Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T01:44:40.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extensions to Maskell’s theory for blockage effects on bluff bodies in a closed wind tunnel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

J. E. Hackett  and
K. R. Cooper
J. E. Hackett
Affiliation:
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Marietta, Georgia, USA
K. R. Cooper
Affiliation:
National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Extensions to Maskell’s original correction method, developed over several years, are consolidated and designated ‘Maskell III’. The procedures were applied to dedicated tests on a family of flat-plate wing models in a small, low-speed wind tunnel at NRC. Test conditions included angles of attack from -10° to 110° and models of up to 16% of tunnel area. Off-centre tests were included with model-to-wall distances down to 0.72 chords. Corrected lift and drag data correlated well between models of different sizes and at different offsets from the tunnel centreline. Comparisons are made with corrections using the pressure-signature and two-variable methods, emphasising post-stall conditions. These showed that the ‘Maskell III’ procedures, which require minimal input, correlated as well as the other methods for most model sizes and positions in the tunnel.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 105 , Issue 1050 , August 2001 , pp. 409 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2001 

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

1. Maskell, E.G. A theory of blockage effects on bluff bodies and stalled wings in a closed wind tunnel, ARC R&M 3400, November 1963.Google Scholar
2. Hackett, J.E. Tunnel-induced gradients and their effect on drag, Lockheed Engineering Report LG83ER0108, June 1983 (Revision, September 1994 is available from the author).Google Scholar
3. Hackett, J.E. Drag, lift and pitching moment increments due to wall constraint in a two-dimensional wind tunnel, AIAA 38th Aerospace sciences meeting, Reno, Nevada, January 2000, paper 2000–0672.Google Scholar
4. Hackett, J.E. Tunnel-induced gradients and their effect on drag, AIAA 7, December 1996, 34, (12), pp 2575–2581.Google Scholar
5. Cooper, K.R. Comment on Tunnel-induced gradients and their effect on drag, AIAA J, 36, (2), pp 299–300.Google Scholar
6. Hackett, J.E.Reply by Author to Cooper, K.R., (see Ref. 5).Google Scholar
7. Cooper, K.R. Improved blockage corrections for bluff bodies in closed and open wind tunnels, 10th International Conference on Wind Effects on Buildings and Structures, Sweden, June 1999.Google Scholar
8. Cooper, K.R, Corber, A., Stackhouse, R., Mokry, M. and Hackett, J.E. An examination of wall-pressure-based boundary correction methods with off-centre models in a closed wind tunnel, National Research Council of Canada LTR-A-050, April 2001.Google Scholar
9. Hackett, J.E, Cooper, K.R. and Perry, M.L. Drag, lift and pitching moment increments due to wind tunnel wall constraint: extension to three dimensions, 22nd International Congress of Aeronautical Sciences, Harrogate, UK, August 2000, paper 3.7.5.Google Scholar
10. Mokry, M. Automation of wall-interference procedures using the C++ object-oriented approach, AIAA 38th Aerospace Sciences meeting, Reno, Nevada, January 2000, paper 2000–0674.Google Scholar
11. Garner, H.C., Rogers, E.W.E., Acum, W.E.A. and Maskell, E.C. Subsonic wind tunnel wall corrections, AGARDograph 109, Paris, France, October 1966.Google Scholar
12. Ewald, B. (Ed.) Wind tunnel wall corrections, AGARDograph 336. AGARD, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France, 1998.Google Scholar