How to cite:
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1203/
Use policy
The fulltext may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or
charge, for personal research or study, educational, or notforprot purposes provided that:
The fulltext must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full Durham ETheses policy for further details.
Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP
email: etheses.admin@dur.ac.uk Tel: +44 0191 334 6107
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk
by
Anthony Ryan
School of Engineering
University of Durham
2000
13 JUL2001
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be
published without the author's prior written consent, and information derived from it
be
should acknowledged.
ii
Declaration
The work containedin this thesis has not been submitted elsewherefor any other degree
or qualification, and unlessotherwise acknowledged,it is the author's own work.
iii
Acknowledgments
I am most grateful for the guidanceand encouragementprovided by my supervisor,Dr.
Robert Dominy, throughout the completion of this work.
Appreciation is extended to Mr. Brian Blackburn and Mr. Ian Glassford of the
mechanical workshop, and Mr. Ian Hutchinson and Mr. Ian Garret of the Electrical
workshop, who between them provided me with the experimental facilities to complete
this work. Guidance and assistancewas also received from many other membersof the
Engineering Department, both academic and technical, who are too many to name, but
this has not been forgotten.
I also wish to expressappreciation to my fellow researchers,David SimsWilliams, Sue
Crosslandand Alistair Elfick, to name a few, with whom much time has been spent,and
discussionhad, both engineeringand otherwise.
Finally, I would like to thank my family, without whose continued support none of this
would have happened.
iv
Table of Contents
1
Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2A
Vehicle Aerodynamics
................
CrossWind Aerodynamics
..............
Objectives of the Work
................
Thesis Structure
..................
3
5
6
2.3
................
Current Vehicle Aerodynamics Research
..........
2.2.1 Generic Bodies and Vehicle Shapes
........
2.2.2 Vehicle Wakes
................
2.2.3 Wake Surveysand Integrals
............
CrossWind Vehicle Aerodynamics Research
........
2.3.1 Introduction
.................
2.3.2 The StaticStatic Technique
...........
2.3.3 The DynamicStatic Technique
...........
2.3.4 The StaticDynamic Technique
...........
2.3.5 Advantagesand Disadvantagesof the Testing Techniques
.2.3.6 Empirical and Theoretical Methods
2.4
2.5
Aerodynamic Design
.......
............
Importance of Experimental Technique
2.5.1 Ground Simulation
2.5.2 Reynolds Number
2.5.3 Turbulence Intensity
...............
...............
..............
vi
8
8
9
12
14
14
16
20
24
25
.
.
.........
27
29
33
33
35
37
Theoretical Operation
.............
Implementation of the Technique
.........
Facility Development
.............
3.3.1 Vertical Axis Shutter Concept
........
3.3.2 ConceptualDevelopmentof the Shutter System
..
3.3.3 Design Implementation
...........
3.3.4 Other Aspects of the Facility
.........
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
50
52
54
54
55
56
57
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Introduction
..............
Aerodynamic Models
...........
4.2.1 The Docton Geometry
.........
4.2.2 The Durham Geometry
.........
The Five Hole PressureProbe
........
4.3.1 The Probe
.............
4.3.2 The PressureTransducers
........
The Scanivalve System
...........
UnsteadyCorrection Technique
........
The Two Component Force Balance
......
Data Acquisition
.............
Experimental Accuracy
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
..........
............
4.8.2 PressureTransducers
.....
.....
.....
.........
.........
..........
vii
.....
.....
.....
65
66
66
67
68
68
69
70
70
72
76
76
76
77
77
79
Experimental Technique
.............
5.1.1 CrossWind Gust Matching Process
5.1.2 NonDimensionalisation
Experimental Investigations
..
.......
..
...........
5.1.3 EnsembleAveraging
5.2
..
..
...........
..
............
5.2.1 GeneralOverview
5.3
..
.............
5.2.2 Empty Working Section
...........
5.2.3 The Docton Geometry
............
5.2.4 The Durham Geometry
............
ComputationalFluid Dynamics
...........
5.3.1 Computational Grid and Boundary Conditions
...
5.3.2 Solution Method
..
..
..
..
...
...
.............
87
87
87
89
90
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
Results
6.1
...........
6.1.1 Empty Working Section Survey
....
....
.......
6.1.2 AssociatedResults
...........
6.1.3 Gust Characteristicsat the Model Centre
6.2
............
6.2.1 SurfaceStatic PressureData
6.2.3 Wake TraverseData
6.3
6.4
........
............
.............
6.3.2 Transient Flow
............
6.3.3 Wake Integration
...........
Computational Fluid Dynamics
.........
viii
...
....
....
..........
6.3.1 SteadyFlow
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
100
100
101
101
102
102
103
103
103
104
105
106
Discussion
7.1
7.2
...............
7.1.1 Working Section Survey
.............
7.1.2 Gust Characteristicsat the Model Centre
......
..............
.............
7.4
156
..............
7.3
156
...............
7.2.4 Force Balance Data
.............
The Durham Geometry
..............
7.3.1 SteadyAxial Flow
..............
7.3.2 SteadyYawed Flow
.............
7.3.3 QuasiSteadyWake Surveys
...........
7.3.4 Transient Flow
...............
7.3.5 Force Balance Data
.............
7.3.6 Wake Integration
..............
Comparisonof Docton Geometry and Durham GeometryResults
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
166
169
169
169
170
174
176
176
178
180
181
186
188
189
Conclusions
8.1 EmptyWorking Section
8.2 AerodynamicModels
...............
................
193
194
Facility Development
9.2
Instrumentation
9.3
................
..................
Aerodynamic Investigations
..............
ix
196
197
198
References
199
.......................
215
..........
Appendix B WakeIntegrationMethod
.............
Appendix C DurhamGeometryForceAutospectralDensityFunctions.
..
CDROM
218
223
Media
Windows
player compatible animations of.

..............
Transient Total PressureCoefficients
avi
ewsyaw.
.
avi
ewscpo.
.
docwkcpo.avi
.
Windward Side
durwincp.avi
.
durleecp.avi
.
.........
Docton Geometry Horizontal PlaneWake Traverse:
.........
Durham Geometry Transient SurfaceStatic Pressure:
................
Leeward Side
.................
Upper Surface
.................
Durham Geometry Transient Wake Survey:
durroocp.avi
.
durwkvor. avi
durwkcpo.avi
.
List of Figures
1.1 Key Featuresof a Vehicle Geometry (from Barnard [1])
2.1
.....
40
2.2
..............
Morel's TruncatedCylinder (from Morel [22])
2.3
41
2.5
..................
Variation of Drag Coefficient with Backlight Angle for the Ahmed
42
43
2.6
44
2.4
2.7
41
..........
............
Attached Flow Over the Ahmed Geometry Backlight,
..............
Transient (a) Side Force and (b) Yawing Moment Coefficients for
a Notchback Vehicle Entering into a Sharp Edged Gust
44
2.8
..................
Transient (a) Side Force and (b) Yawing Moment Coefficients for a
............
2.11 Ground Simulation Techniques (from Hucho [6])
47
48
.
........
2.12 PossibleCrossWind Boundary Layer Profiles (from Macklin et al [36])  49
3.3
3.4
3.1
3.2
X1
61
3.5
The New CrossWind Tunnel Configuration (from Dominy and Ryan [43]) 62
3.6
3.7
..............
The DevelopedTransient CrossWind Facility
4.1
80
80
4.2
..........
...........
Location of PressureTappings on the Docton Geometry
4.3
...................
Key Points on the Perimeter of the Docton Geometry
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
64
80
.......
..................
Location of PressureTappings on the Durham Geometry
......
The Five Hole Probe (from Docton [6 1])
............
Five Hole Probe a) Magnitude and b) PhaseTransfer Function
4.8
4.9
81
82
82
Characteristics
....................
Two ComponentForce Balance Configuration
81
83
..........
83
......
85
85
...........
86
4.13 Typical Side Force and Yawing Moment Force Balance Data
.....
4.14 Effect of Low PassFiltering on the Empty Working Section Yaw Angle . 86
5.1
5.2
5.3
97
.......
Effect of EnsembleAverage on Static PressureTapping Data
Schematicof the Computation Domain
............
xii
.....
98
99
6.1
107
6.2
..........
Empty Working SectionTransient CrossStreamVelocity Coefficients.
6.3
6.4
.....
Empty Working Section Transient Total PressureCoefficient Contours
6.5
112
114
117
Coefficient Contours
6.6
..................
Empty Working Section Transient Static PressureCoefficient Contours
6.7
............
6.19 Durham Geometry SteadyAxial Flow Surface PressureCoefficients
6.20 Durham Geometry Axial Flow Oil Flow Visualisation
......
6.21 Durham Geometry SteadyAxial Flow Vorticity Contours
x/I = 0.75 Wakeplane
.................
6.22 Durham Geometry SteadyAxial Flow a) Vorticity and
121
122
123
123
125
125

126
.
.
.
.
 .
xiii
119
121
..........
6.8 Empty Working Section Transient Total Pressure
........
6.9 Gust Characteristicsat the Model Centre
............
6.10 Docton Geometry SteadySurfacePressureCoefficients
.......
6.11 Docton Geometry Transient Surface PressureCoefficients
......
6.12 Docton Geometry IntegratedPressureSide Force Coefficients
....
6.13 Docton Geometry IntegratedPressureYawing Moment Coefficients
110
127
127
128
129
131
132
133
133
134
135
136
136
.................
6.28 Durham Geometry Transient SurfacePressureCoefficients t=0.1 Os
137
138
139
140
141
..
..
..
..
...
6.36 Durham Geometry Integrated PressureYawing Moment Coefficients
142
143
144
145
145
146
147
xiv
.
.
.
.
.
 
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
HoneycombRoughnessnot Modelled
.............
155
192
............
6.47 CFD Empty Working Section Yaw Angle
7.1
xv
..
List of Tables
Effect of Geometrical Changeson Yawing Moment Characteristic
18
Testing Techniques
26
30
30
6.1
105
7.1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
xvi
..........
191
Nomenclature
A
CmX
Cmy
CmZ
CP
Total pressurecoefficient
Cp,
Static pressurecoefficient
Cs
Ct
Cvi
Generalvelocity coefficient
Cx
Drag coefficient
Cy
Side force coefficient / Yaw angle coefficient (five hole probe calibration)
Cz
Lift coefficient
Czu
Diameter
dA
Element of area
fc
Characteristic frequency
f,, d
Reduced frequency
f,
F.
Fp
F.
Fy
Force in y direction
Model height
Model length
xvii
Md
Microdrag:
M,
Microside
nens
Number of ensembleaverages
PI5
Pav
Pdyn
Dynamic Pressure
dynamic
Reference
pressure
Pdynref
Po
Total pressure
Poxef
Reference
ps
Static
P_r'f
Reference
Comer
Red
Reynolds
number
based on diameter
Re,
Reynolds
number
based on length
Distance
Half
Time
Tu
Turbulence
Axial
Ur
Resultant
velocity
Uref
Reference
axial
Crossstream
Vref
Reference
Vertical
Wref
Reference
Axial
Crossstream
Vertical
total pressure
Pressure
static pressure
radius
around
a model
perimeter
of the Docton
perimeter
geometry
intensity
(x) direction
velocity
(x) velocity
(y) velocity
crossstream
(y) velocity
(z) velocity
/ Model
vertical
(z) velocity
(streamwise)
width
direction
direction
direction
xviii
Greek Symbols
Backlight angle (figure 2.1)
Air dynamic viscosity
7C
Pi
Air density
Standarddeviation
Vorticity
Yaw angle
Fluctuating componentof x
Mean of x
X"n
Minimum of x
xix
Z, Cz
x, Cx
y,
xx
ChapterOne  Introduction
Chapter One
Introduction
Vehicle aerodynamics can be broadly split into three areas; external aerodynamics,
componentcooling and passengercomfort.
Even the simplified vehicle shapesused for fundamental investigations, for example the
Ahmed geometry [2], produce complex three dimensional flowfields.
The external
The underbonnet layout of a vehicle must not only provide air for the combustion
demandsof the engine, but must also provide adequatecooling for many components.
For example, a modem vehicle will require cooling air for the engine water, engine oil,
brake components,potentially turbocharger and intercooler and engine electronics. An
these
be
designed
it
with
cope
only
that
cooling
system
must
not
can
such
engine
demandsunder the most arduous conditions, but must do this whilst giving as small a
1
4
ChapterOne  Introduction
decreasein overall vehicle performance as possible. Cooling drag may be split into
three constituent components. Pressure drag will result directly from pressure loss
acrosscooling systems,for example the pressureloss across a radiator. The turbulent
outflowing cooling air is also likely to have a detrimental effect on the external
aerodynamics,although this is not always the case. Finally, elementssuch as radiators
have a significant 'wetted area' and therefore although the through velocity is low, a
significant contribution from skin friction drag can be expected.
Hucho [6] reports a typical increasein drag coefficient, Cx, as result of cooling airflow
of ACx = 0.03. This is a significant percentageof what may be consideredas a typical
overall passengercar drag coefficient of Cx = 0.35. More recently Freymann et al [71
quote ACx = 0.013 for a BMW 8 series. This much lower value was a consequenceof a
concerted effort by BMW to reduce the overall drag of their vehicles and within this
framework was the minimising of cooling airflow drag. It was achievedby optimisation
of the intake and outflow geometry,the shapeof the air ducts and the arrangementof the
improvements
Further
radiators.
were realised through minimisation of flow restrictions
and the use of active elementsfor flow control.
ChapterOne  Introduction
of reducing noise, but also prediction of the sound transmission properties of closed
windows [9].
Outlined above are some of the important features of vehicle aerodynamics. When
designing a vehicle, it must be considered that the ma ority of driving conditions
encounteredwill not be ideal. Thus, as the design processbecomesmore advancedand
it
is
competitive,
more
sales
possible and necessaryto design for a much wider range
car
of driving conditions. Crosswinds are one of thesedriving conditions, not only are they
for
drivers,
but
have
been
an integral part of a significant number of road
unnerving
[11,12].
accidents
Essentially there are three possible types of crosswind condition. These are steady
Steady
crossunsteady
crosswinds
transient
and so called
crosswinds.
crosswinds,
The
in
but
rare.
are
a
of
a
steady
reality
atmospheric wind condition,
winds are result
ChapterOne  Introduction
inherently gusty nature of atmospheric winds makes unsteady conditions much more
likely.
conditions and the relative motion of a vehicle. For example, a vehicle may exit from a
tunnel into a transversewind condition, either steadyor unsteady,at which point it will
be subjected to a crosswind transient. Many similar situations exist where a vehicle
can appear from a sheltered position into a region of crosswind.
For example,
Figure 1.2 illustrates the transient crosswind condition that results from a vehicle being
suddenly exposed to a transverse wind.
nominally stationaryair and henceis subjectedto axial flow, as depicted by the left hand
It
triangle.
subsequentlyrapidly passesthrough a shear layer into a region of
velocity
yawed flow, where the resultant velocity vector, u, comprises of the vehicles relative
forward velocity, u, and the crosswind velocity, v. Thus the vehicle is subjectedto an
increasedresultant velocity at a yaw angle of V (central velocity triangle). A short time
later the vehicle passesthrough a second shearlayer and is returned to the original axial
flow condition. The transition from axial to yawed flow is potentially very rapid, with
the rapidly changing forces and moments the vehicle is subjected to requiring fast,
driver
reaction. In many situations this leads to overreaction. Similarly fast
corrective,
reaction is required on exit from the gust. If the region of crosswind is of short
duration, these two driver reactions are required within a short time and hence from a
driver reaction perspective,sharp edged, finite length crosswind gusts are consideredto
be a worst casescenario.
ChapterOne  Introduction
Only in the most extreme conditions will a wind induced accident involve the
overturning of a passenger car, although this is a serious problem for high sided
vehicles. It is much more common for crosswind conditions to produce excessiveand
dangerousvehicle deviation, either through direct forces and momentsor through driver
overreaction. The aerodynamic moment of most interest for directional stability is
yawing moment, as this determines the steering angle input required to maintain a
straight vehicle path. In addition to yawing moment, for transient conditions yaw rate is
of extreme importance, as this determines the time available for a driver to take
low
A
action.
yaw rate is desirable, as clearly this provides a driver with
corrective
more time to make a correction, hence reducing the risk of overcorrection. Of
secondaryimportance are side force and lift, with low values for both being desirable.
The side force determinesthe tyre slip angle required to maintain a straight path, with a
small side force requiring a small slip angle, and hence there is less of a discrepancy
between the angle of the vehicle and the direction of forward travel. Reducing the lift,
or even producing a downforce, has been shown by researcherssuch as Buchheim et al
[ 13] and Howell [ 14] to increasestability.
ChapterOne  Introduction
surface pressures,aerodynamic forces and wakes of two vehicle like bodies under the
transientcrosswind conditions.
ChapterOne  Introduction
T'i 
Apillar Cpillar
Windshield
Shear layer
Direction of
travel
Ic
./
) )
AL
BUILDING
IV
CROSSWIND
U, Ur
U, Ur
Ur
Chapter Two
The wake of a vehicle forms an important part of its flowfield, being a consequenceof
the drag inducing flow structuresaround a vehicle. Although a wake is very dependent
flow
it
is also affected by the flow structuresthat have developed
the
the
around
rear,
on
as a result of the upstreamgeometrical features.
The flow structure of a fastback type vehicle (figure 2.1 illustrates the three passenger
is
interest
different
it
fundamentally
shapes)
of
most
take
two
end
rear
as
car
can
one of
forms. It will either fully separateat the roof/backlight intersection, forming a large
flow,
it
recirculating
of
or
will remain attached. The attached structure may
region
involve separationat the roof/backlight intersection and subsequentreattachmentfurther
down the backlight. The attached flow structure is characterisedby a much smaller
flow
in
the near wake and two strong contrarotating trailing
of
recirculating
region
Some of the earliest observations of this phenomena were made by Morel [22]. His
geometry consisted of a circular cylinder of aspect ratio 9: 1, with an aerodynamically
shapednose and the rear of the cylinder truncated to form a backlight (figure 2.2). He
investigated the effect of changing the backlight angle on the flow structure and found
that transition between the two flow regimes was very sudden, but that either flow
it
had
been established.
once
stable
was
pattern
3.33: 1.5:1 (I:w: h) with well rounded front comers to minimise the upstreameffect on
.0
the wake structure and a slanted interchangeable backlight region, such that the
backlight angle was variable. Again, he observeda similar bistable flow regime, with a
P=
backlight
30'.
Production
angle
of
road vehicles are unlikely to experiencea
critical
bistable flow structure, however the significant variations in drag coefficient with
backlight angle observedare of importance.
Ahmed et al [2] used results obtained from flow visualisation and surface pressure
describe
in
detail
for
both
Ahmed
to
the
the
wake
geometry
structure of
measurements
flow.
This
front
has
the
separated
comers
and
geometry
rounded
same well
attached
Morel
h).
1
(I:
backlight
but
1.37:
3.36:
different
the
as
geometry,
w:
a
and
aspectratio of
Figure 2.4 shows the wake structure for the attached flow regime. Flow separation
intersection,
but
the
the
on
roof/backlight
at
reattachment
occurs
with subsequent
10
Figure 2.5 shows the variation of drag coefficient with backlight angle for the Ahmed
drag
it
be
Here
for
P
30'),
flow
(0'
the
that
the
can
seen
attached
:5
case
geometry.
<
coefficient exhibits a minima at 100,from where there is a rise to the maximum at 30'.
if the backlight angle is further increasedthe flow regime changesto the separatedcase
decrease
in
drag is observed. Sedney [23] later highlighted that the
and a sudden
drag
for
in
the attached flow regime is much greater that that of the
observed
variation
flow
This
is
in
the
regime.
strength
presumably
a
change
result
of
significant
separated
backlight
trailing
the
vortices
with
angle for the attachedflow regime.
of
The
flow
reattachment.
also separatesfrom the sides and underbody,
subsequent
forming a large region of recirculation region in the near wake. Ahmed and Baumert
[241 found the contra rotating vortices in the wake of a 1/4 scale squarebackmodel were
found
in
for
to
those
sense
a comparable fastback. From this they concluded
opposite
that somewherebetween these configurations would be a configuration that would not
drag.
Cpillar
hence
from
trailing
trailing
vortices
vortex
and
would not suffer
exhibit
However, as indicated by Bearman [25], it is possible that the trailing vortices they
11
The near flowfield of a notch back type vehicle contains a complex arrangementof
separatedregions and trailing vortices. The relatively steep backlight angles found on
flow
vehicles
promotes
separation at the roof/backlight intersection. The
notchback
formation of weak Cpillar vortices causesa downwash in the wake, with this aiding
boot
lid,
however
the
this may not occur for all geometries. Nouzawa
on
reattachment
found
defining
[26]
the
critical
geometry
whether the flow reattachedor not could
al
et
be defined by the angle Ort, this being the angle formed when a straight line is drawn
from the roof/backlight intersection to the top of the rear of the boot lid. They found a
drag maxima at Ort= 25*, indicating this was the critical angle.
2.2.3 Wake Surveys and Integrals
Wake surveys have been used as a powerful tool to investigate the structure of vehicle
Cogotti
For
[271
example
used a fourteen hole probe to investigate the steady
wakes.
(timeaveraged)wake of several squarebackconfigurations. The probe design and large
flow
holes
permitted
of
angles of 70' to 250' to be measuredin pitch, with the
number
being
90'.
yaw range
him
flow,
He
build
to
the
allowing
wake.
up
vehicle
a
complete
of
picture
reversed
for
The
did
the
that
tested
all
trailing
configurations
senseof
exist.
vortices
concluded
these vortices depended on the specific geometry. No significant changes in drag
for
different
the
observed
were
wake structures, suggestingthe separation
coefficient
base
from
drag
the trailing vortices
to
and
contribution
pressure
coefficient
points,
remainedrelatively constant.
12
Two slightly different approacheshave been adoptedby the various authors; Onorato et
al [28] and C6gotti [29] used the basic momentum equation, as seen in Appendix B,
Sugavanam
Hackett
[30] and Hackett et al [3 1] applied a developmentof a
and
whereas
the basic momentum equation, as first used by Maskell [32]. By modelling the wake of
the body, and its reflections in the wind tunnel walls, as a potential flowfield, Maskell
[32] demonstratedthat the terms in the basic momentum equation could be adjusted
from
data
is
the
that
area
which
required to perform a wake integral can be reduced
such
to just the wake of the body. Thus, his final equations require data from a relatively
The
traverse
area.
major limitation of the first method is that for correct
small
prediction of aerodynamic coefficients, the wake survey has to be completed over the
flow
is
by
that
the presenceof the body. This can not only be
of
affected
area
entire
impractical, but is very time consuming, and hencethe development of the Maskell [32]
Wake
by
both methods are very sensitive to grid density.
surveys
conducted
method.
Davis [33] integrated wake surveys using the Maskell [32] method for a 1/10th scale
in
shape
ground proximity. He found that decreasing the spatial
generic vehicle
by
factor
in
four
(10mm.
introduced
20mm.
a
area
to
of
errors of
grid)
resolution
grid
a
drag
in
force.
50%
the
of
value
over
13
14
15
16
17
Howell
[451
[461
[471
Lowering of front
spoiler
Decreasedyawing
moment
e Decreasedyawing
moment
increasedfront
wing vertical edge
curvature
* Increasedyawing
moment
o Increasedyawing
moment  also
decreaseddrag
Increasing front
wing side edge
curvature
Decreasedyawing
moment
* Decreasedyawing
moment
increasing Apillar
curvature
Decreasedyawing
moment
* Decreasedyawing
moment
e Increasedyawing
moment  also
decreaseddrag
9 Increasedyawing
moment
Increasedbonnet
* Increasedyawing
front edgecurvature moment
Increasedyawing
moment  also
decreaseddrag
Increasedyawing
moment
Increasedplanfonn
(boatcurvature tailing)
Increasedyawing
moment  also
decreaseddrag
* Decreasedyawing
moment
* Increasedyawing
moment  also
decreaseddrag
Changefrom
notchback to
hatchback
Decreasedyawing
moment
9 Increasedyawing
moment
Increasedyawing
moment
increasedrear
overhang
(notchbackonly)
Increasedyawing
moment  also
decreaseddrag
Increasedyawing
moment
Increasedboot deck
height (notchback
only)
Decreasedyawing
moment
9 Decreasedyawing
moment  also
decreaseddrag
18
frequency domain) that related the force fluctuations experienced by a vehicle to the
fluctuations.
This
admittancecombined with the available wind spectrum
wind velocity
for a particular site can then be used, via an extreme value coefficient, to calculate the
direction
of
to overturn a vehicle, or as
wind
speed
combination
and
wind
required
[521,
in
Baker
train.
a
shown
Humphreys and Baker [531 fully applied Baker's conclusions that both atmospheric
boundary layer simulation and a dynamicstatic testing technique are required. They
investigated the mean force and moment coefficients generatedby a 1/50th scale sharp
from
from
lorry,
dynamicstatic
those
those
tests
to
track
calculated
comparing
edged
dynamicstatic
The
forces
force
be
tests.
the
taken
to
measured
were
mean
staticstatic
including
thus
a
the
of
run,
the overshootsthat occur on entry to, or
part
central
not
over
Although
layer
boundary
crosswind.
of
region
a
an
simulation was
of,
atmospheric
exit
19
20
is
these
conditions
subject to transient effects that could not be replicated
vehicle under
by any steady testing procedure. Although this technique accurately replicates the real
finite length, sharp edged condition, full scale testing has to be conducted at a late stage
in the design process,from where it is costly and time consuming to make any changes,
It
is
difficult
be
directly
forces
to
they
the
necessary.
also
measure
aerodynamic
should
is
be
If
investigations
to.
to
the
subjected
vehicle
serious
aerodynamic
are
and moments
forces
into
the
and moments and the underlying flow physics, tests needto be
conducted
conducted under controlled and repeatable conditions. Wind tunnel testing of scale
best
is
the
way to achieve this.
arguably
models
Some of the first wind tunnel investigations were conducted by Beauvais [54]. He
9.5m
1/10th
track
along
which
a
a
scale model passengercar was propelled.
constructed
The crosswind tunnel was of low turbulence with 0.0 1% :5 Tu :50.02%, depending on
tunnel speed, and created crosswind gusts of approximately five model lengths.
Rubber shock chord was used to acceleratethe model to a maximum speedof 15.2ms1.
The notchback type model was constructed in a space frame style from balsawood,
keeping the weight below 0.170kg. The model contained an internally mounted two
force
balance
(side
isolated
from
being
track
this
and
yawing
moment),
component
isolators.
by
The
balance
of
rubber
means
were mounted on a
model
and
vibration
be
in
be
the
track,
that
the
to
such
model
ground
above
would
not
considered
carriage
Force
for
and
moment
coefficients
were
compared
static and moving model
proximity.
00
for
range
of
angle
yaw
a
:5 xV:! 900, with the yaw angle for the moving model
tests
by
both
Reynolds
The
the
test
adjusting
tunnel
model
and
speeds.
tests controlled
dependent
however
hence
the
on
speed,
and
was
angle,
varied
with
yaw
number
1.6
105,
based
Rei
His
length.
forward
x
results
was
=
on
model
speed and
minimum
(figure 2.7) showedthe transient side force increasing from zero to the value found for a
21
facility
by
larger
This
the
again
propelled
rubber
shock
chord.
scale
models
track, with
1/4
1/10th
testing
the
scale
cars,
of
passenger
or
scale commercial vehicles.
allowed
The models used were run in proxindty to the ground, being supported by struts that
The
in
length,
4.5m
tunnel
the
through
ground
plane.
crosswind
was
exit
projected
5
3
lengths.
between
Reynolds
based
and
model
of
on model
gusts
number
creating
forward speed and length was 1.3 < Re, :! 1.7 x 106. Force and moment data were
drag)
internally
(no
five
low
30Hz
by
balance,
component
pass
a
mounted
with
recorded
filters and a 'no wind' trace used to remove and vibration track noise. In order to give a
intensity
10%.
in
Tu
turbulence
the
with
real
gusts,
was
of
comparison
order
=
good
The results are too numerous to discuss in detail, however the side force and yawing
for
fastback
obtained
a
coefficients
vehicle shapeentering a sharp edgedcrossmoment
force
30'
The
figure
2.8.
in
yaw
relative
angle
with
of
y=
side
gust
are
presented
wind
15%
this
transient
overshoot
with
the
of
about
value,
a
peak
yawed
of
steady
shows
lengths
into
2
the crosswind gust. The yawing moment also exhibits a
model
occurring
150%
with
a
peak
overshoot
of
around
of the steadyyawed value.
overshoot,
transient
flow
decay,
the
yawed
Both coefficients subsequently
steady
and are comparable with
force
lengths
3
The
flow.
transient
side
model
of crosswind
coefficients after
development
in
be
flow
the
the
of
transient
result of
effects
coefficient overshoot must
flowficid,
the
these
transient
yawing moment
with
affecting
effects
also
the yawed
[55] also investigated the effect of various aerodynamic addon
Stewart
coefficient.
22
23
interesting results, however has little relevance to the sharp edged gust entry, or any
other flow situation, as when one end of the model moves away from the wind, the other
moves towards it.
2.3.4 The StaticDynamic Technique
Bearman and Mullarkey [58] used a pair of sinusoidially oscillating aerofoils placed
upstream of a 1/8th scale generic passengercar to created flow oscillations in the
8'. Aerodynamic admittances
working section that correspondedto gust anglesof y =_
were calculated over a range of gust reduced frequenciesand from thesethey concluded
that quasisteadymeasurementswould safely predict transient forces and moments. It
8' was relatively low and that this
should be noted that the yaw angle of y
_=
simulation is unlikely to represent the entry to a sharp edged gust discussed in the
previous chapter.
A unique staticdynamic technique has been used at the University of Durham, where
sharp edged, finite length crosswind gusts were createdby the transient interaction of
two wind tunnel jets. This method was initially investigated by Scott [59], and then
developed
by
Docton [60,61] and Docton and Dominy [62,631. Results
significantly
for a simple onebox shapewith well rounded comers, subjectedto a crosswind gust of
three model lengths at a relative yaw angle of y= 30' and a Reynolds number of Rel =
3.3 x 105 indicated delayed leeward side pressure development on entry to the gust.
This delayed pressure development, which again suggestedthe presenceof transient
flow effects, had a significant effect on both the transient side force and yawing moment
coefficients. More detail about this facility is given in ChapterThree.
24
a 'windoff'
25
Advantages
High gust production rate (up
Disadvantages
20')
(y
Fixed
>
angle
yaw
9
to I 000/hr)
has
Current
generation
9
* Conventional fixed
instrumentation
StaticDynamic Jet
Interaction
models
Technique
(Stationary Model)
signature
DynamicStatic
situations
Track Technique
wake traverses
(Moving Model)
limit
the
Practical
on
upper
*
Reynolds
number
achievable
in
directly
Difficulty
e
measuringdrag force
26
is
dimensional
flow
three
that
not
complicated
nature of
around a passengercar,
conducive to the simplifications made in this, or any other, empirically basedmethod.
Tran [65,66] developed an empirical method to predict transient forces on entry to a
from
gust
crosswind
a number of steadyflow waistline surfacepressuremeasurements.
He measured the differential pressures between pairs of tappings under steady
homogeneousyawed flow in a wind tunnel, subsequently defining several pressure
coefficient curves that allowed side force and yawing moment coefficients and incident
flow velocity and angle to be related to the measuredpressuresaround a vehicle. From
the assumptionthat the coefficients measuredin steady,homogeneousflow would also
be valid for unsteady, inhomogeneous flow, he combined these coefficients with the
transient surfacepressuresmeasuredon entry to a sharp edged crosswind region (using
force
full
transient
and
and
the
size
vehicle
crosswind
side
a
generator) to calculate
yawing moment coefficients. The results for a yaw angle of \v = 30" showed no
force
a
side
of
overshoot, suggesting no transient flow mechanisms were
evidence
familiar
into
however
the gust, was
the
due
the
to
yawing moment peak,
motion
present,
I
0.5,
the vehicle
into
distance
the
the
where
and
x represents
gust
travelled
seenat x/I =
length.
27
dimensional parametersand the componentsof force and moment. The side force and
yawing moment data was consideredto be valid for the yaw angle range 20':: xy :520',
as the coefficients are generally linear within these limits.
subsequentlyvalidated for 15 full scale vehicles, however as with the empirical method
of White [64], the predicted forces and moments did not correlate well with directly
measuredones.
Hucho and Emmelmann [68] developed a theoretical prediction method for both steady
and transient side force and yawing moment coefficients. A threedimensionalvehicle
was representedby a twodimensional projection of the side area of the vehicle. This
projection was further split into vertical sections, with twodimensional potential flow
theory applied to solve for the flow around a plate of infinite width and height equal to
the height of a particular vertical section, for a wind velocity equal to the normal
component of the crosswind. The pressuredifference acrossa plate (correspondingto a
single vertical section) was taken to be twice the pressure on the front face and by
summing of the component sections over the side of the vehicle the side force and
yawing moment were obtained.
obtained using a mirrored image below the ground plane, with a correction for the flow
between the vehicle and ground applied later. Time dependantsolutions, obtained by
dependant
time
a
normal component of crosswind, also provided transient side
using
force and yawing moment coefficients on entry to a sharp edged gust. Calculations
for
a medium sized passengercar entering such a gust, with a relative yaw
conducted
angle of y= 30', showedthat both the side force and yawing moment exhibit significant
decrease
The
to
to
the
on
entry
seen
overshoots
gust.
magnitudesof the overshoot were
for gusts with shallower gust entry profiles, an effect also observedby Stewart [551.
28
than experimental
measurements.
CFD is frequently criticised for not being able to accuratelypredict absolutemagnitudes
for the standardcoefficients used in the automotive industry. The numerical solutions
density,
to
mesh
sensitive
choice of differencing schemeand in particular turbulence
are
model. Perzon et al [69] presentedCFD drag coefficient (Cx) values for a bluff body,
obtained using two different commercial codes (StarCD and Fluent UNS), for a variety
of differencing schemes,mesh densities and turbulence models. Their results exhibited
a range of 0.039 : ACx :! 0.243, where ACx is defined as the difference between the
experimentally and computationally obtained drag coefficients. Axelsson et al [70]
presenteddrag coefficients for the generic Volvo EEC conceptcar. They used the CFX4 flow solver to investigate the effect of turbulence model. The drag coefficients
obtained varied in the range 0.088 :5 Cx :50.141, which can be compared to the
experimentally obtained value of Cx = 0.14 1.
Gaylard et al [71] presented data for two generic vehicle shapes obtained from
StarCD.
(FSWT)
Comparisons
CFD
using
obtained
calculations
of
and experimentally
29
Lift Coefficient
(Cz)
FSWT
CFD
Notchback
0.271
0.2670.002
0.317
0.0810.005
Fastback
0.210
0.2060.002
0.328
0.066++0.005
Lift Coefficient
(Cz)
CFD
FSWT
CFD
FSWT
Baseline
Notchback
0.271
0.267
0.317
0.081
Configuration 2
0.297
0.317
0.447
0.237
Configuration 3
0.297
0.303
0.415
0.200
Configuration 4
0.291
0.299
0.320
0.320
Table 2.4 CFD and Experimental Trends in Lift and Drag Coefficients
(from Gaylard et al [7 11)
30
The
intrinsically unsteady nature of the flow at yaw made it necessaryto use an unsteady
solver.
large
the
errors of the onebox vehicle to the asymmetric separatedregion
attributed
under yawed flow and that the nominal freestrearn direction is diagonally across the
Remeshing
box
this
be
for
two
condition
the
vehicle.
although
would also present
cells,
the geometry would permit alignment of the nominal freestrearn and cell directions,
for
be
it
be
this
time
all
necessary
would
although
and resource consuming should
31
32
Various methods of ground simulation are depicted in figure 2.11, the most common
and simplest of these being 2.11a, where the model is directly mounted onto a fixed
This
has
board.
incident
has
firstly
drawbacks;
the
configuration
airflow
ground
several
a boundary layer and hencevertical velocity gradient, (this would not exist for a moving
in
vehicle statistically stationary air), secondly the relative motion between the ground
is
boundary
the
finally
the
vehicle
not
of
modelled
the
and
and
presenceand growth
layer induces a vertical velocity component on the incident flow, which again would not
be experiencedin a true vehicle environment.
33
Figures 2.10b to j show several methods that have been used to improve the ground
boundary
dj
Methods
the
are
the
ground
only
concerned
simulation.
with
removal of
layer or the effects thereof, but are simpler to implement than the more realistic moving
but
layer
boundary
c,
the
which
also simulates the
method,
not
only removes
ground
motion between the vehicle and road. One of the main difficulties associatedwith a
from
below.
is
be
it
the
supported
mounting of
moving ground
model, as cannot
Generally a sting is used that supports the model from either behind or above, however
34
A rather unique method of ground simulation was adoptedby Papenfuss[8 1]. He used
the track moving model technique, normally reserved for crosswind simulations, to
produce what would be a perfect representationof a vehicle in motion. Moving model
techniqueshowever have severaldisadvantages,as detailed in table 2.2.
The simulation of the correct ground boundary layer profile is significantly harder for a
vehicle subjected to crosswind conditions.
perpendicularcrosswind, the crosswind flow is moving relative to the ground and has
a vertical velocity gradient, whereasthe relative forward movement betweenthe vehicle
has
the
air
no such gradient. Figure 2.12 depicts two possible boundary layer
and
profiles for simulated crosswind conditions. If the boundary layer is removed, the
profile on the left is achieved, however it can be seenthat this is significantly different
to the natural boundary layer profile, as seen on the right. For this profile, both yaw
angle and resultant velocity vary with height.
currently can correctly representthis boundary layer profile is the dynamicstatic track
technique.
2.5.2 Reynolds Number
The Reynolds number, basedon vehicle length, is given by equation 2.1 where p is fluid
density, u is fluid velocity, I is the vehicle length and p is the fluid dynamic viscosity.
Re, =
pul
(2.1)
JU
35
105, this being the critical Reynolds number at which transition of the
The critical
Reynolds number increased as yaw angle increased for the tested range of 0' T :5 15'.
<
Cooper [44] concluded that a minimum test Reynolds number of ReA =2x 106 should
be used. Interestingly, taking a typical passenger car frontal area of 197M2 [1] and
converting Cooper's minimum test Reynolds number to one based on a vehicle length of
4.0m, yields Re, = 5.7 x 106, which is only marginally below a typical full scale
Reynolds number (Rej = 5.8 x 106).
Barth [821 investigated the effect of Reynolds number on the surface static pressure
distribution of a two dimensional body with rounded comers, where the ratio of radius
body
length
to
curvature
was r/I = 0.1. He used a low turbulence wind tunnel and
of
investigated a range of yaw angles from 00
increasing the Reynoldsnumber from Re, = 4.6 x 105to Re, = 10.3 x 105preventedfront
leeward comer separation,even at 20' yaw, and in this instance he recorded a suction
Cps
in
the
order
of
peak
= 2.4.
36
Tu ='7
ii
(2.2)
37
38
39
Fastback
Squareback
40
Flow direction
41
42
0.4
0.378
Drag
Coeff icieni
0.3
0,250
0.2 [
0.1
00
100
20*
p
30"
40*
Figure 2.5 Variation of Drag Coefficient with Backlight Angle for the Ahmed
Geometry (from Ahmed et al [21)
43
a)
cfe
b)
C.
0
=CVN
tF
Figure 2.6 Transient (a) Yawing Moment and (b) Side Force Coefficients
(from Kobayashi & Yamada [37])
b)
a)
120
10
i
80
um
In
!Z
GC
.4
4c
2c
20
0123012
CAR LENGTHS
CAR LENGTHS
Figure 2.7 Transient (a) Side Force and (b) Yawing Moment Coefficients for a
Notchback Vehicle Entering into a SharpEdgedGust (from Beauvais [54])
44
b)
a)
FAST
BACKt 82)
120
124
8010
",X,
x
Xx
230,
FAST. BACK(82)
';
130100
At
oos__
3W
Ll
744.1
234
L
13
2
VE141CLELENGTHS INTO GUST
Figure 2.8 Transient (a) Side Force and (b) Yawing Moment Coefficients for a
FastbackVehicle Entering into a SharpEdged Gust (from Stewart [55])
45
a)
b)
c)
d)
46
1)\/I = ().()
h) \/l = 1.4
4.0
Okumura
Gust
(from
Surfaces
Edged
for
and
Isoplethic
2.10
Entry
Sharp
Fi, ure
a
into
,
Kurlyama [731)
47
L44P.
W.
SA
0c
No
^nmmw=m
I
717,77
48
Nabaalcrosswind
wi
wil
[36])
Macklin
(from
Profiles
CrossWind
Boundary
Layer
et al
Figure 2.12 Possible
49
Chapter Three
The StaticDynamic Jet Interaction Technique
50
51
Docton [61].
freestrearn.
A
27ms1.
type
secondcrosswind
with
a
maximum
of
velocity
open return
tunnel was built to provide flow for the crosswind gust.
This facility generated crosswind gusts of 1.5m in length (3 model lengths). Data
7
Kobayshi
to
by
Yamada
[38]
up
and
suggestedthat a crosswind gust of
published
length
for
full
however
lengths
flow
development,
the
gust
shorter
were required
model
The
for
investigation
initial
relative
transient
the
response.
of
was consideredsufficient
from
data
30'.
Much
steady
the
the
crosswind gustswas y=
of
published
yaw angle of
for
[36],
has
Macklin
testing,
shown the maximum steady
example
et al
crosswind
force
and yawing moment coefficients to occur around this yaw angle.
side
peak
The working section Reynolds number under axial flow conditions, which was limited
by the mass flow from the crosswind tunnel, was Re, = 3.3xlO5. Docton [611
thoroughly investigated the possibilities for control of the crosswind tunnel exit
boundary, concluding the best option was to use a vertically mounted flexible belt
by
facility
3.3
Figure
the
to
used
the
the
tunnel.
shows
axis of
main
mounted parallel
Docton.
The belt contained several apertures for the creation of the crosswind gusts. On
initiation of a run, it would be rapidly wound from the upstream to the downstream
for
by
A
length
belt
accelerationpurposes,
of
a
motor.
means
of
was permitted
spool
52
53
Aerodynamic
unsteadinessin the working section produced a noisy signal, this could have been
by
rtinimised ensembleaveraginghowever the labour intensive gust generationprocess
was not conducive to this. In addition, the relatively short gust length was unlikely to
allow full transient flow developmentto be observed.
Ideally a fully automatedrepeating transient gust generationfacility with the possibility
of varying the gust length was required. The development,manufacture and testing of
facility
a
was undertakenby the current author and is detailed in the remainder of
such
this Chapter. From reviewing the work of Docton [61], it was apparent that the only
requirement was an improved method of controlling the crosswind tunnel boundary
condition. The rapid gust production rate of this new facility would not only allow
ensemble averaging, but also offer the possibility of conducting wake traverses, yet
because
of the large number of gusts required (several 1000s).
untried
33.1 Vertical Axis Shutter Concept
Careful consideration of the proposed concepts for controlling the crosswind tunnel
boundary showed a vertical axis shutter systemto have the greatestpotential. Two rows
of vertically mounted, sequentially opening, shutterswere placed at the exit plane of the
(figure
3.5).
tunnel
crosswind
The top row of shuttersallowed crosswind fluid to exit into the working section. Each
top row shutter was connectedto its bottom row counterpartby a gear mechanism,such
that when one opened the other closed. This maintained a constant open exit area
irrespective of which top row shutters were open. Each shutter pair was individually
actuated allowing sequential opening of the shutters. Thus, the top row of shutters
54
55
56
57
58
Crosswind tunnel
Model
Main (axial)
tunnel
Working section
Ur
u
Figure 3.1 SchematicPlan of the Wind Tunnel Configuration and Velocity Triangle
59
t= 1
t=2
t=3
t=4
t=5
t=6
t=8
12
10
13
60
Model
Main Tunnel

WorldngZ
section
.........................................................
Beft and
aPOO
al
assembly
Ducting
(constant area)
Ducting
(expanding)
Centrifugal
fan
Gauze
screens
I metro
Motor
IV
Figure 3.3 The CrossWind GenerationFacility Used by Docton (from Docton [6 1])
TransientVelocity Components
141210.
b.
'. i

1 A

0
2
4
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.25
0.3
0.35
time /I
TransientYaw Angle
40
30
20
lo
o
10
20
0.05
0.1
0.15
02
linle /s
61
Crosswind tunnel
Shuttersin working
section
IN.
2
ModepositionN%`
'*,
I.,
62
a)
Honeycomb section
b)
QMnnid
lowAr n
Aluminiumplate
ox section
B'
Lnism
row
63
64
Chapter Four
Instrumentation and Aerodynamic Models
4.1 Introduction
To commission the facility measurementof the flow in the empty working section was
Several
appropriatemethods of measurementexist, including pressureprobes,
essential.
hot wires or hot films. The use of pressureprobes is advantageousin that they provide a
be
interest,
from
the
the
can
velocity
point of
which
meansof pressuremeasurementat
field.
Hotwires
films
information
the
or
velocity
can only provide
about
calculated.
Pressureprobesare also much more robust and cheaperthan the alternatives.
Five hole pressure probes are frequently utilised at the University of Durham for
for
investigations
hence
instrumentation
the
and expertise
and
necessary
aerodynamic
their use exists. For reasonsof economy the pressuretransducersof the available probes
from
the probe head. The length of tubing required to connect
remotely
mounted
were
to the probe head limits the frequency responseof the probe, however SimsWilliams
[92,931 recently used a system for the dynamic correction of pressure probes that
hot
frequency
be
(this
to
250Hz
to
an
excellent
contrasted
can
response up
provides
frequency
This
[94]).
is
50kHz
upper
to
a
response
where
obtained
of
up
easily
wires
frequency permits the resolution of all aerodynamic effects corresponding to greater
than 8.5% of model length.
After facility commissioning, aerodynamic measurements on two vehicle like
force
direct
These
and
consisted of surface static pressure,
geometrieswere conducted.
data
The
traverse
were
measurements.
moment and wake
surface static pressure
in
been
dynamically
had
a similar
a
scanivalve
that
corrected
using
system
acquired
by
five
hole
Force
the
to
meansof a new
probe.
was
manner
and moment measurement
65
blockage of this model in the axial jet is 6%. If the model had occupied the height of
the tunnel the blockage ratio would have been 23%, which is unacceptableeven for an
jet
Secondly,
his belt and spool assemblyproduced crosswind gusts with
tunnel.
open
a height of 0.35m, which neededto be greaterthan the model height.
Each side of the model was instrumented with 37 pressuretappings at mid height, the
location of thesetapping being shown in figure 4.2. As can be seenfrom figure 4.2, the
tappings are concentrated around the comer radii, where movement of lines of flow
separationand reattachmentis expected. The pressuretappings were constructed from
I. Omminternal diameter stainlesssteel hypodermic tubing.
66
likely
basic
The
Apillar
to
pronounced
and
particularly
vortices.
produce strong
had
the critical backlight angle of 30', [2,21], however as a bistable flow
geometry
condition was undesirable, a backlight angle of 25', which should promote attached
flow, was usedthroughout theseinvestigations.
67
68
5090. Although this velocity is higher than the freestream velocity in the
working section (I 1.3ms1),it was the lowest achievablewith this calibration facility. A
Reynolds number sensitivity investigation was not undertaken,but pyramid type probes
have previously been shown to be relatively insensitive to Reynolds number [951. The
probe calibration maps and coefficient definitions are seenin Appendix A. To minimise
errors, the probe was calibrated using the samepressuretransducersand data acquisition
system used for the experimental investigations. To reduce the peak yaw angles
by
experienced the probe in the working section it was mounted at an angle of 12' to the
axial direction; thus it would be expected to be nominally subjected to flow with a
relative yaw angle of 12*. The probe was positioned in the working section using a4
axis (3 linear and I angular) traverse system controlled by the data acquisition desktop
PC. The unsteadypressurecorrection technique of SimsWilliams [92,93] (section 4.5)
was applied to all transient five hole probe data.
4.3.2 The Pressure Transducers
Five fast response (rise time
200ts) SensorTechnics 103LPIODPCB lOOOPa
=
pressuretransducerswith onboard power supply stabilisation, signal amplification and
individual
for
[96]
the
temperature
compensation
of
measurement
precision
were used
five hole probe pressures. The transducerswere operated in differential mode, with a
common 12V power supply. The transducerswere regularly, simultaneously calibrated
in
individual
stored
oil
a
a
silicon
micromanometer
slopes
the
calibration
against
with
69
70
71
Force
is
measurement achieved through deflection, and hence any balancepossesseselasticity.
This when combined with the finite mass of a balance produces system that is
72
73
74
transient load cell output voltage time histories prior to application of the force balance
(applying
the force balance calibration and then filtering produces
matrix
calibration
identical results).
Figure 4.13 shows typical transient side force and yawing moment data for the Docton
has
The
but
force
to a much
the
ringing
clearly
affected
side
coefficient,
geometry.
lesser extent the yawing moment coefficient. Comparison of the respective side force
force
densities
(figure
4.10)
illustrates
the
that
side
moment
autospectral
and yawing
frequency.
high
information
ISHz,
the
off
amount of
cut
around
contains a relatively
Thus, the ringing appearsto be mainly associatedwith the filter geometry around this
frequency.
The effect of the low pass filter on transient data is seen in figure 4.14. Here the
data
is
the
after
working
same
empty
section
with
yaw
compared
angle
unfiltered
filtering. The main effect of filtering is to increasethe rise time of the yaw angle as the
high frequency components are removed, with truncation of both the under and
There
is
little
inspection
filter
the
of
yaw
spikes.
evidence
again
of
ringing,
overshoot
information
density
(figure
4.11)
of
amount
small
shows a relatively
angle autospectral
18Hz.
around
75
For
in
five
hole
the
considering
when
a
occur
probe systematic errors will
example,
measurementsdue to thermal shift of both zero values and sensitivity of the pressure
transducers,with random errors occurring due to aerodynamiceffects around the probe
head that have not been calibrated for.
4.8.1 Logger Card
Probably the smallest contribution to error, but one that is common to all data
is
acquisition, the quantization error of the logger card. The maximum quantization
for
(least
LSB
is
103V
bit)
1.22
1/2
[105],
the
to
significant
this
x
error
corresponds
76
500C of 0.5% of full scale for both offset and sensitivity. This
correspondsto an absolute value of 5Pa over 50'C, however in the vicinity of the wind
tunnel temperature variations of more than IOOCare rarely experienced, reducing the
error accordingly.
Errors in offset voltages through long term creep were virtually eliminated through the
77
turbulence is most likely to affect probes that are sensitive to Reynolds number, as
turbulence mainly affects the size and position of separated regions.
Thus the
A potential
improvement on this would be to calibrate the probe a number of times, but vary the
i.
calibration,
e. changethe order of pitch and yaw angle incidences,and average
of
order
thesecalibrations.
The transient nature of the flow would normally accentuateany hysterisis effects. The
interest
is
of
reduced frequency, as defined in equation 4.1. Here fredis the
parameter
f
is
frequency,
a characteristic frequency, da characteristicdimension and u the
reduced
freestreamvelocity.
fred 
2nfd
(4.1)
u
A flow with a reduced frequency of order 1 or greater can be expected to exhibit
however
if the reduced frequency is well below 1 the flow can be
transient effects,
flow
[107].
for
A
frequency
the
typical
quasisteady
around the
considered
reduced
be
from
for
flow
the
time
calculated
using
the
to
can
nominally axial to
probe
change
for
(6.
Omm)
form
diameter
frequency
the
to
(1/0.028s),
characteristic
the
probe
yawed
78
79
1mm
Yawed
air flow
Mal
.....
flow
air
11
13
Is
17
Is
19
20
21
22
Z3
2S
27
Figure 4.2 Location of PressureTappings on the Docton Geometry (from Docton [6 1])
s)S
0.192
s/S
0.808
I.
s)S = 0.063
s/S
sr> =0.127
...
...................
0.937
s/S = 0.873

80
JQ4
12
deq
split
12
10
721
14
q5
'5
.
deq
deq
deq
in mm
AllDimensions
Row 3xxxxxxxxxx
x0x:
x
xxxxxx
Row Ixxxxxxxxxx
XX
xxxx
Centreline
01xxxxxx
Xxxxxx
.XX
=xxxx
xxxxX. xx xx
xxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xx x x
xxxx
xx x
: x
x
xxxx x x x X"xx
xxxx x x x xxxx
x
xXxxx x x xxx
x
.
x
x
x
81
Probe tip
Probe body
0.3m
2
415
Front view
a) Amplitude
b) Phase
12
400
a5o
L. 0
300
0a
25 0
200
0.0
L50
too.
04
50
0.2
0
50
100
150
200
250
SOD.
$50
400
Hz
00
so too
150
200
250
Boo.
400
HI
82
Link betwet
upperandlo
4:
(I
of
plate
Lower plate
Load cell
0"
(0
U,

72.0
10
.4
24
10 10
83
4,
U
2.
2
4
o
0 10
20
0.10
20.30
30
40
50
00
70.80
90
100
Hz
2
40
50.00.70
80.00
100
Hz
Figure 4.10 Docton Geometry Transient a) Side Force and b) Yawing Moment
Coefficient Autospectral Densities
84
LO
9.
8.
7
a
5
4
I
0
10.20
30
40
50
00.70.80.90
100
Hz
Ia
14
00
0a
04
02
00
10
k5
r
20
23
30
35
40
Hz
85
a) Side Force
b) Yawing Moment
Docton GoometryYawing
Moment Coefficient
3,5
30
25
20
15
410
0,5
00
05
10
.1.1
111
0 01
U,2
IEEE
.1111r
03
04
0.5
time /s
06
07
oz
09
Figure 4.13 Typical Side Force and Yawing Moment Force Balance Data
40
30
20
.2
lo
0
n
unfiftered
10
fiftered
20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
time Is
07
0.8
0.9
Figure 4.14 Effect of Low Pass Filtering on the Empty Working Section Yaw Angle
86
Chapter Five
Experimental and Computational Investigations
in working
nondimensionalisation,
section
of a crosswind
leads to significant
gust.
All
nondimensional
coefficients,
changes in
as defined in equations
(5.15.7),
are
87
CP, =
Po  Psref
Pdynref
Static pressurecoefficient:
P.,  P, f
CP, =",
(5.2)
Pdynref
Velocity coefficient:
vi
Cvj
(5.3)
ref
where vi representsa velocity in one of the three orthogonal directions x, y or z and uef
is the referencefreestrearnaxial velocity, as defined in (5.5).
Referencefreestrearnvelocity:
P:dy:..
Zf
ref
(5.5)
(5.6)
Pdy.
,,,
xA
88
Cm =m
xAx1
Pdynref,
tan'
N) v
(5.8)
uref
x0
dy
_IV
0dz
(5.9)
89
90
ii,
(5.10)
91
92
5
and
yfi:!
0.27:
z/1 :! 0.46. The contribution made to drag and side force from the groundboard
boundary layer was kept to a minimum by not surveying below z= 20mm.(z/1= 0.04).
The wake integration method allows the drag and side forces to be split in viscous and
vortex terms. The viscous term representsenergy loss through fluid entrainment into
the boundary layer and wake of the body, while the vortex term representsthe energy
required to maintain secondary flow. In addition, the numerical evaluation of drag or
side force from discrete data points in the wake allows comparison of the relative
contributions from these discrete points  so called 'microdrag' and 'microside'. The
wake integration method, including viscous and vortex terms and microdrag and
microside is fully discussedin Appendix B.
93
limitations, in that difficulty was encountered in obtaining a solution for a twodimensional computation of the flow around a radiused body (the Docton geometry),
and hence was abandoned. Simulations were subsequently undertaken using the
data
light
StarCD
in
(version
3.10)
of experimental
code
and the
commercially available
flow
focused
from
the
the
on
these
empty working section
computations were
obtained
in the empty working section.
The advantages of conducting a computationally based investigation were twofold.
Firstly, it allowed the wind tunnel configuration, including the boundary conditions, to
be easily manipulated, and secondly it permitted more detailed quantitative analysis of
the flowfield parameters. The CFD subsequentlyprovided significant insight that could
limited
been
investigation
to the empty
have
The
achieved
was
experimentally.
not
working section, with a twodimensional assumption made that significantly reduced
hardwaredemandsand calculation times.
As the computation was not required to provide a solution for regions of separatedor
bluff
flow
for
flow,
have
around
which
causedsignificant solution problems
stagnating
bodies, for example see [108,109,110],
turbulence model, differencing schemeand solution method would have little effect on
the results, and it is for this reasonthat they are not discussedin detail.
94
through the time regions, discrete wall boundaries were replaced by inlet boundaries,
with the required inlet conditions, in a processanalogousto the opening of the shutters
in the experimental facility. The change from wall to inlet condition for each inlet was
instantaneous,such that it representeda shutter opening in an infinitesimal time. Each
inlet region remained as an inlet for a predeterminedtime, equal to the shutter open time
in the experimental facility, before reverting back a wall condition. The inlet conditions
were prescribed as fixed velocity components, equal to those from the experimental
facility.
The axial jet inlet boundary, which was not time dependent,was also set as a fixed
velocity inlet.
Boundaries BC, CD and DE (figure 5.3) were fixed pressure
boundaries, and hence were located sufficiently far from the working section that this
EF
have
Boundary
little
interest.
in
flow
would
condition
the region of
affect on the
95
turbulence model was used with a selffiltered central differencing scheme. Selffiltered
central differencing is a blended upwind and central differencing scheme with the
blending factor determined by the local gradients, such that in areasof steep gradients
the blending factor has a strong bias towards the central differencing scheme [111].
Wall functions were used for solid boundary conditions.
Prior to a transient solution being undertaken a steady solution was calculated for the
axial flow condition. From this starting condition a full transient solution took around
2hrs to converge.
The main areaof investigation for the CFD study was the effect of the rough honeycomb
flow straightenerand associatedthick boundary layer along the crosswind inlet. Two
conditions were examined. The first modelled the wall as a smooth surface with a noslip condition imposed. The second modelled the wall as a rough surface, which
consequently produced a much thicker boundary layer. Selection of wall roughness
parameterswas by comparison of the region of total pressureloss along the wall from
the steady axial flow computation to that observed under comparable conditions in the
facility.
experimental
96
14
12
1.0
08
06
04
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
5 Hole Probe
0.5
time /s
0.6
Data ne ns
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
10
1.4
12
10
0.8
00.6
OA
0.2
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
time /s
20
1.4 F
1.2
i. c
8
Qo
U 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
time /s
5 Hole Probe
Data nens = 50
2
006
,8
0.4
02
00
0
O'l
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
time /s
97
0.0
0.5
l'O
CL1 5
L)
 20
25
3.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
time /s
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
time /s
Static Pressure Tapping Data nens
00
50
0 5i
0
1
CL 1,5
 2.0
2.5
3.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
time /s
FI,111.11C
'5.2 Effect ot'Ensemble Average on Static Pressure Tapping Data
98
C

ED
Figure 5.3 Schernatic of the Computation Doniam
99
Chapter Six
Results
100
101
ChapterSix  Results
102
103
figures
in
6.28  6.30. Note again that for reasonsof clarity different contour
presented
levels are used for each surface of the model. These three times correspondto an axial
flow condition (t = 0.10s), approximate crosswind onset (t = 0.30s) and approximate
post crosswind yaw angle overshoot (t = 0.34s). The latter two are only approximate,
as at any one time during transient flow development different parts of the model are
different
flow conditions. Side data for two subsequenttimes are shown in
to
subjected
figures 6.31 and 6.32. The first time (t = 0.47s) is when the transient side force equals
the steady yawed side force, with the second time (t = 0.52s) corresponding to the
maximum transient side force and yawing moment. Figures 6.33 and 6.34 show roof
surface static pressuresat times of t=0.45s, 0.55s, 0.74s and 0.76s. The first time (t =
0.45s) is when the transient upper surface lift equals the steadyyawed upper surface lift,
and the secondtime (t = 0.55s) the maximum upper surfacelift. The final two times (t =
0.74s and t=0.76s) correspondto anomalies in the upper surface lift occurring near the
end of the crosswind gust. Note should be made of the change in contour interval
between figures 6.33 and 6.34, which was made in an attempt to detect the source of
these relatively small anomalies. Animations of the Durham geometry surface static
pressure for the windward side (durwincp. avi), leeward side (durleecp.avi) and upper
surface (durroocp.avi) are available on the CDROM. Integrated pressure side force,
yawing moment and upper surface lift coefficients are shown in figures 6.35  6.37.
104
ChapterSix  Results
Figure 6.38 shows selectedtransient vorticity and total pressurecoefficient contours for
the x/I = 0.75 wakeplane, with similar contours for the x/I = 1.5 wakeplane shown in
figure 6.39. The time regions for these two sets are shifted by approximately the time
taken for freestrearn flow to propagate between the two planes (0.035s). Subsequent
for
the
total
t=0.57s
times
t=0.52s
and
pressure
and
vorticity
coefficient contours at
x/I = 1.5 wakeplane are shown in figure 6.40. Animations of vorticity (durwkvor. avi)
and total pressurecoefficient (durwkcpo.avi) for the x/I = 1.5 wakeplane are available
on the CDROM.
The six components of force and moment, as measured by the twocomponent force
balance in its different orientations, are shown in figure 6.41, with comparisonsmade
with the corresponding steady forces and moments. Autospectral density functions of
theseforces and moments are seenin Appendix C.
6.3.3 Wake Integration
The drag and side force coefficients, as obtained from the wake integration, are shown
in table 6.1.
Steady Axial Flow
SteadyYawed Flow
CX
0.40
0.98
Viscous Cx
0.36
0.82
Vortex Cx
0.04
0.16
Cy
0.02
0.85
Viscous Cy
0.02
0.78
Vortex Cy
0.0
0.07
105
ChapterSix  Results
Figure 6.42 shows the total pressure coefficient, microdrag and viscous and vortex
contributions to microdrag, as obtained from the axial flow survey. The total pressure
coefficient contours show the extent of the survey plane, with the integration carried out
6.43
Figure
in
5.2.4).
(section
the
the
reduced area shown
over
microdrag contours
shows the yawed wake traverse total pressurecoefficient contours and microdrag and
microside contours. Again the extent of the traverse is indicated in the total pressure
coefficient contours, with the integration performed over the area shown in the
microdrag and microside contours.
106
0.00S
70C
e0a
500
4CIO
3W
21M
0. los
:v),
1000
15M
211
30CO
W /"
0.12s
&vim
vuo :
7UD
500
0.14s
6,
400
300
2w
LOO
30co
0.16s
WX
em
0.18s
,I
ouu
5m
40C
t
700
am
5m
IMP
400
300
3W
200
0.20s
? 50C
3WO
2500
3000
0.22s
UA
800
7UO
boo
5011
411
300
200
400
3010
200
too
OD
L0
Aou
3UQQ
! 000
X
0.24s
0.26s
700
900
000 
no
100
EKID
5c, o
400
300
200
icla
"

700
o
IK
wua h
z 0ou
2m
300U,
1500
2500
0.28s
0.30s
VOL)
goo
7UU
am
5w
400
300
200
7uu
600
5m
400
3w
2w
ton
loo
0
'QU
107
0.32s
goo
aou
Cx
3w
7
600
500
400
300
'110
. 100
,
0.36s
0.38s
Quo
eou
:
Ouu
7
5UO
, on
300
200
100
0
3W
20C
loo
 0
0.42s
0.46s
QUC
dou
700
9007M
ow 
0010
500
15uo
5(, o
400
3w
2w
100
(I
300
2w
I 00
IWO
owl

3000
500
1000
Iwo
00
3CK)()
? 5()C
3wi
0.54s
0.62s
ago
700
am
5m
7UO
800
5.
400
300
2W
too
4w
3w
2w
100
Xw
15on
0.70s
qu,
auo
'M1000
0.78s
ago
700
6ou
500
300
200
too
300
?w
100
0.86s
0.94s
730
600
too
'm
3w
2W
W
0
5X
IWO
500
YXIU
108
45
40.00
35
30.00
25 0
20 0
150
10.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
109
0.10S
0.00S
goo
800
700
5ou
j
4
3W
2110
100
0
7UO
BUD
500
.w
3w
"W
oc
.u
X.
5"
2000
2500
3001)
0.14s
0.12s
eau
7(KI
am
0.18s
0.16s
QUC
7UO
7COO
'
"lip
4W
cA
n
5CV
LCOO
1500
ML
Do
0
2500
2000
5UU
41111
300
20C
3'
"
500
0.22s
0.20s
gou
000
700
700
800
500
ADC
300
200
kac,
sm
200
Q<
.0
2030
X /..
400
300
Lt, 00
LOGO
Ir
lao
c
500
L500
OC)O
x
2000
2500
3000
/..
0.26s
0,24s
9
7UC
ow
500
15.0
.
3w
Mo
7CK)
500
500
400
300
2
too
2500
3000
0.28s
0.30s
Oc
Lxk
7M
coo
5m
400
300
2010
IN
Velocity
CrossStream
Transient
Section
2)
Empty
Working
Figure 6.2 (page I of
Coefficients
110
0.32s
7M
am
wo
400
xw
4r)r
200
IOU
o
I

10
0.38s
0.36s
700
eau
5w
400
3m
I,
e"o
L
'r
o0n
loo
0
700
BW
500
3W
200
100
0
C)
0 250
0,175
0 100
0 025
0
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
050
125
200
275
350
425
500
575
650
725
800
III
0.00S
0.10S
900
700
600
7 "'T ",.,
II.
.
1 
700
600
500.
500
400
300
200
100
01.
400
We
2CO
LOO
01
....................
II
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
......
........

3000
50C
1000
200C
1500

2500
3000
2500
3000.
0.12s
F...
0.14s
S".
900
NO
700
500
F...

8 0.
700
.........
Si ....

............
500
500
400
300
400
300
200
Lao
aII
..........
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
00
0
3000
500
1000
2000
1500
0.16s
0.18s
7
goo
a0jI......
700
000
500
400
300
no
100
......
Fl
Stream
900
Sea,
.......

700
600
500
4"0
300
200,
......

500
1000
1500
2000
2500
300C
500
1000
F...
0.22s
Sir...
.................
wo
,,,,
goo
Sao
III.
I.......
200
LOC
0
5co
IDOO

1500
2000
......
00
j
4
4CO
300
200
....

700,
all
65
.......
40 0
30 0
3000
0.20s
700
Goo
2500
2000
1500
LOO
0,
2500
3000
500
1000
2000
L500
2500
3000
0.24s
Free
800
700
000
500
400
3W
20(,
100
0
st,
0.26s

F...
51,,
goOIisea
700

600
..........
........

400
300
200
100
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
500
1000
200C
1500
2500
3000.
0.28s
F,..
700
em
St,.
0.30s

7F,.
e 51....
goo
700
JI//
500 iI/I
400
300
200
11.111.
.........
.........
LOO
0
5m
1000
X
1500
2000
2500
3000
.......
4.
300
100
0
0
500,
500
7
C,
50C
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Figure 6.3 (page I of 2) Empty Working Section Transient Modified Velocity Vectors
112
0.32s
70C
700
Soo
600
50"
400
400
300
200
30 "
20
0.
0
100
0
0
1000
1500
2500
2000
WOO
530
0.36s
0.38s
St....
7
tlj)
,
L500
200C
2500
3000
2500
3000
X /Mm
700
wo
1000
F
Str..
gon
llllljlllil
II
coo.
500
400
30
200
loo
400
30,
u
too
0
7
r0
500
1000
. I..
1500
2000
25W
3000
500
1000
1100
zooo
X /
Figure 6.3 (page 2 of 2) Empty Working Section Transient Modified Velocity Vectors
113
0. los
eucl
700
coo
50C
400
3
'00
icic
iCO
1000
1loc
Imo
0.12s
Quc
500
1000
1500
2000
21()U
30co
0.14s



?UO
800
700
allo
500
am
5UG
400
300
200
100
0
400
300
200
too
0,16s
9m
0.18s
900
7M
am
Zm
700
e0o
500
400
300
1
5w
500
400
300
200
too
0
100
10CO
0.20s
0.22s
0.24s
0.26s
UU(I
700
am
5m

400
300
7
too
AICK,
3000
0.28s
0.30s
000
7uo
auo
5UU
00
300
200
Im
0TI.
c
5w
1000
1500
? OCIC
? 100
30M
X
114
0.34s
uuu
8uo
700
000
500
7uc
5(KI
400
3w
400
300
200
'00
too
0.36s
0.38s
QUG
kloo
700
700
coo
500
400
300
2010
too
5UO
300
200
5(Yi
0.42s
10
nu
3000
t=0.46s
goo
goo
700
700
Boo
500
400
300
200
300
200
too
too
0
1000
0.54s
6KX
8010
700
am
.3m
400
am
200
too
1500
0.62
0.
0.70s
0.78s
vou
our
bm
400
3w,
20C
Lac
0.86s
9u. u
7uc
coo
500
400
300
2W
I CIC
0
0.94s
Quo
Im
500
Aloo
1500
Cu
3uou
Figure 6.4 (page 2 of 3) Empty Working Section Transient Total Pressure Coefficient
Contours
115
1.70
1.60
1 50
1 40
1 30
1.20
1.1.0
1,00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
116
0.00S
11
700
am
5111
IV
eau
700
ow

71.
11
5
4'0(']
300
00
4&
400
300
200
too
0,
loc
: r
X
I
loon
C
IWD
ow
15C,
'I'D,
X /..
/..
t=0.14s
0.12s
900
em
700
000
QOO
800
zo
0,0
50C
bou
400
300
400
300
too
0.16s
ow
7M
am
500
400
3w
200
t=0.18s
ki
700
600
500
400
300
2aC
',
.
, 
.
too
Lac
zWc)
i
0.22s
0.20s
71C
, U,
500
400
300
200
too
a0M.
'30
400
300
20C
toe
45

12  ,
ioa
3000

.
2031,3wo
lCOU
N
0.24s
90C
70C
0.26s
QUO
7
QUO
7%
5OU
500
400
'00
30C
mob
nn
00
LOG
Joc
1G
0.28s
e0oc
100
3000
5UG
1000
Cki
1500
t=0.30s
Quo
goo
700
00
Y.
\74
5010
4(Kl
30o
zoo
LOO
10,416,
30co
OL
Aw
'Ic
10
Lcoo
15U
3000
117
0.34s
0.36s
7DO
ow
5M
.0 4
V
400
200
loci
3
X00
3uDa
1
40
1.35
1 30
1 25
1 20
15
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
118
0.10S
0.12s
0.14s
I.
Qoc
am
gou
WO.
7(X)
am
5m
400
300
700
601)
5w
400
300
zoo
too
5m
1000
100
Im
3000
uc
x
500
10
Woo
mo,
3900
0.18s
0.16s
Duo
400
300
20D
loc
500
1000
15M
Mo
0.20s
0.22s
goo
8(, o
700
eoD
4b.

5m
400
300
200
7UC
(M
5"0
400
300
200
icon
0
e5m
,MCI
0.24s
0.26s
900
UU10
700
MOO
500
600
300
300
200
too
0

'.
lLl
moo
? 500
3WO
0.28s
0.30s
,
w(x
BUD
700
coo
M
00
duo
buo
40C
400
30C
700
loo
aa
0
30co
Cl.
500
no
1500
moo
2500
3m, u
119
0.32s
goo 1L
uuu
700
am
50"
400
300
40
0T
0
L5cc
Iclo
x
/
0.38s
0.36s
700
coo
5W
400
3013
200
00
0
700
Sao
500
40C
30C
2w
ion
IWO
wo
2000
2500
3000
2000
3000
noo
K /
0 900
0.800
0,700
0 600
0 500
0 400
0.300
0,200
0.100
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
120
Total Pressure
200
190
180
170
160
150
CL 140
11i
30
20
10
100
I.,
i,
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
"

0.9
time /s
Shutter I opens
200, y
800
1.6
1.4
1.2
CL 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
section
0.4
O.S
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
time /s
7
Total Pressure x= 700, y
1.6
800
F.11111
71
7
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
7A
0.2
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
lime/s
121
Yaw Angle
40
L
30
0
1.4
1.2
20
10
0.8
0
1020 0
0.6
0.4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.9
time /S
Steadyvalues:
axial flow = 0.952'
0
flow
23.1
yawed
=
Crossstream
Velocity
Coefficient
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
:0.2
3:
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
'0.7
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
time /s
Steady values:
axial flow = 1.005
yawed flow = 1.251
Static Pressure
Coefficient
0.4
0.2
0.0
. 0.2
4111
0.4
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.3
11 11!
0.7
0.8
0.9
122
Axial
Flow
Yawed Flow
1.0
05
0,0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
win
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 0.6
l'
ar
2.0
2.5
3.0
leew ard
0
0.00.5
0.7
0.8
0.9
.......
w in ard
leeward
S/S
07
0.8 0.9
1.5 1.0
0.50.0
CC0.5 u 1.0
C: 0.5
0 1.0
1.5
2.0
2.53.00
rl
1
0.1
0.2
::
........
....
w indw ard
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
windward
leew ard
......
iii
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0.3
0.10S
0.9
0
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.3
S/S
0'5
0.0
0.5.
.......
0
CC0.5
0 1.0
1.52.02.53.0
leeward
1f
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
sis
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.00.5 1.01.5
2.0
0.8
0.9
0.28
indward
0.1
0.34
0.3
0.4
0.5 0.6
==E
0.7 0.8 0.9
t=0.38S
77:
0.2
leeward
S/S
10
0 570.0
0.5
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
2.5
3.0
0.4
0.5 0.6
S/S
0.7
w indw ard
1.52.0 
dw
2.5
3.0
0
0.7
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
in ard
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.5 0.6
S/S
t=0.20s
1.5
1.0
leeward
0.8
0.9
leeward
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
S/S
123
0.45s
1.5
1.5
1.
0.5
0.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
L) 1.0
1.5
2 .0
2.5
3.0
0.5
1.01.5
0.50S
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 0.6
0.7
0.8
VI
windward
eew
ard
...
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.9
S/S
t=0.60s
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
CC0.5
0 1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
CC0.5
L) 1.0
1.5
.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
windward
leew ard
.......
0.4
i
0.5 0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
windward
2.0
2.53.0
S/S
1.5
leeward
1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 07 0.8 0.9
S/S
0.80s
0.5
0.0
c:
w indw ard
0.1
0.2
0.3
1.0
_0.5
1.5 2.0
0.5 0.6
S/S
0.7
0.8
0.9
_. _
windward
d
leeward
_::
_=:
2.5
3.0
0.4
t=0.90S
1.5 1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2 ,0
2 *5
3.0
0.70s
1.0
0.5
0.0
=.4_
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
S/S
124
0.5
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
time /s
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.5
time /s
0.7
0.8
0.9
125
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
time /s
0.7
0.8
0.9
126
Docton
Geometry
Yawing
Moment
Coefficient
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
E
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
time /s
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
127
1
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
time /s
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
128
0.10S
0.00S
04
02
0
;TQ71
M
0005
Ic
_o I
0o
15025
0.20s
In2025
0.28s
02
fl n
0
0010
13
a
T
2025
0.34s
oe
'
152023
0.38s
10
po
0?
0I
00
L0
112025
0a
10152023
129
0.50s
0a
0.45s
02
0 13 10 2
s
0
0 11
0 8
10
00c
00
15202.3
0.60s
0510025
0.70s
08
04
02
0
0
0
0
a03101a
152025
000510
0.80s
o6
h
0.90S
oa
Ll 4
a2
0
0
Amble
I1025
7i
0 8 a0031Q1120
23
. /I
1. G2
I. cla
1.54
1.40
1.26
1 12
0.99
0.84
0.70
0.56
0.42
0.28
0.14
0. OD
130
1,20
2D
00
0.80
0.601
0 40
0 2C1
oOD
0.20
OAO
0. w
0. OD
20
0.00
0 40
0.20
0,00
0.20
0.40
0. Bo
0. BO
i. 00
1.20
1.40
1,00
1.80
2 00
2 20
C) 00
0 20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
2 00
2 20
2 40
2 60
2 80
Leeward
Side surfaces
Upper surface,
centreline
Figure 6.19 Durham Geometry Steady Axial Flow Surface Pressure Coefficients
131
Windshieldclosed
separationbubble
Windshield/roof closed
separation bubble
Apillar vortex
Front comer closed
separationbubble
Backlight closed
hubble
SePMM1011
Cpillar vortex
132
c
5
zo
?a0
IJ 4
1w5
100
12 5
20
02
zz
lz
15
19
2'2
01
c
5
0
"
GA
a)
13
zo
;9c
12 5
9
3 0
8 5
02
0 a
0.4
0.2
0
D. 2C4
Ull
b)
04
1 40
1 25
1 t2
U. 08
084
0.70
f)
0 "'A
41
0 2S
0 14
C, I,
02
:zU.
I
0. C1
0.6
Figure 6.22 Durham Geometry SteadyAxial Flow a) Vorticity and b) Total Pressure
Coefficient Contours x1l = 1.50 Wakeplane
133
, f)0
1 40
, 20
1,00
0 80
0 60
0 40
0 20
0,00
0 20
0 40
0 50
0 80
N>
20
0.00
0.40
0 20
0,00
020
0,40
0 60
0,80
1 00
1 20
L 40
1 60
t 80
2 00
2 20
0
00
20
0
0,40
0,60
0 so
1,00
1 20
1 40
00
9D
2.00
2 20
2 40
2 W
2 80
Leeward
15
10
05
00
2 0 5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
3 0
Side surfaces
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1 25
1.50
Upper surface,
centreline
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
x/I
Figure 6.23 Durham Geometry Steady Yawed Flow Surface Pressure Coefficients
134
Windshield/roof closed
bubble
separation
pp,
pp, p,
SO.
Windward side
roof vortex
135
20 5
23 0
1ii 5
150
12 5
a0
55
z0
5
Ii
O2
55
:Z0.1
0.8
0
0A
0.2
0
0.2
GA
JtI
d! 0
0.2
10
32
:z0.1
0 80
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0
.5
CA
J/1
b)
C5
04
1.40
1 28
t 12
0 WEP
0.84
0 70
a 'A
0 4e
0 29
0 14
f) INj
0.
Figure 6.26 Durham Geometry SteadyYawed Flow a) Vorticity and b) Total Pressure
Coefficient Contours x/l = 1.50 Wakeplane
136
00
(1 4
0a
0.2
c0
0.6
0
0.4
0.2
0
O2
0.4
_C. 2
0
0.2
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
J/1
0.5
CA
a3
0.2
0.0
0.8
0
0.4
UJI
C,5
14'
02
:Z
G1
0
0.4
U/I
22'
'a 0
19 5
11.4 
12 5
90
55
20
1 5
30
8 5
0.2
A0
J! I
137
, D
1.40
1.20
1 00
0.80
0,60
0.40
0 20
0, OD
0.20
0 40
00
20
0 50
40
0
0.20
1)
0.00
0.20
0 40
0.60
0.80
 L, 00
L 20
L 40
1,00
L 80
2 00
2 20
I:
0 00
20
0
0,40
0.60
0 80
1
00
1 20
1 40
1.60
1 80
200
2 zo
2 40
2 60
2 80
Leeward
15
10
0,5
00
0 0 506
1
1 5
2 0
2.5
3 0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Side surfaces
Upper surface,
0.9
xll
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.25
S0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
centreline
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
x/I
0. los
138
, 00
40
1
1.20
1.00
so
60
0 40
0.20
0 00
020
0.40
0.50
0.8D
1
20
0 (30
0 40
0.20
0.00
020
0.40
0.60
0.80
t. 00
1.20
i 40
L 60
t. 80
2,00
2 20
0 00
0.20
0,40
0 60
ci, 80
1 00
1 2
1,40
1,60
1 a0
2 00
220
2 40
2 60
2 80
Leeward
15
10
05
00
10 0 51 0
Side surfaces
Upper surface,
2 0
2 5
3 0
Ol
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
x/I
0.7
0.8
09
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.25
a  050
 0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
centreline
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
xil
0.30s
139
40
oc)
1 20
1
0.80
0.60
0 40
0 20
OD
0 20
0 40
0
1
20
0
0 00
40
0
20
"0
3v
20
0 40
0.60
0.80
 L. 00
1.20
t. 40
1,60
t 80
22 00
20
j
;
0
ocl
20
0 40
0 60
0 SD
1 00
1 20
1,40
t. 60
1,80
2
2
2
2
2
Leeward
15
10
05
00
0 0 5
1 0
1.5
2,0
5
2
3.0
0,1
020.3
0.4
0,5
0
6
xil
0.7
0.8
00
20
40
00
80
Side surfaces
0.9
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.25
cL 0.50
 0.75
Upper surface,
1.00
1.25
centreline
1.50
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
04nsnAn7nRnQ
X/l
0.34s
140
Windward
, 00
40
,
1,20
1,00
0,90
o60
o40
O20
0.00
0 20
0.40
0 D
1
Leeward
i2ii
4
20
0 00
0 20
0.40
060
0 80
1 M
1,20
1 40
i OD
1 80
2, OD
2 20
2 40
2 OD
2 90
Side surfaces
141
Windward
D
40
20
1.00
0.80
0 60
0 40
0 20
OD
0 zo
0 40
00
QA
20
0 00
0 20
0.40
0 60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1,40
1 60
1.80
2 00
2 20
2 40
2 150
2 80
Leeward
Sidesurfaces
142
0.45s
0,00
40
0 20
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
L
1
1
1
2
2
00
20
40
60
80
00
20
40
00
80
00
20
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
Upper surface,
0.75
(5)
11(2)
centreline
1.50
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
xii
0.55s
0
60
0,40
0 20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0 60
0.80
1,00
1 20
1 40
1 00
1 80
2 00
2 20
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
oo,
0.75
1,00
25
1
1.50
Upper surface,
centreline
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
xll
143
0.74s
o30
0.15
0.00
0.15
0.30
0.45
0,60
035
oGO
_L. 05
1.20
1.35
t. 50
L e5
t. so
0.50
0.25
TIfT
0.00
0.25
CL 0.50
Upper surface,
 075
1.00
centreline
1.25
1.50
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
x1l
0,76s
0.30
C). 15
0.00
0.15
0.30
0.45
0 60
(1.75
_C). 90
1.05
1.20
_L, 35
1.50
0.50
0.25
1'
0.00
0 25
.
0.50
0.75
Upper surface,
1.00
1.25
1.50
centreline
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
xil
144
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.10
0 0.1
145
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 i
0
146
b)
a) t=0.30s
Li
nn
Y! l
ll 
0.31s
Ll
," 'o
0 002
a o02.
I2
02
0.32s
03
w6l",
LL,
oz
0.33s
rLA
,
0.34s
0 0
04
0.35s
ano 8
147
b)
a) t=0,33s
04
lkll
0.34s
G4
0.35s
0.36s
fti
0.37s
Yj
0.38s
04
Figure 6.39 Durham Geometry a) Vorticity and b) Total Pressure Coefficient Contours
x/I = 1.5
148
0.5
0.52s
2B
11.4
60
12 5
a0
55
20
1 5
G3
0.2
:Z
12 0
, 55
19
G. 1
(]
86
0.4
(3,2
0
0.2
0.4
JA
0.52s
82
I1go
1 MB
1 54
1 40
1 26
1 12
0 ge
cl 84
0 70
cl 56
0 4Z
0 28
O 14
() on
0.2
CA
0.5
a) t=0.57s
20 5
23 0
19 5
is 0
12 5
9 ()
55
20
1 5
n 0
8 5
120
15 5
19 0
22 5
u. .4
03
G2
zz
C).1
0.8
b) t
0.57s
0
0.4
0.2
0
O2
0.4
05
QA
1
1
I
0
0
,I0
C2
54
40
26
t2
98
84
70
0 4Z
0 28
0 14
Cc
0
0
0A
0.2
0
0.2
CA
g/I
149
D., t
G. ky
Sid. F. 
C.. ffiat
2
225
2W
040
1 75
o
o
076
o lo
ow
025
ow
025
olo
os.
os
.,
os
ID2
o3
05
06
07
fl. . 1.
Steady values:
axial flow = 0.00
yawed flow = 0.40
Steady values:
axial flow = 0.02
yawed flow =1.78
Durham Geometry Drag Coefficient
GOO
070
ow
0.
Ow
o2o
000oo1
o2
04
07
time Ja
Steadyvalues:
axial flow = 0.41
0.56
flow
yawed
=
Steady values:
axial flow = 0.21
yawed flow = 0.28
10
OW
00W70 
.1
02
07
Steady values:
flow
axial
= 022
yawed flow = 028
08
09
Steadyvalues:
103
axial flow = 1.36 x
102
X
yawed flow = 641
150
ChapterSix  Results
O5
0,
0A
0
o
0,3
02
0.1
zl
0.0
T
0 e
0. ()
0
0
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.8
0.9
J/I
Total Microdrag
700
U b5a
0 0 0C'
0.5 5 O
0 5W
0 450
0 40D
0
03
Nondimensional
f orm ofl ocali sed
300
0
350
a
011W dra
0 200
g
150
01
00
0
0 Ow
02
OA
Q 000
.
0
0
f)
0
0
C. 0
G. 2
0.4
0. El
0.8
Viscous Microdrag
05
7""
Ub5o
04
0.3
0,2
0u
_C) 9
0
f3
0
0
O
0.2
0.4
0. E)
JS
V
t
iscous
componen
550
0.
COO
0
100
0
0 450
0 400
localised
dra
g
of
0,350
0.300
a 250
(nondimensional
200
0
150
0
0 too
0
forni)
050
0coo
g11
Vortex Microdrag
n5
140
04
0130
Vortex component of
localised
drag
1.
representing
0:
0
ago
0
090
kinetic
Ou
the
the
energy
of
0
000
040
0
050
uC
0 30 secondaryflow (non
03
02
0 cl
0.000C,
C) 9
0
0.2
GA
0.6
08m
ciimensionaitorm)
/'
i
Figure 6.42 Durham Geometry
Axial Flow Wake integral Results
(see Appendix B for
wake integration and microdrag definitions)
151
I,

O3
0.2
1 030
0.900
0 825
0.750
0 b7b
0 600
O525
O 450
075
0 300
ZZ5
0,
0 000
0.8
0.0
0
0
G. 0C2
(1.4
0.8
0. E)
Y/1
Total Microdrag
05
1c30
0.4
025
0 730
0 71b
0
525
0 450
0 3715
0 300
0 225
0 150
0 075
0 000
0
0
03
0,2
01
N
0.0
_C) 9
() a
0
(3 2
c
(1 2
(3 4
Nondimensionalform
drag
localised
of
C).03e
J/2
Total Microside
400
0 juO
0 200
05
04
0
100
0
Goo
200
0
100
force
localised
0
of
side
400
0
300
no()
0
0
0 BOO
0.3
02
O'l
N
Nondimensionalform
uD
I,
0
0. a
0 700
0 . SOD
0 900
_____
0
0
c
1 000
0.2
c. 4
0. a
09
j'.
152
0.1498
U


Anr
I Ir
500
loco
Ocou
00
3000
1500
2000
2500
3wo
500
?CDC
Iwa
0.1898
0.2297
UIJI,I
OLK
7D
Np
5m
4r)r
3or
2w
too
c
2000
2500
  
3000
0.2697
ILoc

0.3096
Dix
'JUL
cx
70A
6"
501
till
3 nr
'Ir
[or
Coo
1500
3000
0,3496
? (X
6(X
501
40r
30r
20r
Vw
0.3896
0.4295
0.4695
guo
900
7(W
7tl
eu
5CM,
4or
3nr
2ar
4n,
Ic
25cx.
3001)
500
Woo
1500
250(l
3UOQ
45.0
40.0
35 0
30 (D
25 0
20 0
15.0
10 0
5.0
00
5.0
10.0
15.0
20 D
25 0
153
0.1498
70U
UNI
n
3000
5, XI
ICLIG
X /
0.1898
0.2297
UU0
,I
<z::>
5(l
66
lw
bul
41
3
i5()D
0.2697
20W
2boo
3000
bx
t 500
1000
2000
0.3096
lz i<

l5k)l
0.3496
0.3896
U()
70U
buc
boli
40C
30C
oc
00
k
C:
Im.
0.4295
0.4695
goo
800
400
300
2.10
1.05
1 so
1 65
1 50
1 25
1.20
1.05
0.90
0.75
0.60
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.00
154
ChapterSix  Results
30
20
locc
20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
CFD time /s
0.7
0.9
0.8
Figure 6.46 CFD Empty Working Secton Yaw Angle with Honeycomb Roughness
Modelled
Empty Working
Section
Yaw Angle
0.3
0.6
0.5
CFD time /s
632
2400, y
40
30
20
10
M0111
10
201
0
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 6.47 CFD Empty Working Secton Yaw Angle Honeycomb Roughness not
Modelled
155
Chapter Seven
Discussion
with the incoming crosswind flow affecting the yaw angle in the
The delay between shutter opening and the crosswind flow entering the working section
is from the finite time required for the fluid to move from the shutter exit plane into the
working section.
Prior to onset of the crosswind condition the yaw angle is nominally zero, although
highlighted
by the y=0.0'
perturbations,
which
are
small
The only significant deviation from zero yaw is seen along the y= Omm boundary. This
is due to unsteadiness in the free shear layer along this boundary.
The leading edge
rI
of the yawed flow region propagates down the working section as
11
intended,such that it remains almost perpendicularto the axial direction. This occurs in
a manner very similar to that depicted in figure 3.2. The close nature of the contour
lines defining the transition from axial to yawed flow (e.g. figure 6.1, t=0.30s,
x=
2350mm) indicate the rapid nature of the transition. By t=0.36s, the leading edge has
far
downstream
sufficiently
moved
such that the entire working section is subjected to
nominally steady yawed flow at constant yaw angle of 22'. This is significantly less
than the intended 300, the shortfall being a consequenceof manufacturing difficulties
156
is
This
0.94s).

The CFD
investigation of the empty working section provided significant insight into the
mechanism responsible for this. Figure 6.46 shows the empty working section yaw
angle at x= 2400mm, y= 632mm for the CFD calculation with the rough honeycomb
simulated. This shows a small yaw angle undershootimmediately upstream of the gust
front (t = 0.28s), followed by a rapid rise to the yawed flow regime, including a 10' yaw
157
ChapterSeven Discussion
angle overshoot at the leading edge of the gust (t = 0.32s). The yaw angle then remains
This
0.74s).
(t
flow
to
conditions =
almost constant until an equally rapid return axial
CFD
for
figure
be
6.47,
the
the
compared with
can
empty working section yaw angle
is
Here
inlet
inflow.
there
the
to
again
with
calculation
modelled as a smooth wall prior
but
0.28s),
(t
leading
the
the
gust =
a small yaw angle undershoot upstream of
edge of
is
it
Thus
during
flow
(0.28s
the
transition to yawed
<t<0.35s).
no overshoot
layer
boundary
is
that
the
the
along
the
thickness
concluded
overshoot connectedwith
of
the crosswind inlet, prior to crosswind conditions being established.
The CFD data is supplied for a slightly different model centre to the experimental data
as the locations of the maximum yaw angle overshoots are not coincident (CFD: x=
2400mm, y= 632mm cf. exp: x= 2400mm, y= 400mm). Comparison of the CFD and
experimental transient yaw angle plots indicate that the region of maximum yaw angle
6.44
figure
is
located
For
CFD.
inlet
for
the
the
example,
overshoot
nearer
crosswind
(CFD data), t=0.3096s, maximum yaw angle overshoot at x= 2350mm, y= SOOMMcf.
figure 6.1 (experimental data), t=0.30s,
2200mm, y= 500mm. Thus the CFD data is taken from a location nearer the crosswind inlet, as this is more representativeof the worst case.
The thick boundary layer that exists along the honeycomb of the experimental facility
for axial flow conditions can be seenin both the total pressureand streamwisevelocity
coefficient contours (figure 6.4 and 6.5, t=0.0s).
1500mm
due
length
for
is
honeycomb
it
to the
the
the
entire
x>
apparent
over
of
only
limitations of the traverse mechanism travel. When the first shutter opensthe incoming
high momentum crosswind fluid easily convects the low momentum boundary layer
fluid onto the leading edge of the crosswind gust. As subsequentshutters open further
down the working section the incoming crosswind fluid experiencesan increasingly
thick boundary layer. This increase in thickness has two affects. Firstly it acts as a
blockage, turning the incoming flow such that its crossstreamvelocity component is
158
ChapterSeven Discussion
increasedand axial velocity component decreased,and hencethe yaw angle is increased.
Secondly,as the boundary layer fluid is continuously convectedonto the leading edgeof
the crosswind gust, a large areaof high loss fluid forms.
The turning of the crosswind fluid is highlighted in the modified velocity vectors
(figure 6.3). The incoming flow at the leading edge of the crosswind gust adjacent to
the honeycomb flow straightener (y = 800mm) exhibits an increased crossstream
component,with the streamwisecomponent being significantly less than the freestream
velocity (e.g. t=0.20s,
x=
contours (figure 6.4) and strearnwisevelocity coefficient contours (figure 6.5) show the
areaof high loss (low total pressureand low momentum) adjacentto the honeycomb at
the leading edge of the crosswind gust (e.g. figure 6.4, t=0.28s, x= 2125mm, 400MM
<y<
800mm). The size of this area grows as the leading edge of the crosswind gust
moves downstream, as high loss, low momentum fluid from the boundary layer is
continuously added. It should be noted that although the strearnwisevelocity coefficient
is significantly lower than that of the freestream this area is convected downstream at
freestreamvelocity.
Elimination of the yaw angle overshoot in the CFD calculation using the smooth wall
boundary condition suggests that it may also be eliminated from the experimental
facility by further facility development. Importantly, a significant reduction in the
boundary layer thickness, as opposedto its elimination, is sufficient to produce a much
better gust profile.
The mechanism responsible for the yaw angle undershoot immediately upstream of the
crosswind gust (e.g. figure 6.1, t=0.30s, x= 2500mm, y= 350mm) is related to the
relative crossstream velocity between the fluid in the crosswind gust and the fluid
aheadof it. This relative motion forms a shear layer at the leading edge of the gust
which entrains fluid from the nominally axial flow aheadof the gust. Fluid flows back
across the working section (+ve y direction) to replace this entrained fluid, with this
159
ChapterSeven Discussion
forming a region of yawed flow that corresponds to a yaw angle undershoot. The
combination of fluid with a positive crossstreamvelocity aheadof the leading edge of
the crosswind gust, and fluid with a negative crossstreamvelocity immediately behind
the leading edgeof the gust leads to a flow regime typical of a vortex at the leading edge
of the gust. This vortical motion can be seen in the modified velocity vectors (e.g.
figure 6.3, t=0.28s, x= 2200mm, y= 450mm). Consideration of a real world transient
crosswind situation, as depicted in figure 1.2, suggests that this is not necessarily
into
building
Here
the
from
in
front
fluid
the
physically unrealistic.
of
entrainment of
shearlayer will occur, with this leading to crossflow in the opposite direction to that of
the crosswind fluid and hence the vehicle will experience a yaw angle undershootjust
prior to entry into the crosswind region. The vortex at the leading edge of the
simulated crosswind gust has an associatedviscous loss at its centre. This is not clear
in the total pressurecoefficient contours as the total pressure field is subject to other
more significant effects, however is seen in the static pressure coefficient contours
(figure 6.6). The loss is apparent from t=0.20s onwards (e.g. figure 6.6, t=0.20s, x=
1200nim, Y= 650mm), from where it moves downstream maintaining its position
relative to the front of the gust. From this mechanism, it follows that for the CFD
calculation with the honeycomb roughness modelled, where the magnitude of crossstream velocity immediately behind the leading edge of the crosswind gust and hence
entrainment of fluid from ahead of the crosswind gust is increased, will exhibit an
increased yaw angle undershoot. This can be seen from comparison of the empty
working section yaw angle from the two CFD calculations (figures 6.46 and 6.47, t
0.27s).
Prior to onset of the crosswind gust the total pressurecoefficient contours (figure 6.4)
remain at Cp,, ::: 1.0 for the core of the axial jet. The pressureloss correspondingto the
boundary layer along the honeycomb section (x > 1500mm, y= 800mm) and the shear
layer betweenthe leeward side of the axial jet and the stationary bulk air (x > 500mm, y
has
100mm)
from
fluid
tunnel
the
The
incoming
an
crosswind
are
also
apparent.
=0
160
x=
2125mm, y=
161
however this corresponds to high total pressure fluid that has been convected
downstream. At this position crosswind fluid enters the working section from t=
0.16s, with no transient total pressure overshoot apparent. Admittedly this incoming
fluid is affected by the region of low total pressure boundary layer fluid along the
honeycomb, thus making any overshoot difficult to observe, however some mixing
would be expected between the incoming fluid and the boundary layer fluid, thus
producing a region of fluid with a total pressurehigher than that seenin the remainder
of the boundary layer, which is not the case.
162
ChapterSeven Discussion
The third and most likely mechanism thought to be causing the transient high total
pressureis a transient effect associatedwith the initial formation of the crosswind gust.
Considerthe pressureforces acting on an small element of invicid, incompressiblefluid
within a strearntubein a horizontal plane. The element of fluid is shown in figure 7.1.
The resultant force, F, acting on the fluid:
F= pA  (p + 8p)(A + 5A) + (p + k5p)8A
(7.1)
(7.2)
Ap = pAs.
du
(7.3)
dt
du
dt
(7.4)
du
Taking the substantivederivative of
dt
du
1 dp
+u+j
ds
p ds
A,
(7.5)
=0
ds + Pf u
as
ds + Pf
a4
dt
ds = constant
(7.6)
163
(7.7)
Equation 7.7 is Bernoulli's equation with an extra time derivative term. This time
derivative term is zero for steady flow conditions, however may be nonzero for
transient flow conditions. This extra term can be physically interpreted as thus: if the
flow is slowing down in time (i. e. decelerating) along the strearntubethis term will
become a nonzero negative and hence the total pressureterm will rise above the steady
theoretical maximum.
It is quite conceivablethat as the crosswind gust formation processbegins the incoming
crosswind fluid that impinges on the main jet in the working section decelerates,thus
forming the areaof transient high total pressure. It is for this reasonthat this is thought
to be the correct mechanism.
This hypothesis was further augmented by the CFD analysis of the empty working
section. The CFD did not model either the crosswind tunnel fan system or the
honeycomb section, however as can be seen from transient total pressure coefficient
contours (figure 6.45, t=0.1498s  0.3496s) a very similar region of high total pressure
is formed at the leading edge of the crosswind gust. The size of the region of high total
pressure is larger than that seen for the experimental facility, however so is the shear
layer that correspondsto the transition region from axial to yawed flow at the leading
edge of the gust, suggestinggreater mixing at the gust leading edge for the CFD. As for
the experimental facility (figure 6.4) the total pressurein this region increasesas it is
convected downstream, with the final magnitude being slightly above that of the
experimental data.
The subsequentdevelopmentof the predicted transient flow (CFD) was tamished by the
imperfect boundary conditions. As can be seenfrom figure 6.45 (t = 0.2297s 0.4695s)
164
1.10
Cp.
1.00
fluid
lies
in
interval
this
<
<
the
proportion
of
significant
now
contour
(e.g. x= 1300mm, y= 300mm) and a further reduction occurs by t=0.32s
(e.g. x=
2000mm, y= 400mm). This reduction is not causedby low pressurefluid entering the
working section, but is a genuine reduction in total pressure of the fluid within the
working section. It would be easy to attribute this to viscous losses,but this should not
be the case as the majority of fluid is not in an area of high shear. There is a similar
reduction in total pressureahead of the trailing edge of the crosswind gust, again this
appearsto be a fall in total pressureof fluid within the working section as opposed to
low total pressurefluid entering the working section. It is thought that the loss of total
linked
leading
to the previous total
the
the
at
maybe
pressure
edge of
crosswind gust
pressureovershoot, but this is not the case at the trailing edge of the crosswind gust,
and additional work is required before the underling mechanismsare understood.
165
the
spatial variations
are
seen.
contours
range
=
flow
honeycomb
loss
the
the
total
through
are a consequenceof
uneven
pressure
straighteneralong it length (section 3.3.3).
The impinging of the axial and crosswind jets has two further consequencesfor the
flow in the working section. Firstly, as the crosswind fluid entersthe working section
it displacesthe main jet fluid. The region of high static pressurelocated in the top left
comer of the working section (figure 6.6, t=0.20s, x= 300mm, y= 700mm) provides
the necessaryforce for this streamline curvature. Secondly, a changein operating point
of the main jet fan occurs, such that main jet fluid now enters the working section at the
same(increased)total pressureas the crosswind fluid.
From these data the most appropriate location for the model in the working section was
far
is
The
is
fundamental
facility
the
for
that
model
most
this
chosen.
criteria
downstreamin the working section, such that the crosswind gust has sufficient time to
develop before reaching the model. Practical limitations are placed on this distance by
the length of the crosswind inlet (the limit of the yawed flow region) and the free shear
layer growth on the leeward side of the main jet under axial flow conditions. It was
clear that wherever the model was placed, it would be subjected to total pressure
anomalies, and therefore the emphasis was placed on the yaw angle characteristic.
Again, no ideal location existed, with the chosenposition being one that had both a yaw
angle under and overshoot. The location chosenwas x= 2400mm, y= 400mm.
7.1.2 Gust Characteristics at the Model Centre
Figure 6.9 shows the crosswind gust characteristicsat the model centre. Prior to onset
has
the
transient
a very small
the
of
model centre
crosswind gust the yaw angle at
166
ChapterSeven Discussion
negative offset.
consistentwith a small positive yaw angle offset in the working section. This difference
is a likely result of a blockage effect created by placing the model in the working
section. In the empty working section the boundary layer growth along the honeycomb
flow straightenerwould be expectedto induce a small positive flow angle incidence in
the vicinity of the honeycomb,however shearlayer growth on the leeward side of the jet
is
it
Thus,
induce
influence.
in
its
flow
incidence
a small negative
would
angle
areaof
suggestedthat for the empty working section the model centre position (x = 2400mm, y
layer
is
free
400mm)
is
influenced
by
the
growth, and
the
shear
one where
yaw angle
=
hencethe small negative yaw angle offset under axial flow conditions.
When the model is in the working section, the flow displacementaround the model is
in
boundary
in
has
that
close
the
asymmetric,
windward side
an essentially solid
proximity, whereas the leeward side does not. The consequenceof this asymmetry
being a circulation around the model and small positive flow angle incidence onto the
in
insignificant
It
be
they
that
are
should
model.
noted
although these effects exist
comparisonto the flow field changesthat occur during the passingof a crosswind gust.
The yaw angle undershoot (Y = 12.3' at t=0.29s) and overshoot (y = 33.9' at t=
0.32s) are visible before the steady condition of y= 220 is attained. The transition to
yawed flow is rapid, with a steady yaw angle achieved within a time corresponding to
fluid that is moving at freestrearnvelocity covering half a model length. The yaw angle
flow
has
development
initial
of
yawed
the
and
overshoot
under
a significant effect on
around the aerodynamic models, making the calculation of yaw rate, an important
facility.
for
(section
inappropriate
1.2),
this
stability
parameter
vehicle
The streamwisevelocity coefficient indicates that matching of the axial velocity of the
main jet and axial velocity component of the crosswind jet has been successfully
achieved, albeit with the constraints of the slightly varying strearnwise velocity
componentthat occurs for the duration of the yawed flow (0.30s <t<0.76s).
167
is obvious, with the transient dynamic pressureonly comparable to the steady yawed
dynamic pressurefor 0.45s <t<0.60s.
the gust trailing edge is approximately 5% of the dynamic head. The consequencesof
the uneven nature of the dynamic pressureon surface pressuresand force and moment
coefficients of an aerodynamic model is obvious, however importantly the transient
dynamic pressure never exceeds the steady yawed dynamic pressure, making
comparisonsbetweenthe peak transient and steadyyawed forces and momentsvalid.
The working section Reynolds number basedon model length and standardatmospheric
conditions of Re, = 3.9 x 105is approximately an order of magnitude below that found
for real vehicles (section 2.5.2), thus Reynolds number effects would be important if
extrapolation to full scale Reynolds number was to be attempted. Currently the
achievable Reynolds number is dictated by the available crosswind fan mass flowrate,
however there is no reasonwhy this type of facility should not operateat a much higher
Reynolds number. This could be achieved either by increasing the nominal axial
velocity or the scaleof the facility.
The small discrepancyin turbulence intensity betweenaxial (Tu = 3.4%) and yawed (Tu
= 2.6%) flow is unlikely to have any significant effects on the flow around the
aerodynamicmodels.
168
ChapterSeven Discussion
169
ChapterSeven Discussion
7.2.3 Transient Flow
Prior to any development of the yawed flow regime the transient axial flow pressure
distribution (figure 6.11, t=0.0)
Cp,
distribution
6.10).
(figure
The
in
the
shows
region
=
pressure
pressure
stagnation
1.0, with suction peaks, indicating flow acceleration, around the front comers and a
closed separationbubble at s/S = 0.18. There are two small suction peaks at the rear
comers (sIS = 0.82) prior to flow separation. The wake survey (figure 6.18, t=0.0),
shows an axially aligned wake behind the model. Although the wake survey plots are
instantaneous,they are obtained from ensembleaverageddata that is phasesynchronised
with respectto the crosswind gust, thus any unsteadyphenomena,for example vortex
shedding,will not be captured unless they are forced by the gust (currently there is no
evidenceto suggestthat vortex shedding is forced by the gust, however it is likely there
would be someinteraction).
At t=0.20s the model is still subjectedto nominally axial flow (crosswind gust leading
is
1750mm,
figure
6.1),
however
distribution
the
the
model
around
edge at x=
pressure
affected by the impending region of transient high total pressure,as observed for the
empty working section. The wake survey of figure 6.18 (t = 0.20s) shows the area of
influence of this high total pressure to be mainly down the windward side and around
the leeward front comer of the model, although the magnitude of the increaseis small at
this stage. An increasein stagnation region pressureand an increasein the peak suction
front
the
comers, relative to t=0.0s,
around
170
ChapterSeven Discussion
undershootaheadof the crosswind gust. The combination of these two effects causes
an increase in leeward side front comer pressure for s/S < 0.12 and an increase in
suction for 0.12 < s/S < 0.2 (relative to t=0.20s).
of the model. These pressure changes result in an increased side force coefficient
magnitude, and change of direction, (figure 6.12), a decreased yawing moment
coefficient (figure 6.13) and a significant decreasein drag coefficient (figure 6.14)
betweent=0.20s and t=0.28s.
Docton [61] noted similar surface pressurechangesas the crosswind gust approached
the model during his experiments,astutely concluding without direct evidencethat these
observationswere consistentwith a localised region of higher axial velocity.
Development of the yawed pressureregime occurs for t>0.28s.
yaw angle overshoot and transient high total pressure continue to affect the pressure
distribution around the model until t=0.34s, thus surface static pressureand wake data
for the period 0.28s <t<0.34s are not shown. The effect on side force and yawing
moment coefficients is evident in figures 6.12 and 6.13 respectively.
By t=0.34s rapid pressuredevelopment has occurred around the entire model, but only
the front windward side pressure distribution resemblesthat of the steady yawed flow
(figure 6.10). The windward side rear comer suction peak is significantly stronger than
that observed under steady yawed flow conditions.
characteristics are similar to those under axial flow conditions, however the leeward
front comer suction peak is much stronger, with no evidence of flow separation. These
two transient suction peaks have a significant effect on the yawing moment coefficient
(figure 6.13). A peak of Cmz = 0.74 occurs at t=0.34s, this being a 55% overshoot of
the steady yawed value and occurring approximately one model length into the cross
171
(figure
6.12) is slightly lower than the steady yawed value (Cy = 2.25 cf. Cy = 2.62), and the
transient drag coefficient (figure 6.14) is significantly lower (Cx = 0.20 cf. Cx = 0.51).
These differences are a result of increased suction around the front leeward comer,
decreasedsuction around the rear leeward comer and increasedsuction around the rear
windward comer, when compared to the steady yawed pressure profile.
survey for t=0.34s
The wake
longer influencing the pressuredistribution around the model. The effect of the yaw
angle undershoot on the model far wake is still apparent, with the wake meandering
towards the windward side of the model (top of the picture).
The leeward front comer separation, as observed for the steady yawed flow, is only
apparent from t=0.38s onwards (figure 6.11, t=0.38s, s/S = 0.15) and continues to
increase in size until t=0.60s, by which time reattachmentis occurring at s/S 0.4,
=
which is a comparable position to that of the steady yawed flow (figure 6.10). The
leeward rear comer suction peak develops simultaneously with the leeward front comer
separation(figure 6.11,0.38: 5 t: 5 0.60, s/S = 0.84) suggestingthe two processesmay be
linked by the propagation of information down the leeward side of the model. The
windward rear comer suction peak significantly weakens between t=0.34s
and t=
0.38s (figure 6.11, s/S = 0.82) and is comparable to the steadyyawed value by t=0.38S
(figure 6.10, s/S = 0.82). This change in windward rear comer pressuredistribution is
also mainly responsible for the sharp decreasein drag observed at t=0.36s
(figure
6.14).
Continued surface pressureprofile development causesa peak in the transient side force
with Cy = 2.9 (figure 6.12) This correspondsto 4.5 model
lengths of crosswind flow and representsan 11% overshoot of the steadyyawed value
magnitude at t=0.50s,
(Cy = 2.62). Part of this pressure development can be attributed to the increasing
dynamic (and total) pressurewithin the crosswind gust up to t. = 0.50s (section 7.1.2),
172
ChapterSeven Discussion
however this cannot account for the overshoot of the steady yawed side force
coefficient.
windward side of the model in the wake survey of figure 6.18 (y/I = 0.2,0.0: 5 x/l :51 0).
At t=0.38s, much of this region lies in the contour interval 0.98:! Cp,,:5 1.26, however
by t=0.50s it is in the interval 1.26:! Cp,,:5 1.40.
The yawed wake flow, with its much larger area of out of range data (black), is seen in
figure 6.18 for 0.38s:! t:! 0.70s. Interestingly, the amount of out of rangedata along the
leeward side of the model (y/l = 0.2,0.0 : x1l < 1.0), increasessignificantly betweent=
0.38s and t=0.45s. This correspondsto the formation of the leeward side front comer
separation,with the out of range data associatedwith the region of recirculating flow.
Surface pressureprofile development (figure 6.11) continues until t=0.60s, by which
time the transient pressuredistribution and the transient force and moment coefficients
(figures 6.12  6.14) are comparable to their steady yawed values. This development
time correspondsto 7 model lengths of crosswind flow. For an infinitely long crosswind gust the final pressure distribution and force and moment coefficients should be
equal to the steady yawed values, however this is not exactly achieved in this facility
where a reduction the crosswind dynamic (and total) pressure of approximately 5%
occurs after t=0.60s, (section 7.1.2). This reduction in total pressurecan be seenin the
wake survey of figure 6.18. Comparison of t=0.60s and t=0.70s clearly show a
general reduction in total pressure coefficient for the majority of the freestrearn fluid
shown in the working section. Both side force (figure 6.12) and yawing moment (figure
6.13) coefficients have distinct plateaux between 0.65s <t<0.75s.
this is approximately 6% below the steadyyawed value, however the yawing moment is
only approximately 2% below the steady yawed value. The drag coefficient (figure
6.14) also exhibits a reduction, but no plateau is reachedand the reduction corresponds
to more than 6% of the steady yawed value. Thus a degreeof error is present for both
yawing moment and drag coefficients, with the likely source of this being the pressure
173
174
ChapterSeven Discussion
frequency component associatedwith the transition from axial to yawed flow for the
transient condition, leading to an increased rise time (figure 6.15, t ! 0.30s, cf. figure
n'
6.12, t =!0.30s). Filter ringing has obscured any potential transient overshoot (figure
6.15,0.30s <t<0.70s).
less
than that of the integrated pressureyawing moment (Cmz = 0.55 cf.
substantially
Cmz = 0.79), and finally the fall to a steady yawing moment after the initial peak is
much faster for the directly measuredmoment. The final transient value is however in
good agreementwith the steadyyawed value (Cmz = 0.44 cf Cmz = 0.45), and is within
ACmz = 0.04 (6.25%) of the transient integrated pressurefinal value.
The discrepanciesbetween directly measuredand integrated pressure transient yawing
moment are mainly associatedwith the rapid changein yawing moment at the beginning
of the gust. This suggests they are a consequenceof the limited capabilities of the
balance and the inherent difficulty of measuring unsteadyforces and moments (section
4.6).
175
ChapterSeven  Discussion
The transient drag coefficient (figure 6.17) bears little resemblanceto the integrated
pressuredrag coefficient (figure 6.14), showing little difference between the axial and
yawed drag coefficients, and with a significant amount of oscillation. The magnitude of
the transient drag coefficient for the axial part of the crosswind flow (O.Os<t<0.30S
and 0.76s <t<1.0s)
is
14%
but
0.44),
The
drag
(Cx
is
steady axial
coefficient.
coefficient
reasonable
=
below the steady axial integrated pressuredrag (Cx = 0.5 1). The steadyyawed drag is
CX
0.53
lower
(Cx
drag
integrated
than
the
cf.
=
substantially
steady yawed
=
pressure
0.93). The error in yawed drag coefficient (both steady and transient) is a likely
consequence of balance crosscoupling.
measuredis the yawed (either steady or transient) side force and yawing moment, thus
with the balance in the side force and yawing moment orientation, the crosscoupling
from other components is relatively insignificant. The converseis true however when
measuring the remaining four components, such that in those balance orientations the
errors due to crosscoupling, and hence overall errors are at a maximum.
176
ChapterSeven Discussion
pressurerecovery. Strong vortices are formed along the long and relatively sharp (2mm
radii) Apillars, as seen in both the surface pressurecontours (figure 6.19) and the flow
visualisation (figure 6.20). The leeward side Apillar vortex is also visible in the X/I =
0.75 wakeplane,which is locatedjust aheadof the backlight, and shown in figure 6.21.
As can be seenfrom figure 6.21, the Apillar vortices are drawn towards the roof by the
low pressure in this region. The Apillar vortices are not present in the x/l = 1.5
wakeplanesurvey (figure 6.22), suggestingthey are weakenedby the opposite senseCpillar vortices. A region of low pressure,indicating acceleratedflow, exists below the
Cpillars on both windward and leeward sides (figure 6.19). This is caused by two
effects; firstly, the boattailing at the rear of the model causesan acceleration at the
beginning of the taper, and secondly the Cpillar vortices draw fluid onto the backlight,
causing further flow accelerationin this region.
The flow over the upper surface of the model, as seenin figure 6.19, acceleratesup the
windshield, with a closed separation bubble at the windshield/roof intersection (figure
6.20).
177
The far wake horizontal total pressure gradients of figure 6.26b are a
consequenceof the nonuniform loss through the honeycomb section. The windward
side Apillar vortex has been replaced by a vortex forming at the front of the windward
side roof. This vortex draws in fluid from the side of the model, thus lowering the
pressurehere, and hencereducing the side force. The windward side Cpillar vortex has
significantly increasedin strength, thus drawing in more fluid from the windward side
Cpillar region of the model. The corresponding decreasein windward side Cpillar
side pressure(figure 6.23) acts to reduce the side force and increasethe yawing moment
coefficient. The low pressurevortex cores of the windward side roof vortex and the Cpillar vortex are seenin the upper surface pressurecontour plots of figure 6.23 and the
flow visualisation of figure 6.24.
visualisation was unable to shed light on the nature of the flow on the backlight.
Downstream of the geometry mutual entrainment of the two windward side vortices
occurs, with a single vortex core centred at y/I = 0.05, z/1 = 0.2 in the x/I = 1.5
wakeplane(figure 6.26).
178
ChapterSeven Discussion
A secondleeward side vortex is formed by flow under the model, although this is not
nearly as strong as the leeward side Apillar vortex. The corresponding low surface
static pressure coefficients are seen near the front at the bottom of the leeward side
(figure 6.23), with the vortex apparentat y/I = 0.35, z/1= 0.1 in the x/l = 1.5 wakeplane
(figure 6.26).
Three other areas of vorticity are present in the x/l = 1.5 wakeplane (figure 6.26). A
secondvortex formed by flow under the model is centred at y/l = 015, Z/1= 0.5. The
origin of this vortex cannot be determined from the available data, although possibilities
include the model windward side lower edge, the model supports or underside flow
exiting from the leeward (left) side of the rear diffuser. It seemsunlikely that the model
supportswould causesuch a large vortex to form, being thin circular cylinders of a short
length (25mm). It is also unlikely to be causedby flow exiting the diffuser, as in figure
6.25 this vortex is located inboard of the edge of the diffuser, in a flow regime that is
nominally yawed to the left. Thus it s thought that the vortex is formed by flow around
the windward side lower edge of the model. The areaof weak vorticity at y/l = 0.05, z/1
= 0.1 is not a vortex, but a region where flow is turned as it is entrained into the main
windward roof/Cpillar vortex, and hence has nonzero vorticity.
vorticity, located at y/l = 0.55, z/1 = 0.075, is as a result of an effect noted by Harvey
andPerry[114]. The leeward side underfloor vortex (y/l = 0.35, z/1 = 0.1) induces a
crossflow on the groundboard that is in addition to the componentof crosswind in this
direction. A pressureminima occurs under the core of the vortex, and consequentlythe
boundary layer causedby this crossflow has to negotiate an adversepressuregradient
has
it
passedunder this core. When a vortex is near enough to the floor, as is the
once
case here, the adverse pressuregradient is enough to cause separationof the boundary
layer. Further downstream, the separation bubble grows to the point at which it
detachesfrom the floor as a second vortex, with opposite sensevorticity to the main
vortex.
179
ChapterSeven Discussion
The remainder of the upper surface static pressure contours, (figure 6.23), show flow
acceleration up the windshield of the model, with the yawed flow regime clearly visible.
The contours are significantly
intersection,
suggesting the flow in this region is dominated by the axial component of the flow
does
bubble
this
the
relatively sharp comer, although
around
windshield/roof separation
Cp,
(1.2
higher
flow
<
than
that
conditions
peak suction
observed under axial
exhibit a
for yawed flow cf.
Cps
for
flow).
<1.0
<
<
axial
1 0
min
min 0.8
strength with yaw, or the formation of the windward side roof vortex, which
in
in
increase
Cpillar
the
entrains
an
resulting
subsequently
windward side
vortex
vorticity. The original leeward side Cpillar vortex decreasesin strength and by Y= 22'
form
14'
The
leeward
is
to
\U
onwards,
exist.
apparent
=
ceases
side underfloor vortex
although the final location is subtly different from that described in 7.3.2.
This
difference, and the other slight differences, can be attributed to the two different
techniquesused to place the model in yawed flow (section 5.2.4). The other areas of
180
ChapterSeven Discussion
weak vorticity, as seen in the previous steady yawed wakeplane (figure 6.26) are also
apparent.
Davis [33] presented wake traverses for a similar geometry under steady yawed flow
conditions for yaw angles of 00 <_ xV :5 100 in 2' increments. He also found a
strengtheningof the leeward side Apillar vortex with yaw, with a secondleeward side
vortex formed at the front of the model from flow under the model. His windward side
Cpillar vortex exhibited almost constant vorticity up to 10' yaw, while the leeward side
Cpillar vortex remained up to the maximum yaw angle with no decreasein peak
vorticity. For comparison he also tested a model with well rounded Apillars and one
with an obvious angle changebetween the bonnet and windshield. Both theseexhibited
much weaker Apillar vortices and had significantly lower yawed side force coefficients,
from which he concluded that the Apillar vortices make a significant contribution to the
force.
side
yawed
Davis [45] later studied a high performance road car at yaw. For this geometry a total
separationof the leeward side flow between y= 100and IV changedthe trailing vortex
structure over the top rear deck of the car; giving rise to a much larger windward side
is
in
This
contrast to the Durham geometry, which exhibits a significant change
vortex.
in the windward side vortex structure without the total leeward side separation.
7.3.4 Transient Flow
Many of the features observed in the transient development of the yawed flow regime
around the Docton geometry are also present for the Durham geometry. Further
information about the flow development is available from the wake surveys,however it
should be noted that becauseelements of fluid from different parts of the model travel
different distances,and hence take different times, to reach a particular wake plane, it is
not possible to correlate a transient wake plane at a particular time to a transient surface
pressure distribution at a previous time.
181
Prior to this
both surface static pressures(figure 6.28) and wake surveys (figure 6.38) are in good
agreementwith the steady axial flow data. At t=0.30s the effects of the crosswind
gust anomalies (high total pressure and yaw angle overshoot) again result in spurious
surface static pressuredata (figure 6.29). The effect on the side pressures,forces and
for
in
Docton
brief
the
the
are
as
moments
geometry, with
reduction
roof experiencing a
pressure coefficient, and the model a corresponding increase in upper surface lift
coefficient (figure 6.37).
The transient axial flow (O.Os <t<0.25s)
and yawing moment (figure 6.36) coefficient offsets are more significant than those of
the steadyflow conditions. A likely causeof this is a slight leakage of crosswind fluid
flow through the closed shutters, augmenting the already asymmetrical wind tunnel
flow.
The subsequentside pressuredata indicates rapid surfacepressuredevelopment on both
windward and leeward sides, with the pressuredistributions comparable to those of the
flow
from t=0.34s
yawed
steady
coefficient (figure 6.35) exhibits the characteristic under and overshoot created by this
crosswind facility before rising to the steady yawed value by t=0.47s.
The rise
(7
lengths
of crosswind flow). The maximum side force coefficient of Cy = 1.63
model
at t=0.52s representsa 16% overshoot of the steady yawed value. As seen with the
Docton geometry, development of a region of separatedflow can take up to 7 model
lengths of crosswind flow. Thus it is suggestedthat this increase in side force is a
182
ChapterSeven Discussion
development.
delayed
leeward
Apillar
flow
side
and
of
underfloor
vortex
result
Comparisonof the leeward side surface pressuresat t=0.47s (figure 6.31) and t=0.52s
(figure 6.32) shows small differences in pressurecoefficient for the Apillar region, with
the latter time exhibiting lower pressures(this however could be due to the inherently
unsteady Apillar vortex moving such that the pressure tappings were subjected to a
lower pressurepart of the core).
A reduction in side force from the maximum occurs as the transient flow subsequently
tends towards the steady yawed flow. As for the Docton geometry, with an infinitely
long gust, the final side force coefficient would be expectedto match that of the steady
yawed flow.
for
by
in
the
reduction
crosswind dynamic pressureafter t=0.60s
accounted
(figure
6.9).
The transient yawing moment coefficient (figure 6.36) is similar in shape to the side
force coefficient, with the transient value exceeding the steady yawed value for the
0.42s
<t<0.6s.
period
The
integrated pressureupper surface lift coefficient (figure 6.37) however does not reach a
maximum until t=0.55s, thus pressuredevelopment must continue until this time. The
increase in upper surface lift between t=0.36s
be
t=0.45S
can
again
partially
and
for
by
but
increase
in
dynamic
the subsequent
the
tunnel
pressure,
accounted
wind
183
ChapterSeven Discussion
increasemust be causedby delayed flow development, and it is this phenomenathat is
of greaterinterest. Comparison of the upper surface pressurecontours at t=0.45s and t
6.33)
in
0.55s
(figure
delayed
is
flow
development
the
that
this
shows
occurring
=
regions of separatedflow. In this case,the windshield/roof closed separationbubble and
the windward side roof/Cpillar vortex, where significant decreases in pressure
coefficient are seen. This also causesa reduction in pressurecoefficient over a larger
section of the roof. The reduction in pressure coefficients observed for the windward
side roof/Cpillar vortex are much more apparent than those of the Apillar vortex,
seemingly confirming that delayed pressure development in areasof separatedflow of
this nature is a true effect. The delayed development of the windward side roof/Cpillar
vortex may also affect the side force and yawing moment coefficients through increased
fluid
from the windward side of the model, although any contribution
of
entrainment
from this mechanismis likely to be small.
The maximum transient upper surface lift coefficient recorded is Czu = 1.38 at t=0.50s,
corresponding to a 12% overshoot of the steady yawed value and occurring after 5
model lengths of crosswind gust. The upper surface lift coefficient subsequently
decaysand undershootsthe steady yawed value. Unlike the other coefficients, it does
not reachesa plateau, with two spurious spikes occurring prior to the end of the crosswind gust. The cause of these spikes is predominately, although not uniquely, small
pressure changes on the windshield surface of the model.
It is not, as might be
184
ChapterSeven Discussion
passing down the leeward side of the model. The cores of both vortices exhibit high
loss (drag), with the loss of the Apillar
higher.
being
significantly
vortex
Unfortunately, much of the data for the fully developedApillar vortex is out of range of
the probe calibration. Much more information is provided about the developmentof the
in
increase
The
by
6.39).
1.5
(figure
trailing
the
vortex
structure
yawed
x/l =
wakeplane
strength of the windward side Apillar vortex at t=0.33s is a result of the crosswind
is
Development
Cpillar
the
vortices
angle
undershoot.
roof
yaw
of
and windward side
seenfrom t=0.34s onwards. The leeward side Cpillar vortex moves to the right, with
the windward side Cpillar vortex moving to the left. At t=0.35s, the windward side Cpillar/roof vortex has moved far enough to the right that it 'leapfrogs' over the leeward
side vortex. The leeward side Apillar vortex also becomesapparentat this time (y/I =0.4, z/1 = 0.25). Momentarily both Cpillar vortices exist, with the windward vortex
located above the leeward vortex, which is still in a position similar to that it occupies
under axial flow conditions.
completely and the windward side vortex centre reducesin height such that by t=0.38s
the flow structure is comparable with that of the steady yawed flow. The crosswind
high
in
is
leeward
total
the
the
the
pressure
region
again
of
model
gust
seenpassing
side
total pressure coefficient contours. As the yawed wake develops, the original two
discrete areasof loss, corresponding to the two Cpillar vortices, amalgamateto form a
loss
area
of
correspondingto the windward side Cpillar/roof vortex (y/I = 0.0, z/1
single
The
0.15).
loss
for
flow
leeward
to
the
the
second
main
area
corresponds
of
yawed
=
here
higher
Apillar
(y/l
loss
0.2),
that that
the
vortex
significantly
side
with
= 0.3, z/1=
of the windward side vortex.
The delayed flow development of the leeward side vortices, as seenon the side surface
static pressures,should be apparent at a later time in the wake. Comparison of x/I = 1.5
wakeplane data for t=0.52s
and t=0.57s
and t=0.52s
185
5%
overshoot of the steady yawed value, which compares well with the 7%
maximum
transient overshoot of the integrated surface pressureyawing moment coefficient (figure
6.36).
The transient drag coefficient is again dominated by balanceoscillations, although some
agreementcan be seenbetween the steady axial flow and axial part of the transient flow
(O.Os <t<0.30s
0.41) can be consideredaccurate,but as with the Docton geometry, the yawed value (Cx
is
0.56)
probably underpredicteddue crosscoupling.
=
The transient pitching moment exhibits the oscillations generally seen in the force
measurements,although agreementbetween the steadyand transient conditions for axial
186
ChapterSeven Discussion
is
flow
and yawed
relatively good. The pitching moment remains negative (nose down)
for all conditions; this being a consequenceof low pressure on the backlight of the
model, causedby the attachedflow regime.
Little agreementis apparentfor the lift coefficients. The steadyaxial and yawed values
are very similar, which is unlikely given the significant changesin flow structure seen
on the upper surface of the model. The steady axial flow and the axial part of the
transient flow are also significantly different, giving little confidence in these results.
The low absolute magnitude of the lift coefficient (when comparedto side force) makes
accurate measurement of lift much more difficult, with the error contribution from
crosscoupling under yawed flow conditions also at a maximum. One characteristic of
interest is that the transient lift, as with the integrated pressureupper surface lift of
figure 6.37, shows a marked increasejust prior to the end of the crosswind gust (t =
0.78s), although this agreementshould be treated with caution. This single peak, as
opposed to the two seen for the integrated pressure upper surface lift, is a likely
consequenceof the inability of the balance to resolve high frequency force oscillations.
20Hz, which is
The oscillations of the integrated pressurelift occur at a frequency of =_
higher than the balance filter stop frequency of 18Hz.
The rolling moment coefficients appear reasonable, with good agreement between
steady and transient axial and yawed conditions. This is especially surprising as the
magnitude of the coefficient is small. Under axial flow conditions the coefficient is
nominally zero, with a significant decreaseoccurring as the yawed flow develops. The
effect of crosswind tunnel yaw angle under and overshootsare visible (t
0.32s respectively), with the steady yawed value not reached until t
0.25s and t=
0.53s. The
negative value of the coefficient under yawed flow conditions indicates the centre of
is
below
the midheight of the model. Although the magnitude of rolling
pressure
moment is small, it would be significant if the overall vehicle dynamic responsewere to
be evaluated.
187
ChapterSeven Discussion
As with the Docton geometry side force and yawing moment coefficients, a correlation
exists between the spectral distribution of the force and moment components and the
timedomain oscillations, with the components that have a significant amount of energy
around 18Hz exhibiting the most pronounced ringing.
autospectral density functions of the six components of force and moment for the
Durham geometry.
This balance system presentsan improvement in the force and moment measurements,
compared to the work of Docton [61], however is still in need of significant
development. Raising the balance natural frequency yields twofold improvements.
Firstly, the higher the resonant frequency, the less the aerodynamicexciting force will
be at that frequency, and therefore the smaller the effect of resonance. Secondly, a
higher filter cutoff frequency would allow developments to the filter geometry to
is
frequency
in
balance
That
increase
the
effects
of
natural
ringing.
minimise
said, an
not easyto achieve without compromising measurementaccuracy.
7.3.6 Wake Integration
The wake integral derived drag coefficient for the axial flow condition (Cx = 0.40) is in
drag
for
force
data
0.41).
Viscous
balance
(Cx
the
with
accounts
agreement
good
=
90% of the total drag, the remaining 10% being from the transfer of energy into the
trailing vortices (vortex drag). The largest local contribution to drag, both viscous and
from
figure
6.42.
in
the
trailing
the
of
comes
microdrag
vortices, as seen
vortex,
The wake integral derived axial flow side force coefficient (Cy = 0.02) is not in
integrated
force
Cy
balance
force
the
coefficients
with
of
side
pressure
agreement
and
=
is
The
that
wake
plane
a consequence
contains
momentum
negative crossstream
0.02.
flow
in
integration
is
The
the
the
asymmetry
unable to
wake
of
working section.
differentiate between this and crossstreammomentum that is a consequenceof forces
This
fluid
hence
the
the
within
value.
erroneous
on
control volume, and
returns an
188
ChapterSeven Discussion
problem could be eliminated by surveying a plane upstreamof the model and integrating
the differences in momentum between the two planes, as opposedto assuminguniform
axial flow upstreamof the model.
The extra blockage of the yawed model in the working section clearly requires a larger
integration area for the yawed flow wake integral, however the available area is limited
by the proximity of the shearlayer to the leeward side of the model. Thus the areaused
for the yawed model integration violates the requirement of the integration that the
boundariesof the control volume parallel to the streamwisedirection are sufficiently far
from the model that no changesin flow occur (Appendix B). The subsequentresolution
forces
from
the working section axes to yawed model axes causesany error to affect
of
both drag and side force coefficients.
The yawed model side force coefficient (Cy = 0.84) is substantially lower than the
integrated pressureside force (Cy = 1.41) or the force balance data (Cy = 1.78), this
discrepancyundoubtedly being a consequenceof the small size of the integration area.
The drag coefficient (Cx = 0.98) is higher than expected, however an increase in
magnitude of the side force would reduce this on resolution of the forces, thus this result
is not unexpected. Neglecting the inaccuracy in magnitude, inspection of the microdrag
(figure 6.43) shows that the leeward side Apillar vortex makes the highest local
contribution to drag, this being followed by the windward side roof/Cpillar vortex. The
yawed flow microside plot also shows it is the leeward side Apillar vortex that is
highest
local contribution to side force, with this followed by the
the
providing
windward side roof/Cpillar vortex.
189
190
ChapterSeven Discussion
Docton Geometry
Side Force
Yawing Moment
Durham Geometry
16%  after 5 model
lengths of crosswind
5
7%
*
 after model
length of crosswind
lengths of crosswind
flow
Drag
Upper Surface Lift
No transient overshoot
5
12%
*
 after model
lengths of crosswind
flow
191
P+sp
8A
A
Ip
p+)kSp
Enlarged view
of element
192
Chapter Eight
Conclusions
Reducing the
thickness of the boundary layer was shown to eliminate the yaw angle overshoot for a
CFD calculation. Future development of the experimental facility should be able to
replicate this result. Reducing the yaw angle overshoot also has the desirable effect of
reducing the yaw angle undershoot. The effect of the current yaw angle under and
overshootson aerodynamicdata is however clearly apparent,allowing erroneousdata to
be identified.
Evidence from the experimental facility and the CFD suggeststhat the total pressure
is
linked
to a transient interaction betweenthe two jets as the crosswind gust
overshoot
193
ChapterEight  Conclusions
is formed. Although this is undesirableits effect on the transient forces and moments is
limited. Further work is required to establish the cause of the uneven total pressure
within the gust. Importantly, the total and dynamic pressuresof the transient gust do not
rise above their steady counterparts, making the comparison of steady and transient
aerodynamicdata valid.
194
195
Chapter Nine
Recommendations for Further Work
If, as
concluded, it is causedby an interaction between the two jets as the crosswind forms,
from
fluid
jet
be
deflect
the
to
the
crosswind
solution
would
away
axial
one possible
entering the working section. This could be achieved using a series of turning veins
mounted along the axial jet exit plane. These would be rotated about their vertical axis,
196
section Reynolds number can be achievedby replacing the crosswind tunnel fans.
In the longer term, once the problems associatedwith the facility have been overcome, a
larger scale, higher speedfacility could be manufacturedthat would allow the testing of
more detailed models at more realistic Reynolds numbers.
9.2 Instrumentation
For accurate measurementof the six components of transient force and moment the
balance needs developing. Currently two problems exist, the crosscoupling between
componentsand the natural frequency of the balance.
197
If deflection is to be
measuredby load cells this can only be done by using higher capacity cells, but this
has
in
loss
an
associated
accuracy. Reduction in mass of the balance/model
approach
system would also increase the natural frequency, however this places restrictions on
any aerodynamicmodel that is to be used.
Implementation of an advanced flowfield measurement technique, for example PIV,
would significantly aid the investigation of flowfield structures in both the empty
working section and around the aerodynamic models, however this does have the
limitation of not providing pressuredata.
198
References
References
1.
Bamard R.H.
Road Vehicle Aerodynamic Design
Longmann, ISBN 0582245222,1996.
2.
3.
BearmanP.W.
Near Wake Flows Behind Two and Three Dimensional Bluff Bodies
J. Wind Eng. and Ind. Aerodyn. Vol 697 1, pp. 3354,1997.
4.
Dominy R.G.
Flow Unsteadinessover PassengerVehicle Rear Surfaces
Autotech 95, paper no. C498/36/181,1995.
5.
6.
Hucho W. H. (Ed.)
Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles
Butterworths, ISBN 004080142299,1987.
7.
8.
199
References
Lida N.
Measurementand Evaluation of Aerodynamic Noise
SAE 1999011124,SP 1441, pp. 227235,1999.
10.
Carr G.W.
Potential for Aerodynamic Drag Reduction in Car Design
Int. J. of Vehicle Design, Technological Advances in Vehicle Design Series,
SP3,Impact of Aerodynamics on Vehicle Design, pp. 4456,1983.
Coleman S. A., Baker C. J.
The Reduction of Accident Risk for High Sided Road Vehicles in CrossWinds
J. Wind Eng. and Ind. Aerodyn. Vol 4144, pp. 26852695,1992.
12.
13.
14.
Howell J.
The Influence of Aerodynamic Lift on Lane ChangeManoeuvrability
MIRA Int. Conf. on Vehicle Aerodynamics, Coventry, U.K., 1998.
15.
16.
Ahmed S.R.
Wake Structures of Typical Automobile Shapes
J. of Fluids Eng. Vol 103, pp. 162169,March 1981.
200
References
17.
Lajos T.
Drag Reduction by the Production of a Separation Bubble on the Front of a
Bluff Body
J. Wind Eng. and Ind. Aerodyn. Vol 22, pp. 331338,1986.
18.
19.
20.
21.
SimsWilliams D.B.
PassengerCar Aerodynamic Unsteadiness
University of Durham internal report, 1998.
22.
Morel T.
The Effect of Base Slant Angle on the Flow Pattern and Drag of ThreeDimensional Bodies
Symposium on Aerodynamic Drag Mechanisms of Bluff Bodies and Road
Vehicles, Warren, Michigan, pp. 191216,1978.
23.
SedneyR.
A Flow Model for the Effect of a SlantedBase on Drag
Aerodynamics of Transportation ASME  CSME Conference,Niagara Falls, pp.
5359,1979.
201
References
24.
25.
Bearman P.W.
Some Observationson Road Vehicle Wakes
SAE 840301,1984.
26.
27.
Cogotti A.
FlowField Surveys Behind Three Squareback Car Models Using a New
Fourteen Hole Probe
SAE 870243, SP 706, pp. 120,1987.
28.
29.
Cogotti A.
A Strategy for Optimum Surveys of PassengerCarFlow Fields
SAE 890374,1989.
30.
31.
202
References
32.
Maskell E.C.
Progress Towards a Method for the Measurement of the Components of the
Drag of a Wing of Finite Span
Royal Aircraft EstablishmentTechnical Report no. 72232,1973.
33.
Davis J.P.
Wind Tunnel Investigation of Road Vehicle Wakes
PhD Thesis, University of London, 1982.
34.
Docton M. K. R.
The Side Load Distribution on a Range Rover under Simulated Crosswind
Conditions
University of Durham internal report, October 1998.
35.
36.
37.
38.
203
References
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Cooper K. R.
The Effect of FrontEdge Rounding and RearEdge Shaping on the
Aerodynamic Drag of Bluff Vehicles in Ground Proximity
SAE 850288,1985.
44.
Davis J.P.
CrossWind Stability of High PerformanceRoad Cars
SAE 870724,1987.
45.
204
References
46.
Howell J.P.
ShapeFeaturesWhich Influence Crosswind Sensitivity
IMechE paper no. C466/036/93,1993.
47.
48.
49.
Howell J.P.
Wake Propertiesof Typical Road Vehicles
Procs. 2nd. AIAA Symposium on Aerodynamics of Sports and Competition
Vehicles, pp. 99109,1974.
50.
Baker C.J.
Ground Vehicles in High Cross Winds Part I: SteadyAerodynamic Forces
J. of Fluids and StructuresVol 5, pp. 6990,1991.
51.
Baker C.J.
Ground Vehicles in High Cross Winds Part II: UnsteadyAerodynamic Forces
J. of Fluids and StructuresVol 5, pp. 91111,1991.
52.
Baker C.J.
Ground Vehicles in High Cross Winds Part III: The Interaction of Aerodynamic
Forces and the Vehicle System
J. of Fluids and StructuresVol 5, pp. 221241,1991.
53.
205
References
54.
BeauvaisF. N.
Transient Nature of Wind Gust Effects on an Automobile
SAE 670608,1967.
55.
Stewart M. J.
Transient Aerodynamic Forces on Simple Road Vehicle Shapesin Simulated
CrossWind Gusts
MIRA Researchreport 1977/5,1977.
56.
57.
58.
59.
Scott A. L.
A New Technique to Investigate the Stability of Cars in CrossWinds
University of Durham internal report, 1991.
60.
Docton M. K. R.
UnsteadyVehicle Aerodynamics
University of Durham internal report, 1991.
61.
Docton M. K. R.
206
References
63.
64.
White R.G.S.
A Rating Method for Assessing Vehicle Aerodynamic Side Force and Yawing
Moment Coefficients
MIRA report no. 1970/1,1970.
65.
Tran V. T.
Determining the Wind Forces and Moments Acting on Vehicles by Means of
PressureSensors
SAE 900313,1990.
66.
Tran V. T.
A Calculation Method for Estimating the Transient Wind Forces and Moments
Acting on A Vehicle
SAE 910315, SP 855, pp. 111122,1991.
67.
Force
207
References
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
208
References
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
Howell J.P.
The Influence of Ground Simulation on the Aerodynamics of Simple Car
Shapeswith an Underfloor Diffuser
R.Ae.S. Vehicle Aerodynamics Conference, Loughborough, ISBN 1857680065, pp. 36.136.11,1994.
80.
81.
PapenfussH.D., Kronast M.
Moving Model Technique used in Automobile Aerodynamics for Measurement
of Ground Effects
209
References
Barth R.
Effect of Unsymmetrical Wind Incidence on Aerodynamic Forces Acting on
Vehicle Models and Similar Bodies
SAE 650136,1965.
83.
84.
PantonR.L.
IncompressibleFlow 2nd Edition
John Wiley & Sons Inc., ISBN 0471593583,1995.
85.
BearmanP.W., Morel T.
Effect of Free StreamTurbulence on the Flow Around Bluff Bodies
Prog. AerospaceSci. Vol 20, pp. 97123,1983.
86.
87.
88.
210
References
BearmanP.W.
Some Effects of FreeStreamTurbulence and the Presenceof the Ground on the
Flow Around Bluff Bodies
Symposium on Aerodynamic Drag Mechanisms of Bluff Bodies and Road
Vehicles, Warren, Michigan, 1978.
90.
Beannan P.W.
An Investigation of the Forces on Flat PlatesNormal to a Turbulent Flow
J. Fluid Mech. Vol 46, Part 1, pp. 177198,197 1.
91.
Garry K. P., Wallis S.B., Cooper K. R., Fediw A., Wilsden D.J.
The Effect on Aerodynamic Drag of the Longitudinal Position of a Road
Vehicle Model in a Wind Tunnel Test Section
SAE 940114,1994.
92.
93.
94.
Bruun H.H.
Hot wire Anemometry, Principles and Signal Analysis
Oxford University Press,Oxford, 1995.
95.
211
References
An Investigation of Factors Influencing the Calibration of 5Hole Probes for 3D Flow Measurements
ASME International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition,
Cologne, Germany, 1992.
96.
SensorTechnics
PressureTransducersand Transmitters 94/95
SensorTechnicsManual, 1994.
97.
98.
99.
100.
SimsWilliams D.B.
SelfExcited Aerodynamic UnsteadinessAssociatedwith PassengerCars
PhD Thesis, University of Durham, to be published 2000.
101.
Mullarkey S.P.
Aerodynamic Stability of Road Vehicles in Side Winds and Gusts
PhD Thesis, University of London, 1990.
102.
212
References
103.
Williams C.S
Designing Digital Filters
PrenticeHall, ISBN 013201856X, 1986.
104.
105.
Amplicon
User Manual for PC30PGL and PC30PGH Cards
106.
107.
McCroskey W. J.
Some Current Researchin Unsteady Fluid Mechanics
J. of Fluids Eng. Vol 99, pp. 838,1977.
108.
109.
110.
213
References
Computation Dynamics
StarCD Methodology
StarCD Manual, Version 3.05,1998.
112.
Massey B. S.
Mechanics of Fluids 6th Edition
Chapman& Hall, ISBN 0412342804,1991.
113.
114.
214
Appendix A
P4  P5
(A. 1)
Pi  P.,'
Yaw angle Coefficient:
Cy =
P2
P3
P.,
(A. 2)
Stagnationpressurecoefficient:
Ct
A,
Pay
(A. 3)
Static pressureCoefficient:
Cs =
Pav  Ps
A
(A. 3)
Pav
where:
pav =
(P2 + P3 + P4 + P5)
(A. 5)
215
Pitch
angle
PA (deg)
30
so
so.
15
20
35
2.0
20.
2.5
25
3.0
so
4.0
4.5
5.0
25
u
0
L
3
06
5.5
35
5.0
216
A:
ts
10 .
7'
0 7
0.8
0.9
1.0
30
10
m
0
u
15
a,
C
>IN
20' N.
_25.
Ei
1, t
t. 3
1 4
1.5
', as.
Pitch
angl e PA (deg)
217
Appendix B
f
c
pu(u  u,.,f ) dy
(B. 1)
The rate of increaseof xmomentum.is equal to the sum of the forces on the fluid in the
by
forces
force
body
These
F,,,
the
the
the
on
exerted
are
x component of
xdirection.
218
ps_refdy fp,
Bcc
dy =f (p,
_rf
dy
)
p,

(B.2)
Fx +f (p,
dy
)
p,
rf
_,,
cc
pu(u  u,.,f ) dy
(B. 3)
(B.4)
Similarly, the perpendicular force on the body in the +ve y direction, Fy is:
D
Fy
dy
puv
(B. 5)
c
BI. 2 ThreeDimensional Flow
Equation (B.4) can be extrapolated for three dimensional flow.
From total pressuredefinition:
Psref= Pore
f,:
2+
2+
2)
p(U"e
Ve
Wre
_Y2
fff
(B. 6)
219
Y2
p(U2
Ps2A, 
(B.7)
+ V2 + W2)
is
local
the
total pressurein plane CD and v and w are the local secondaryflow
where p.
velocity components.
The axial force on the body, F,, then becomes:
pJ
p(U
Y2
2
ref
2 +U2)+PUU
1
ref
dy
c
D
fN
p(V2 + W2)1
dy
(B. 8)
c
The first line of equation (B. 8) representsenergy loss through fluid entrainment into the
boundary layer and wake of the body, and is commonly termed 'viscous drag'. The
secondline representsenergyrequired to maintain the secondaryflow  so called 'vortex
drag'.
Assuming the assumptions of B. I are held, no such extrapolation is required for the
perpendicularforce on the body.
B13 Microdrag and Microside
The numerical evaluation of the wake integral from experimental data at discrete points
in a wakeplaneallows the local contribution (i. e. the contribution from a single point) to
force
be
drag
to
or
side
evaluated. These are commonly referred to as 'microdrag'
either
and 'microside' respectively, and are defined in equations(139)and (B 10).
220
dA
x
Pdwref
Fy
ms= 
x dA
(B. 9)
(B. 10)
drag
F.,
Fy
the
the
and
and
m,
are
microdrag
microside
and
md
respectively,
and
where
the reference
side force respectively, as evaluated at a single point in the wake, Pdynref
dynamic pressure and dA the area associated with a single point in the wake. The
inclusion of dA for the referencearea makes the two quantities independentof the wake
traverseresolution, thus permitting a wider comparison of results.
B1.4 Resolution of Forces
For the yawed flow wake integral traverse where the Durham geometry was yawed in
the working section, the axial and perpendicular forces (as shown in figure B. 2) required
resolving into body axis axial (drag  F.) and perpendicular (side  Fp) forces. This is
in
outlined equations(B. 11) and (B. 12).
F, cosVi + Fy sin Vi
(B. 11)
(B. 12)
221
Component of velocity
through CD
5y
r 
1
YL
Pressuredistribution
along CD
Fp
lx
222
Appendix C
Yawing Moment
Ell i. I. I
2.
0.
2
4
a
I rr.
IIII,
0 10
20.30.40
50
00
70.90.
go
10
100.
20.30
40
IIIIi
50.50.70
80.90
100
HZ
Hz
Pitching Moment
Lift
0.
0
10.20
30
40
50.00.70.90
00
100
mm
10
20
30
40
50.
au.
70
BO.
90.
log.
Hz
Figure C. I (page I of 2)
223
Rolling Moment
Drag
a
4
0.
2
2
4
0 10 20 30
40
50
50
70
80
90
100
HZ
10,20
30
40
50
50.70.80
00
100.
Nz
224
Mult mai mult decât documente.
Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.
Anulați oricând.