Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:58:39.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental determination of the aerodynamic coefficients of spinning bodies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2019

S. Nguyen Open the ORCID record for S. Nguyen [Opens in a new window] ,
M. Corey ,
W. Chan ,
E.S. Greenhalgh  and
J.M.R. Graham
S. Nguyen*
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics Imperial CollegeSouth Kensington, London, UK
M. Corey
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics Imperial CollegeSouth Kensington, London, UK
W. Chan
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics Imperial CollegeSouth Kensington, London, UK
E.S. Greenhalgh
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics Imperial CollegeSouth Kensington, London, UK
J.M.R. Graham
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics Imperial CollegeSouth Kensington, London, UK
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To accurately predict the probabilities of impact damage to aircraft from runway debris, it is important to understand and quantify the aerodynamic forces that contribute to runway debris lofting. These lift and drag forces were therefore measured in experiments with various bodies spun over a range of angular velocities and Reynolds numbers. For a smooth sphere, the Magnus effect was observed for ratios of spin speed to flow speed between 0.3 and 0.4, but a negative Magnus force was observed at high Reynolds numbers as a transitional boundary layer region was approached. Similar relationships between lift and spin rate were found for both cube- and cylinder-shaped test objects, particularly with a ratio of spin speed to flow speed above 0.3, which suggested comparable separation patterns between rapidly spinning cubes and cylinders. A tumbling smooth ellipsoid had aerodynamic characteristics similar to that of a smooth sphere at a high spin rate. Surface roughness in the form of attached sandpaper increased the average lift on the cylinder by 24%, and approximately doubled the lift acting on the ellipsoid in both rolling and tumbling configurations.

Keywords

AerodynamicsMagnus forceSpinning bodiesLofted debris
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 123 , Issue 1263 , May 2019 , pp. 678 - 705
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2019 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Greenhalgh, E.S., Chichester, G.A.F., Mew, A., Slade, M. and Bowen, R. Characterisation of the realistic impact threat from runway debris, Aeronaut J, 2001, 105, pp 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, D.N., Readdy, F., Gearhart, J.J. and Duchatellier, R. The study of foreign object damage caused by aircraft operations on unconventional and bomb-damaged airfield surfaces, BDM Corp Mclean, VA, US. Report no. ADA117587, 1981, Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Fort Belvoir, VA.Google Scholar
Nguyen, S.N., Greenhalgh, E.S., Olsson, R., Iannucci, L. and Curtis, P.T. Modelling the lofting of runway debris by aircraft tires, J Aircraft, 2008, 45, (5), pp 1701–1714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, R. and Lindsey, C. Measurements of drag and lift on smooth balls in flight, Europ J Phys, 2017, 38, (4), pp 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., Toet, W. and Zerihan, J. Ground effect aerodynamics of race cars, Appl Mech Rev, 2006, 59, (1) pp 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, S.N., Greenhalgh, E.S., Graham, J.M.R., Francis, A. and Olsson, R. Runway debris impact threat maps for transport aircraft, Aeronaut J, 2014, 118, (1201), pp 229–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, N., Holmes, J.D. and Letchford, C.W. Trajectories of wind-borne debris in horizontal winds and applications to impact testing, J Struct Engrng, 2007, 133, (2), pp 274–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hradecky, S. Incident: Aeroflot A333 at Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky on Apr 7th 2013, foreign object damage on landing, The Aviation Herald, www.avherald.com/h?article=4607d5f4&opt=0, accessed26/03/14, 2013.Google Scholar
Tartar, E. Fighter Aircraft: MiG-29 Part 4, Fighter Tactics Academy, www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-2b.htm, accessed 26/03/14, 2007.Google Scholar
Aguirre-Lopez, M.A., Morales-Castillo, J., Diaz-Hernandez, O., Escalera Santos, G.J. and Almaguer, F.-J. Trajectories reconstruction of spinning baseball pitches by three-point-based algorithm, Appl Math Comput, 2018, 319, pp 2–12.Google Scholar
Maccoll, J.W. Aerodynamics of a spinning sphere, J Royal Aeronaut Soc, 1928, 28, pp 777–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beasley, D. and Camp, T. Effects of dimple design on the aerodynamic performance of a golf ball, Sci & Golf, IV, 2012.Google Scholar
Briggs, L.J. Effect of spin and speed on the lateral deflection curve of a baseball, and the Magnus effect for smooth spheres, Am J Phys, 1959, 27, pp 589–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, R.G. and Ferrer, R. The lateral force on a spinning sphere: aerodynamics of a curveball, Am J Phys, 1987, 55, (1), pp 40–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kray, T., Franke, J. and Frank, W. Magnus effect on a rotating soccer ball at high Reynolds numbers, J Wind Engrng Ind Aerodyn, 2014, 124, pp 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jing, L., Tsubokura, M. and Tsunoda, M. Numerical investigation of the flow past a rotating golf ball and its comparison with a rotating smooth sphere, Flow Turb Combustion, 2017, 99, (3–4), pp 837–864.Google Scholar
Passmore, M.A., Tuplin, S. and Stawski, A. The real-time measurement of football aerodynamic loads under spinning conditions, Proc Inst Mech Engineers, Part P (J Sports Engrng Tech), 2017, 231, (4), pp 262–274.Google Scholar
Maruyama, Y. Study on the physical mechanism of the Magnus effect, Trans Japan Soc Aeronaut Space Sci, 2011, 54, (185–186), pp 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, J., Ooi, A. and Poon, E.K.W. The flow structures of a transversely rotating sphere at high rotation rates, Computers Fluids, 2014, 102, (10), pp 170–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifert, J. A review of the Magnus effect in aeronautics, Prog Aerospace Sci, 2012, 55, pp 17–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, Z., Lei, J. and Wu, X. Numerical simulation of the negative Magnus effect of a two-dimensional spinning circular cylinder, Flow Turb Combust, 2017, 98, (1), pp 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, W.M. The Magnus effect: A summary of investigations to date, J Basic Engrng Trans ASME, 1961, 83 (3), pp 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafay, A. Experimental contribution to the aerodynamics of the cylinder and study of the Magnus effect, Mech Rev, 1912, 30, pp 417–442.Google Scholar
Taneda, S. Negative Magnus effect, Res Inst Appl Mech, 1957, 5, pp 123–128.Google Scholar
Kim, J., Choi, H., Park, H. and Yoo, J.Y. Inverse Magnus effect on a rotating sphere: when and why, J Fluid Mech, 2014, 754, (R2), pp 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marzuki, O.F., Mohd Rafie, A.S., Romli, F.I. and Ahmad, K.A. Magnus wind turbine: the effect of sandpaper surface roughness on cylinder blades, Acta Mechanica, 2018, 229, (1), pp 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Z., Cao, Y. and Ismail, M. Numerical simulation of airfoil aerodynamic penalties and mechanisms in heavy rain, Int J Aerospace Engrng, 2013, 2013, pp 13.Google Scholar
Dukkipati, R.V. and Srinivas, J. Textbook of Mechanical Vibrations, 2nd ed., Phi Learning Private Ltd, 2012, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
American Wood Council, Beam Design Formulas with Shear and Moment Diagrams, Am Forest & Paper Assoc, Design Aid, (6), American Wood Council, Washington, DC. 2007.Google Scholar
Krüger, , Critical speed of shafts, Tech Bulletin TBN 017.0, 1998.Google Scholar
Achenbach, E. The effects of surface roughness and tunnel blockage on the flow past spheres, J Fluid Mech, 1974, 65, (1) pp 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, H.W. and Steele, W.G. Experimentation, Validation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, 2009, Hoboken, NJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar