Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-h4f6x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-03T04:29:16.565Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aerodynamic lift fluctuations of an airfoil in various turbulent flows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2022

Mingshui Li ,
Yongfei Zhao ,
Yang Yang Open the ORCID record for Yang Yang [Opens in a new window]  and
Qiang Zhou
Mingshui Li
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Wind Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, PR China Key Laboratory for Wind Engineering of Sichuan Province, Chengdu 610031, PR China
Yongfei Zhao
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Wind Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, PR China
Yang Yang*
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Wind Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, PR China Key Laboratory for Wind Engineering of Sichuan Province, Chengdu 610031, PR China
Qiang Zhou
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Wind Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, PR China Key Laboratory for Wind Engineering of Sichuan Province, Chengdu 610031, PR China
*
†Email address for correspondence: yang_yacad@163.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A combined theoretical and experimental investigation is conducted with the objective of evaluating the lift aerodynamic admittances of an airfoil in various turbulent flow fields. Current theoretical approaches and concepts are reviewed and extended, enabling us to use a strategy to measure the one-wavenumber aerodynamic admittance in the turbulent flow field. The key of the strategy is to separate the spanwise effect from the generalized aerodynamic admittances which can be directly determined by the one-dimensional lift spectrum and one-dimensional turbulent velocity spectrum. With this strategy, the experimental values of one-wavenumber aerodynamic admittances of a two-dimensional airfoil with a NACA 0015 profile in three turbulent flow fields are obtained. As expected, due to the influence of the spanwise effect, the generalized aerodynamic admittances vary with different turbulent flow fields, exhibiting a significant dependence on flow field, and are much less than the Sears function. Contrarily, the one-wavenumber aerodynamic admittances, which are obtained in three turbulent flow fields, are generally consistent, confirming that the one-wavenumber aerodynamic admittance is mainly related to the cross-sectional shape itself. The experimental values of one-wavenumber aerodynamic admittances are compared with the Sears function. The results of all cases indicate that the experimental results agree well with the Sears function at low frequencies, while decaying faster at high frequencies.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 947 , 25 September 2022 , A21
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

References

REFERENCES

Amiet, R.K. 1975 Acoustic radiation from an airfoil in a turbulent stream. J. Sound Vib. 41, 407–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atassi, H.M. 1984 The Sears problem for a lifting airfoil revisited-new results. J. Fluid Mech. 141, 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, W.K. 1986 Mechanics of Flow-Induced Sound and Vibration. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Comte-Bellot, G. & Corrsin, S. 1966 The use of a contraction to improve the isotropy of grid-generated turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 25, 657–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordes, U., Kampers, G., Meißner, T., Tropea, C., Peinke, J. & Hölling, M. 2017 Note on the limitations of the Theodorsen and Sears functions. J. Fluid Mech. 811, R1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, C. 2007 Aerodynamic admittance functions and buffeting forces for bridges via indicial functions. J. Fluids Struct. 23, 413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, A.G. 1961 The application of statistical concepts to the wind loading of structures. Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs 19, 449–472.Google Scholar
Devenport, W., Staubs, J.K. & Glegg, S.A.L. 2010 Sound radiation from real airfoils in turbulence. J. Sound Vib. 329, 3470–3483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etkin, B. 1959 A theory of the response of airplanes to random atmospheric turbulence. J. Aero. Sci. 26, 409–420.Google Scholar
Filotas, L.T. 1969 Theory of airfoil response in a gusty atmosphere. Part 1. Aerodynamic transfer function. Tech. Rep. 139. UTIAS.Google Scholar
Garrick, I.E. 1938 On some reciprocal relations in the theory of nonstationary flows. NACA Tech. Rep. 629.Google Scholar
Gershfeld, J. 2004 Leading edge noise from thick foils in turbulent flows. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 1416–1426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glegg, S.A.L. & Devenport, W. 2009 Unsteady loading on an airfoil of arbitrary thickness. J. Sound Vib. 319, 1252–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, M.E. & Atassi, H.M. 1976 A complete second-order theory for the unsteady flow about an airfoil due to a periodic gust. J. Fluid Mech. 74, 741–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J.M.R. 1970 Lifting-surface theory for the problem of an arbitrary yawed sinusoidal gust incident on a thin aerofoil in incompressible flow. Aeronaut. Q. 21, 182–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J.M.R. 1971 A lift-surface theory for the rectangular wing in non-stationary flow. Aeronaut. Q. 22, 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakkinen, R.J. & Richardson, A.S. 1957 Theoretical and experimental investigation of random gust loads. Part 1. Aerodynamic transfer function of a simple wing configuration in incompressible flow. NACA Tech. Rep. 3878.Google Scholar
Hatanaka, A. & Tanaka, H. 2002 New estimation method of aerodynamic admittance function. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 90, 12–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, R., Graham, J.M.R. & Maull, D.J. 1973 The lift on a wing in a turbulent flow. Aeronaut. Q. 24, 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavrakov, I., Argentini, T., Omarini, S., Rocchi, D. & Morgenthal, G. 2019 Determination of complex aerodynamic admittance of bridge decks under deterministic gusts using the vortex particle method. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 193, 103971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimura, K., Fujino, Y., Nakato, S. & Tamura, H. 1997 Characteristics of buffeting forces on flat cylinders. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 69, 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitamura, T., Nagata, K., Sakai, Y. & Harasaki, T. 2014 On invariants in grid turbulence at moderate Reynolds numbers. J. Fluid Mech. 738, 378–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Küssner, H.G. 1936 Zusammenfassender bericht über den instationären auftrieb von ügeln. Luftfahrtforschung 13, 410–424.Google Scholar
Lamson, P. 1957 Measurements of lift fluctuations due to turbulence. NACA Tech. Rep. 3880.Google Scholar
Larose, G.L. & Mann, J. 1998 Gust loading on streamlined bridge decks. J. Fluids Struct. 12, 511–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavoie, P., Djenidi, L. & Antonia, R.A. 2007 Effects of initial conditions in decaying turbulence generated by passive grids. J. Fluid Mech. 585, 395–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, M., Yang, Y., Li, M. & Liao, H. 2018 Direct measurement of the Sears function in turbulent flow. J. Fluid Mech. 847, 768–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. & Li, M. 2017 Spectral analysis and coherence of aerodynamic lift on rectangular cylinders in turbulent flow. J. Fluid Mech. 830, 408–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Li, M. & Liao, H. 2015 The lift on an aerofoil in grid-generated turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 71, 16–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liepmann, H.W. 1952 On the application of statistical concepts to buffeting problem. J. Aero. Sci. 19, 793–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liepmann, H.W. 1955 Extension of the statistical approach to buffeting and gust response of wings of finite span. J. Aero. Sci. 22, 197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lysak, P.D., Capone, D.E. & Jonson, M.L. 2013 Prediction of high frequency gust response with airfoil thickness effects. J. Fluids Struct. 39, 258–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lysak, P.D., Capone, D.E. & Jonson, M.L. 2016 Measurement of the unsteady lift of thick airfoils in incompressible turbulent flow. J. Fluids Struct. 66, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, C., Wang, J., Li, Q. & Liao, H. 2019 3D aerodynamic admittances of streamlined box bridge decks. Engng Struct. 179, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massaro, M. & Graham, J.M.R. 2015 The effect of three-dimensionality on the aerodynamic admittance of thin sections in free stream turbulence. J. Fluids Struct. 57, 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mugridge, B.D. 1971 Gust loading on a thin aerofoil. Aeronaut. Q. 22, 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribner, H.S. 1956 Spectral theory of buffeting and gust response: unification and extension. J. Aero. Sci. 23, 1075–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, R.W. 1938 A systematic presentation of the theory of thin airfoils in non-uniform motion. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Wei, N.J., Kissing, J., Wester, T.T., Wegt, S., Schiffmann, K., Jakirlic, S., Hölling, M., Peinke, J. & Tropea, C. 2019 Insights into the periodic gust response of airfoils. J. Fluid Mech. 876, 237–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y., Li, M. & Liao, H. 2019 Three-dimensional effects on the transfer function of a rectangular-section body in turbulent flow. J. Fluid Mech. 872, 348–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar