经典跨声速翼型RAE2822数据分析

白文

doi:10.7638/kqdlxxb-2022.0027

欢迎来到能源电力期刊网！

English Version 期刊登录

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

经典跨声速翼型RAE2822数据分析

研究论文 | 更新时间：2026-05-28

- 经典跨声速翼型RAE2822数据分析
- Analyses of wind-tunnel test data of the transonic airfoil RAE2822
- 空气动力学学报 2023年41卷第6期页码：55-70
- 作者机构：
  
  中国航空研究院,北京,100012
- 作者简介：
  
  白文*（1968-），男，四川叙永人，研究员，研究方向：计算流体力学. E-mail：baiwen@cae.ac.cn
- 基金信息：
  
  国家数值风洞工程（NNW2018-ZT7B15）
- DOI：10.7638/kqdlxxb-2022.0027
  中图分类号： V211.41
- 纸质出版：2023
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
白文. 经典跨声速翼型RAE2822数据分析[J]. 空气动力学学报, 2023, 41(6): 55−70.

BAI Wen. Analyses of wind-tunnel test data of the transonic airfoil RAE2822[J]. 2023, 41(6): 55-70.
白文. 经典跨声速翼型RAE2822数据分析[J]. 空气动力学学报, 2023, 41(6): 55−70. DOI： 10.7638/kqdlxxb-2022.0027

BAI Wen. Analyses of wind-tunnel test data of the transonic airfoil RAE2822[J]. 2023, 41(6): 55-70. DOI： 10.7638/kqdlxxb-2022.0027.

摘要

经典跨声速翼型RAE2822风洞试验数据长久以来被广泛用于CFD计算方法和软件的验证与确认，但是数据的正确使用或者说合理使用仍存在一些需要研究和注意的问题，包括计算网格、风洞试验数据修正、中弧线修正、翼型几何定义和建模，以及摩擦阻力系数和边界层速度剖面的原始定义等。在开展CFD研究之前，必须首先对计算方法进行验证，尤其是要先尽可能消除计算结果对计算网格的依赖性；经过对目前可开放使用的计算网格的不足之处进行分析，研制了一套高品质的计算网格并获得了预期的一阶网格收敛性；通过计算软件交叉验证，进一步确保所用计算软件的可信度。在将CFD计算结果与翼型风洞试验数据进行比对时，通常需要对马赫数和攻角进行修正，且如何修正是一个需要持续研究的问题；翼型中弧线修正是一种有效的方法，但需要考虑流动参数的影响。原始翼型几何构型采用有限离散点定义，计算网格生成过程中需要采用插值方法布置型面网格点，不同插值方法对于翼型前缘附近流动的数值模拟有细微影响。多数相关研究工作只比对压力分布；少数研究工作会比对摩擦阻力系数、边界层及尾迹速度剖面，但在比对时，需要注意原始风洞试验相关参数定义与CFD计算常用定义的区别。

Abstract

Even though wind-tunnel test data of the classical transonic airfoil RAE2822 have been widely exploited for validating numerical methods and CFD (computational fluid dynamics) solvers for decades

such validations still require special attention to uncertainties. These uncertainties mainly come from the computational grid

experimental data correction

geometry definition

correction and modeling

the definition of skin friction coefficient

and boundary layer velocity profile. Prior to validating CFD results

numerical methods need to be validated first. Especially

CFD results are supposed to be grid-independent. For this purpose

this paper develops a set of high-quality computational grids that avoid existing open-source grids' deficiencies

yielding expected grid convergence. Moreover

the fidelity of the adopted CFD solver in the present study is cross verified with other solvers. When comparing CFD and experimental results

it is necessary to correct Mach numbers and (or) angles of attack. Although effective

the camber correction is not universal but needs to consider flow conditions such as Mach number

angle of attack

and Reynolds number. A limited number of discrete points defines the original airfoil geometry. Therefore

it is inevitable to interpolate the geometry to generate grids. However

different interpolation methods show minor effects on the numerical simulation of the flow field around the airfoil leading edge

where the curvature is the largest. Most relevant CFD research work only compared pressure distributions with wind-tunnel test data; A few studies compared the frictional resistance coefficient

boundary layer and wake velocity profile

but in comparison

it is necessary to pay attention to the difference between the definition of relevant parameters of the original wind tunnel test and the common definition of CFD calculation.

关键词

Keywords

references

COOK P H, MCDONALD M A, FIRMIN M C P. Aerofoil RAE2822 – pressure distributions, and boundary layer and wake measurements[R]. AGARD AR 138, 1979.

HAN Z H, GAO Z H, SONG W P, et al. On airfoil research and development: history, current status, and future directions[J]. Acta Aerodynamica Sinica, 2021, 39(6): 1−36.

KLINE S J, CANTWELL B J, LILLEY G M. Complex turbulent flow, Vol. I: Objectives, evaluation of data, specification of test cases, discussion, and position papers[C]//1980-81 AFOSR-HTTM-Stanford conference on complex turbulent flow: comparison of computation and experiment. California: Stanford University, 1981.

KLINE S J, CANTWELL B J, LILLEY G M. Complex turbulent flow, Vol. II: Taxonomies, reporters’ summaries, evaluation, and conclusions[C]//1980-81 AFOSR-HTTM-Stanford conference on complex turbulent flow: comparison of computation and experiment. California: Stanford University, 1981.

HOLST T. Viscous transonic airfoil workshop compendium of results[C]//19th AIAA, Fluid Dynamics, Plasma Dynamics, and Lasers Conference, Honolulu, HI. Reston, Virginia: AIAA, AIAA-87-1460, 1987. doi: 10.2514/6.1987-1460

HAASE W, BRADSMA F, etc. EUROVAL – An European initiative on validation of CFD codes[M]//Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics (NNFM), Vol. 42: 123-184. Braunschweig: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 1993.

DERVIEUX A, BRAZA M, DUSSAUGE J P. Computation and comparison of efficient turbulence models for aeronautics – European research project ETMA[M]//Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics (NNFM), Vol. 65. Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 1998.

HAASE W, AUPOIX B, BUNGE U, et al. FLOMANIA – An European initiative on flow physics modelling[M]//Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design (NNFM), Vol. 94, Springer, 2006.

HIRSCH C, WUNSCH D, SZUMBARSKI J, et al. Uncertainty management for robust industrial design in aeronautics[M]//Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, Vol. 140, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG, 2019.

HAASE W, ECHTLE H. Computational results for viscous transonic flows around airfoils[C]//25th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, USA. Reston, Virigina: AIAA, AIAA-87-0422, 1987. doi: 10.2514/6.1987-422

BARDINA J, HUANG P, COAKLEY T, et al. Turbulence modeling validation[C]//28th Fluid Dynamics Conference, Snowmass Village, CO, USA. Reston, Virigina: AIAA, 1997. doi:10.2514/6.1997-2121

XIAO M J, SHE Z S. Precise drag prediction of airfoil flows by a new algebraic model[J]. Acta Mechanica Sinica, 2020, 36(1): 35-43. DOI:10.1007/s10409-019-00911-9

KUDINOV P. Comparative testing of turbulence models of Spalart-Allmaras and Menter on the problem of transonic flow about of single aerofoil RAE2822[J]. Bulletin of Dnipropetrovsk National University, 2004, 8(1): 34-42 (in Russian).

WANG Y T, SUN Y, LI S, et al. Numerical study of the effect of turbulent production terms on the simulation of transonic flows with high-order numerical method[J]. Acta Aerodynamica Sinica, 2015, 33(1): 25-30. (in Chinese)

WANG Y T, SUN Y, WANG G X, et al. Numerical analysis of the effect of discrete accuracy of turbulence model on numerical simulation[J]. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, 2015, 36(5): 1453-1459. (in Chinese)

WANG N, GAO C. Variable Reynolds number experimental study on aerodynamic characteristic of supercritical airfoil RAE2822[J]. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 2013, 420: 42-46. DOI:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.420.42

KUMAR R, RICHARDSON R, GUSTAVSSON J, et al. Characterization of RAE2822 transonic airfoil in FSU polysonic wind tunnel facility[C]//2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, Florida. Reston, Virginia: AIAA, 2018: 0328. doi: 10.2514/6.2018-0328

FIRMIN M C P, COOK T A. Detailed exploration of the compressible viscous flow over two-dimensional aerofoils at high Reynolds numbers[R]. Tech. Memo. Aero. 1076, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, England. ICAS Paper 68-09, 1968.

HELLSTROM T, DAVIDSON L, RIZZI A. Reynolds stress transport modelling of transonic flow around the RAE2822 airfoil[C]//32nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA. Reston, Virigina: AIAA, AIAA-94-0309, 1994. doi: 10.2514/6.1994-309

GAO Y S, WU Y Z, XIA J, et al. A parallel full implicit flow solver based on weakly imposed wall boundary condition[J]. Acta Aerodynamica Sinica, 2017, 35(1): 46-56. (in Chinese)

ASHILL P R. Investigation of the flow over a series of 14%-thick supercritical aerofoils with significant rear camber[M]//AGARD-AR-303, 1994, A3.

ASHILL P R, WEEKS D J, FULKER J L. Wind tunnel experiments on aerofoil models for the assessment of computational flow methods[C]//Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics. Volume 1. Symposium Papers and Round Table Discussion Held in Lisbon, 1988, AGARD-CP-437, 1988.

ALLEN H J, VINCENTI W G. Wall interference in a two-dimensional-flow wind tunnel, with consideration of the effect of compressibility[R ] . NACA-TR-782, 1944. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930091861/downloads/19930091861.pdf

FRITSCH F N, BUTLAND J. A method for constructing local monotone piecewise cubic interpolants[J]. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 1984, 5(2): 300-304. DOI:10.1137/0905021

BINGOL O R, KRISHNAMURTHY A. NURBS-Python: An open-source object-oriented NURBS modeling framework in Python[J]. SoftwareX, 2019, 9: 85-94. DOI:10.1016/j.softx.2018.12.005

SUGAVANAM A. Transonic viscous flow predictions with the Lockheed Navier-Stokes code[C]//25th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV. Reston, Virginia: AIAA, AIAA-87-0410, 1987. doi: 10.2514/6.1987-410

HARRIS C D. NASA supercritical airfoils: A matrix of family-related airfoils[R ] . NASA-TP-2969, 1990. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19900007394/downloads/19900007394.pdf

EPPLER R. About classical problems of airfoil drag[J]. Aerospace Science and Technology, 2003, 7(4): 289-297. DOI:10.1016/S1270-9638(03)00029-4

郭隆德, 主编. 风洞非接触测量技术[M]. 北京: 国防工业出版社, 2013.

GAO Y W, WEI B B, LIANG D. Research status of airfoil wind tunnel experimental technology[J]. Acta Aerodynamica Sinica, 2021, 39(6): 85−100.

JAKIRLIĆ S, EISFELD B, JESTER-ZÜRKER R, et al. Near-wall, Reynolds-stress model calculations of transonic flow configurations relevant to aircraft aerodynamics[J]. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 2007, 28(4): 602-615. DOI:10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2007.04.001

CCORA R D , RADESPIEL R, PROBST A. Improved transition and Reynolds stress modeling in RANS simulations[M]//Computational Flight Testing Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, Vol. 123, 2013: 59-74.

VAN DAM C P. Recent experience with different methods of drag prediction[J]. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 1999, 35(8): 751-798.

浏览量

下载量

CSCD

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

提交

工具集

关联资源

2.4 m暂冲型跨声速风洞大飞机试验技术及数据修正方法

高速风洞中大型飞机典型支撑方式干扰特性研究

基于射流流动控制的飞翼布局飞行器阵风载荷减缓研究

基于风雷软件的壁面距离场的快速迭代并行求解方法

无人机气动/风能获取一体化设计