
0
FLOW ANGLE, radians
I~ ~ = 5.0 (upstream)
Figure 16. Continued.
4?
0.02
004
A E D C  T R7761
0.12
BASIC WALL
O.
0.08
m n l l
Z
laJ

U
m
h
SPLITTER
%)
I
PLATE
SCREEN O V E R L A Y
l
0.04
..o J
0
0
,,I
rim
0.04
ILl
O.
0.08
0.12
0.16
"0' 2.~).06
0.04
0.02
0.02
rr
0.04
FLOW ANGLE, rodions
c. ~"= 5.0 (downstream)
Figure 16. Concluded.
6.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS
A method has been (~eveloped that allows sufficiently accurate
determination of the crossflow characteristics of ventilated walls.
The
procedure enables direct comparison of the characteristics of different
walls and requires the experimental measurement of static pressure 0niy,
the flow inclination being calculated from those measurements.
The
static pressure and flow inclination streamwlse distribution in the
vicinity of the wall then enables calculation of the boundarylayer
development on, and mass flux through, the ventilated wall.
48
AEDCTR7761
These techniques were employed to document the characteristics of
two basic perforated wall geometries, fixed porosity and variable porosity with 60deg inclined holes, with the following results:
I.
The perforated wall crossflow characteristic, defined as the
locus of pressure coefficient (Cp) against flow angle (8),
is not unique and shows dependence on the longitudinal pressure distribution.
Increased boundarylayer thickness or increased porosity
decrease the slope, dCp/dS, of the wall characteristic.
The pressure drop across the wall at zero crossflow velocity
is dependent on boundarylayer thickness.
The effects on the wall characteristic of two types of noise suppression devices, splitter plates bisecting each hole and a screen
overlaid on the airslde surface, were documented with the following
results being obtained:
I.
The splitter plates increase the pressure drop across the
walls and open up (decreased singlevaluedness) the wall
characteristic.
The screen overlay decreases the pressure drop across the
walls and tends to yield more linear characteristics.
Analysis of these results and their relationship with current wind
tunnel operating procedures and practice has indicated the following
conclusions:
49
AE DCTR7761
The crossflew characteristic of most (not all
perforated
walls can be assumed linear for purposes of calculating subsonic wall interference effects.
However, each wall of the
wind tunnel test section may require a different characteristic representation to accommodate differences in mean wall i
boundarylayer thicknesses.
\
.
If plenam pressure is sensed to indicate the freestream Maeh
number via emptytunne! calibration, the resulting
test
sec
tion Maeh number will probably vary as a function of Reynolds
number, model blockage, and posslbly model attitude.
REFERENCES
I.
Goethert, B. H. Transonic Wind Tunnel Testing.
Pergamon Press, New
York, 1961.
Chew, W. L., Jr.
2 ,
,Experimental and Theoretical Studies on Three
Dimensional Wave Reflection in Transonic TestSections, Part
III: Characteristics of Perforated TestSectlon Walls with
Differential Resistance to CrossFlow."
AEDCTN5544
(AD84158), March 1956.
S.
Chew, W. L., Jr.
"Characteristics of Perforated Plates with Con
ventional and Differential Resistance to CrossFlow and Airflow Parallel to the Plates."
Proceedings of, the Propulsion
Wind Tunnel Transonic Seminar, AEDC, July 1956.
. Vidal, R. J., Erlekson, J. C., Jr., and Catlin, P . A.
with a SelfCorrecting Wind Tunnel."
"Experiments
Advisory Group for~
Aerospace Research and Development AGARD CP174, October 1975.
50
AEDCTR776t
5.
Berndt, S. B. and Sorensen, H.
"Flow Properties of Slotted Walls
. . . . . . . for Transonic Test Sections."
Advisory Group for Aerospace
Research and Development AGARD CP174, October 1975.
6 . Murman, E. M. and Cole, J. D.
sonic Flows."
7.
"Calculation of Plane Steady Tran
AIAA Journal, Vol. 9, No. I, January 1971.
Liepmann, H. W. and Roshko, A.
Elements of Gasdynamlcs.
John
Wiley and Sons, New York, 1958.
8.
Murman, E. M.
"Analysis of Embedded Shock Waves Calculated by
Relaxation Methods."
Proceedings of the AIAA Computational
Fluid Dynamics Conference, Palm Springs, California, July
1973.
9. M/ineThomson, L. M~
Theoretical Hydrodynamics.
The Macmillan
Company, 1968.
10. ~Lukaslewicz, J.
"Effects of Boundary Layer and Geometry on Char
acterlstlcs of Perforated Walls for Transonic Wind Tunnels."
Aerospace Engineerln~, April 1961.
11.
Whitfield, D. L. "Analytical, Numerical, and Experimental Results
on Turbulent Boundary Layers."
AEDCrTR7662 (ADA027588),
J u l y 1976.
12.
Patankar, S. V. and Spalding, D. B.
Boundary Layers.
13.
Heat and Mass Transfer in
MorganGrampian, London, 1967.
Dougherty, N. S., Jr., Anderson, C. F., and Parker, R. L., Jr.
"An
Experimental Investigation of Techniques to Suppress Edgetones
from Perforated Wind Tunnel Walls."
August 1 9 7 5 .
5]
AEDCTR7588 (ADA013728),
AEDCTR7761
14.
Schutzenhofer, L. A. and Howard, P. W.
"Suppression of Background
Noise in a Transonic WindTunnel Test Section."
AIAA Journal,
Vol. 13, No. 11, November 1975.
15.
Cline, V. A. and
Lo, C.' F.
"Application of the DualScatter'Laser
Velocimeter in Transonic Flow Research."
Proceedings of the
AGARD Symposium on Application of N6nlntrusive Instrumenta"
tion in Fluid Flow Research, France, May 1976.
16.
Garner , H. C., Rogers, E. W. E., Acum, W. E. A., and Maskell, E. C.
"Subsonic Wind Tunnel Wall Corrections."
Advisory Group I~
for
Aerospace Research and Development, AGARDograph 109, O~tober
1966.
17.
Pindzola, M. and Lo, C. F.
"Boundary Interference at Subsonic I
Speedsin Wind Tunnels with Ventilated Walls."
AEDCTR69
4 7 (AD687440), May 1969.
18.
Mokry, M., Peake , D. J., and Bowker, A. J.
"Wall Interference on :
TwoDimensional Supercritical Airfoils, Using Wall Pressure
Measurements to Determine the Porosity Factors for Tunnel
Floor and Ceiling."
National Research Council NRC No. 13894,
February 1974.
19.
Jacocks, J. L.
"Evaluation of Interference Effects on a Lifting
Model in the AEDCPWT 4Ft Transonic Tunnel."
AEDCTR7072
(AD868290), April 1970.
W~
52
AEDCTR7761
hri: :~ , : .."
APPENDIX A
, !i~.~::~'.. , . C O M P A R A T I V E C R O S S F L O W C H A R A C T E R I S T I C D A T A
FOR EACH P E R F O R A T E D W A L L G E O M E T R Y
Comparison of the characteristics of one ventilated wall geometry
with~another geometry is fully realistic only if all other variables are
fixed, specifically the imposed pressure distribution and wallboundarylayer thickness.
Since this situation could not be achieved, an alter
nate presentation of the results is given herein with fixed pressure
disturbance geometry.
The characteristics of each perforated wall were
measured with the circular arc contour installed with the bottom wall
parallel to the tunnel centerline.
These data are presented for Mach
numbers of 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 with offset origins in Figs. AI
through A8.
Comparisons among the data are meaningful in the sense of
wall performance in a conventional wind tunnel with fixed modelgeometry.
..
i~
53
AE DCTR7761
%~,~
0,,25
.o.o.,
_o.o,
i/o.o,
o.o oo, o6.,
0.2
0.3
Figure A1. Characteristics of configuration A6.0.
54
AEDCTR776i
,,.,~
0.213 D
30o~
~. "
'>
>
......
0.125._L
i >
~
a = 0.~I/jl/~
Cp 0"3  "
~'/
'
'
+<~ o.2  "
0"7:i
'
I" '
I
004
0.06
e
0.3
Figure A2., Characteristics of configuration B7.0.
SS
A E OCT R 7761
r.o.
166
1,
~
.=
03 r
06
t
07
._~_~ ~
O.2
O.3
Figure A3. Characteristios of configuration C10.0.
56
AEDCTR7761
0.125
X " ~ , ~
166 D
".': t "~, ",~
:.~>i~i~.~~:;~./,.. ~,
'"~::i!~.:.~!'~:.,:~i~
I
3r
 y F/
=0.2
=0.3
a. T = 1.0 (upstream)
Figure A4. Characteristics of configuration D.
5?
/
0.125
AEDCTR7761
__~0.166
0.06
o.'o~ 'o.ov~
o.'o~
0.2
0.3
b. T = 2.5 (upstream)
Figure A4, Continued.
58
o:o. o'.o
A EDCTR7761
~f
0.166 O
J_
f
................. ~
..............
1
0125
Cp
0.06
0.04
+ _ _ / ,
0.02
=0.
0.02
0.2
=0.3
c. r = 5.0 (upstream)
Figure A4. Continued.
59
0.04
0.06
AEDCTR7761
~0.166
.~'" " :~':; ~': ' " :,"::" ,'" ;"'~: ~/, , m
~:o.o~~
0.06
" "'"
"~:'= ::
'
f
0.3 r
Co.L
oo,o . a
~I
0.2
0.3
d. ~ 10.0
Figure A4. Continued.
60
o~~,
AE DCTR7761
0.125
_L
~ 0.3
Mc~)o.2
.
0 . 8 ~
0.2 I
0.3
e. r = 5.0 (downstream)
Figure A 4 . Continued.
'
6]
AEDCTR 776!
0.12~"
.166 D
__L ~ o ~ ~
o.,~
0.3
Cp
4
o.2
/!
,
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.2
0.3
f. T = 2.5 (downstream)
Figure Ao4. Concluded.
'
62
AEDCT R7761
0.3
M =0.5
Cp
+
o16
+
0.7
0.06
+.
.o.o2
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.2
0.3
Figure A5. Characteristics of confi~Jration A6.0 with splitter plates.
63
AEDCTR7761
r
M=0.5
0.3
0,6
0.7f f _
iv
/
0.06
'
'
 0 . 0 4 ~
/t
0.02
0.04
0.06
....
0.1
0.2
0.3
Figure A6, Characteristics Of configuration A6.0 with screen overlay.
AEDCTR7761
"
f
0.125
:_".,~.'.'.':~.:...~:..~:,, / L".~:.~...,,.
' .... ':'':: "~
Cp
0.6
I.
O06
0.04
4/
~
I/
'
0.02
0.04
0.06
e
0.8 ~ j ~ ' S .
0.2
0.3
a. r = 2.5 (upstream)
Figure A7. Characteristics of configuration D with splitter plates.
65
AEDCTR7761
1
t
0.125
o.o,o.o,~
o.o,e
'.i:o:,o~...
0.2
"
0.:5
b. 7" = 5.0 (upstream)
Figure A7. Continued.
66
AEDc'TR'77"6i
0.125
__k
. {
Cp 0"3 I
M =0.
0.2
q
0.~6
:~ ~ /
0.02
:I
0.02
10.2
C" r~ = "5"0 (downstream)
Figur e AI7. Continued.
67
.../
0.04
0.06
AEDCTR7761
0.125
T
~+
o.~r
Cp
M=0.5
0.2
0.6
0.06
o.7/"
,f
)/~
/..~
0.04
0.02
 
/
~
0.06
0.04
0.8
0.3
d. T = 2~5 (downstream)
Figure A7. Concluded.
L*!
68
AEDCT
~""'~
.....
.....
N.
R7761
M=0.5
I1'
v
0.06
o.o4
~/
,
/+
0.02
0.04
0.06
0
~'/
0.I
0,2
0,3
a. T = 1.0 (upstream)
Figure A8. Characteristics of configuration D with screen oveday.
69
AEDCTR7761
~ ~ = 0.166
0.125
0.125
_L
t
%,
01.06
).04
08
006;
,"'
8
0. I
0.2
j~
0.3
b. T = 2.5 (upstream)
Figure A8. Continued.
e.
70
AEDCT,R7761
~~~~0.166
0 125
T
M
0'5~
=~ ~ ~
0.3
0.7
l
";
0.0"6 ~"
I
0.04
0.02
0104
0.06
0.8
0. I
0.2
0.3
c. = 5.0 (upstream)
Figure A8. Continued.
71
AEDCTR7761
~F0.166
O'Oo'
0:% o'o
0.1
0.2
0.3
d. T = 10.0
I=igure A8. Continued.
72
AEDCTR7761
0.1~5 "
"i:
0.125
ID
~~ .
~i= .............~,
0.3
c~
M = 0.5"f"*'~
Q.'~06 . ' ~ 
o.;~
0.06
0.04
0.8
0. I
0.2
0.3
e. ~"= 5.0 (downstream)
Figure A8. Concluded.
73
AE DcTR77~61
NOMENCLATURE
Cf
Boundarylayer sklnfriction coefficient
Pressure coefficient
~k
Perforated wall hole diameter
Boundarylayer shape factor,
Tunnel h e i g h t
Tunnel length
Nominal Math number
Wall permeability factor
Wall thickness
Boundarylayer edge velocity
Streamwise coordinate
Transverse coordinate
yg
Bottom wall geometry
Ys
Streamline shape
PrandtlGlauert
Specific heat ratio, 7 ffi 1.4
H = 61/~ 2
f ~l.l
,W
factor, B ffi (I  ~ ) I / 2
74
AEDCTR7761
61
Boundarylayer displacement thickness
~2
Boundarylayer momentum thickness
Boundarylayer controlvolume height
Flow angle
Normalized wall mass flux
p=
Boundarylayer edge density
Wall porosity
Potential function
Particular solution for potential function
75