The Role of Wind Tunnel Experiments in CFD

Validation
Daniel Favier
Institute of Movement Sciences, University of Mediterranee, Marseille, France

1 Introduction
2 Some Examples of Experiments Suited for CFD
Validation
3 Integrating the Use of Wind Tunnel Experiments
and CFD
4 Concluding Remarks
Acknowledgments
References

1
2
11
14
14
14

1 INTRODUCTION
Forty years ago, the design and development of aeronautical
engines were initially carried out using basic wind tunnel
experiments and flight testing. Numerical predictive methods were based on approximated fluid flow theories and
engineering methods, validated by comparisons with wind
tunnel data measurements that were mainly including flow
visualizations, overall air loads forces and moments, global
power/thrust, local surface pressure measurements, and skin
friction distributions along the walls (Mc Croskey, Carr and
Mc Alister, 1971; Landgrebe, 1971).
Over the last two decades, computational fluids dynamics
(CFD) activities have been concentrated on the development
of improved numerical algorithms and have experienced
rapid progresses that led to a large variety of numerical
Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering.
Edited by Richard Blockley and Wei Shyy
c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-470-68665-2


methods of different degrees of sophistication and accuracy.

Complex flow physics have been assessed thanks to the development of new meshing techniques and the study of realistic geometries for rotorcraft flow configurations (Davidson
et al., 2003; Johnson, 2001). However, due to the limited
but growing power of computers, direct NavierStokes resolution (DNS) in turbulent configurations is still elusive for
most aeronautical applications. Current prediction methods
are thus required to model turbulence with different physical degrees of complexity, such as the Reynolds-averaged
NavierStokes (RANS) approach (models or algebraic equations of transport) and hybrid approach (including detached
eddy simulation (DES)). However, their universality remains
questionable and requires the assessment of the uncertainties
introduced by the modeling of turbulence (Roache, 1993;
Haase et al., 2006).
At the same time, such CFD advances have stimulated
the development of new efficient measurement methods such
as, for instance, non-intrusive Laser Doppler Anemometry (LDA), Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) and embedded laser Doppler velocimetry (ELDV) with two and three
components (Raffel et al., 2007; Favier et al., 1997; Berton
et al., 2001). Such experiments have then played a major
role in a better understanding of flow physics and allowed
the development of new numerical approaches. However, a
strong need still exists today for new experiments and appropriate databases, containing more flow physics than the
usual surface pressures, force and moment characteristics,
which still remain useful but clearly insufficient to validate
new CFD codes. Moreover, further details should be available in order to assess if the code is modeling the flow
faithfully.

2 Compressible Flows - Subsonic to Supersonic

Within such an interactive process on the reciprocal development and quality improvement of both experimental
databases and numerical CFD predictions, different points
of view can be expressed about the respective roles of the
CFD and the wind tunnel experiments (Desai, 2003). Some
points of controversy, regarding either the definition of the
terminology CFD validation or the efficient use of the computer keyboard alone for aeronautical design, as well as the
opportunity to design an aeronautical engine using numerical
results as a wind tunnel database, are beyond the scope of the
present survey and will not be discussed.
The present review will first give an attempt to answer the
question: what is the role of wind tunnel experiments in CFD
validation ? The answer is not simple, and we will restrict ourselves to the flow physics aspects of CFD validation, leaving
aside questions of computational methods, numerical scheme
accuracy, or convergence problems. The CFD validation will
thus refer to the establishment of a comparison between
fluid flows produced numerically by computation and the actual flows produced by a wind tunnel experiment. Emphasis
will be placed on the nature and the quality of experimental
data, which are appropriate for comparisons with numerical
results.
The first part of the review will present some typical examples of CFD validation to illustrate the new evolving role
of experiments in the validation process. These examples are
selected to emphasize the three-folded role of experiments
and their appropriate databases

1. to provide a flow physics description of complex phenomena that are poorly or incompletely known (2D/3D
boundary layer flow separation, stall, reattachment,
vortex interactions),
2. to constitute a reliable database for the determination
of both overall aerodynamic performances (lift, drag,
moment) and local aerodynamic quantities (including
phase-averaged velocities and turbulent quantities),
3. to establish reference comparisons for the CFD validation, both on global and local aerodynamic fields,
with well and completely defined steady/unsteady flow
conditions and parameters.

The second part of the review deals with some points of particular interest for aerodynamics experiments and CFD community, such as integrating the use of wind tunnel experiments
and CFD approaches. As future challenges in the integration
process, the estimation of uncertainties in both experimental and CFD approaches as well as the way for establishing
efficient experimental databases will be finally discussed.

2 SOME EXAMPLES OF EXPERIMENTS

SUITED FOR CFD VALIDATION
The following examples belong to the field of unsteady aerodynamics of oscillating airfoils and wings in 2D/3D flow at
subsonic regimes. They are chosen subjectively to illustrate
the role of suited experiments and appropriate data measurements in the CFD validation. They represent a non-exhaustive
survey of the literature on flows over airfoils, cylinders, and
wings, and many other works can probably be found in the
open literature.

2.1 Steady/unsteady flows around airfoils and

cylinders
Many experiments and CFD calculations have been performed on the flow around airfoils forced to oscillate in different kinds of motions (Barakos and Drikakis, 2003; Maresca,
Favier and Rebont, 1979; Piziali, 1994; Pascazio et al., 1996;
Favier et al., 1988), including ramping, translation, pitching,
plunging, and combined motion in either pitchingplunging
or translationpitching. However, very few experiments have
been dedicated to the characterization of the flow close to the
moving wall and within the boundary layer region. The unsteady boundary layer development plays indeed a key role
in the understanding of mechanisms leading to the unsteady
flow separation and then to the dynamic stall phenomenon.
Flow measurements describing accurately the instantaneous
response of the boundary layer to different conditions of unsteadiness are thus of significant interest when checking the
CFD capabilities to capture flow physics features.
Mainly due to the fact that current PIV methods provided
reliable data only in flow regions quite distant from the wall,
an ELDV method (embedded laser Doppler velocimetry) has
been developed to measure the boundary layer flow close to
the wall. The ELDV measurement principle basically consists in using a specific arrangement of the optical fibers,
installed either inside or outside the wing model and always
linked to the moving frame, and thus with the model motion
in translation/rotation. Such a method has been developed
at Laboratory of Aerodynamics and Biomechanics of Movement (LABM), which has now become Institute of Movement
Sciences (ISM) over the past 15 years (Favier et al., 1997;
Berton et al., 2001, 2003; Pascazio et al., 1996) by means
of 2C and 3C systems and across different Reynolds number
regimes in the range 105 < Rec < 106 (Berton et al., 2003;
Barla et al., 2005).
Figure 1 shows a typical example of a boundary layer flow
measured using ELDV by Berton et al. (2003) at the reduced
longitudinal abscissa s/c = 0.67 (where s is the curvilinear

The Role of Wind Tunnel Experiments in CFD Validation 3

Figure 1. U and V boundary layer profiles at s/c = 0.67 and as

a function of the angle of attack 0 < 0 < 18 on a NACA0012
airfoil in 2D steady flow at Rec = 105 .

abscissa from the leading edge, c the airfoil chord) on a

NACA0012 airfoil at rest in the 2D steady flow. As the airfoil
angle of attack 0 is lower than the static stall value (close
to 13 ), the U and V profiles are typical of the fully attached
boundary layer behaviors. For higher values of 0 , the flow
close to the wall is dominated by a flow reversal zone (negative values of U). The amplitude and intensity of the reversal
flow are linked to the static stall process and thus to the negative values of U and V close to the upper side surface.
Even when the airfoil is not oscillating (at rest) and set
to an incidence in steady flow at low Reynolds numbers, the
capture of flow features within recirculation regions of the
flow and in laminar transition bubbles remains a challenging
task for CFD methods. As shown by the laser sheet flow visualizations in Figure 2a, b, the laminar flow separation occurs
shortly behind the leading edge, and the transition to turbulent
flow conditions occurs shortly after separation. The flow visualizations clearly show the reduction of the bubble size in the

chordwise direction and its displacement towards the leading

edge when the angle of attack is increased from 0 = 8 to
11.5 . The flow separation, together with the reattachment,
thus forms a laminar separation bubble containing a recirculation region. The turbulent boundary layer behind the bubble
allows the flow to remain attached even at relatively high
adverse pressure gradients. In Figure 2c are depicted the tangential velocity profiles through the laminar separation bubble obtained by ELDV, PIV, and -PIV (Barla et al., 2005;
Raffel et al., 2006) and CFD using the approximate factorization implicit methodology and the Spalart Allmaras (SA)
and k turbulence models (Barla et al., 2005; Geissler et al.,
1999).
In Figure 2c (Raffel et al., 2006), a reasonable agreement
between experiments and CFD calculations is obtained in
the outer regions (about 20 mm above the wall). However, in
the flow region very close to the wall (y <3 mm), the most
detailed presentation of results in Figure 2c shows that the
difference between the different experimental results, as well
as differences with CFD results, becomes significant. The
ELDV and -PIV measurements have similar trends in the
measured flow velocity but differ much more in the size of
the separation bubble along the wall normal direction. Although CFD shows better results using the SA-turbulence
model, improvements have to be done to capture the physics
of transition generated by the laminar separation bubble.
When the airfoil is forced to oscillate in 2D/3D flows, specific ELDV unsteady data acquisition and reduction procedures, as well as ensemble averages for periodic flows, have
been specifically developed at LABM (Favier et al., 1997;
Berton et al., 2001; Pascazio et al., 1996). A data file containing around 20 000 samples (of velocity and time values)
is created for each altitude y above the wall to provide the
(< U >, < V >, < W >) phase-averaged velocity components and the phase-averaged turbulent quantities as turbulence intensities (< u >, < v >, < w >) and Reynolds
stresses (< uv >, < uw >, < vw >). Uncertainties due to
the unsteady phase-averaging and data reduction procedures
have been also evaluated (Berton et al., 2003; Barla et al.,
2005). ELDV measurements have thus led to fine characterizations of the unsteady boundary layer behavior in various
unsteady parametric conditions.
As an example, the phase-averaged velocity profiles given
in Figure 3a (Pascazio et al., 1996) have been determined
to characterize the transition phenomenon occurring on the
upper-side NACA0012 airfoil in pitching motion.
In this figure, ELDV phase-averaged data are compared
with theoretical laminar (solid line) and turbulent (dotted
line) velocity profils at a given longitudinal curvilinear abscissa s/c = 0.67. The < U > velocity tangential component, normalized by the external velocity < Ue >, is plotted

4 Compressible Flows - Subsonic to Supersonic

Figure 2. CFD vs. ELDV and -PIV results within a laminar bubble on OA209 airfoil at s/c = 0.05, 0 = 11.5 , and Rec = 105 .
(a) 0 = 8 ; (b) 0 = 11.5 ; (c) comparison CFD/experiments.

as a function of the altitude ( = y(Res )1/2/s, where

Res = U s/). The flow state is shown to be laminar at low
incidence values (159 < t < 268 ) and becomes transitional and then turbulent at high incidence values (315 <
t < 360 ). Some phase shifts due to the boundary layer
transition processes from laminar to turbulent state (for decreasing a values) and from turbulent to laminar state (for
increasing a values) are readily observed on the velocity profiles. In Figure 3b (Pascazio et al., 1996), the turbulent terms
< u >, < v >, < uv > are shown as a function of for
the same oscillating conditions as in Figure 2a. When the
laminar flow is establishing (159 < t < 268 ), a significant decrease of the turbulent terms is observed (u < 0.07,
v < 0.015 and uv < 0.0003) and the maximum values are
reached near the wall at low values of . When the boundary layer state is transitional or turbulent (268 < t < 360
and 0 < t < 268 ), the maximum value of each turbulent
term is higher (u = 0.15, v = 0.10 and uv = 0.04) and

is reached farther above the wall (15 < < 18), due to the
increase in the boundary layer thickness.
From phase-averaged ELDV velocity profiles, measured
on airfoil surfaces of different geometries and thicknesses
(NACA0012, OA209) set at either different steady flow conditions on Reynolds number (105 < Res < 3 106 ) or different unsteady flow conditions generated by the oscillation
in translation, pitching and combined translationpitching, a
transition onset criterion has been proposed (Berton et al.,
2001, 2003) in the following form:
Res
35
000 )Re0.8
(Re3 )trans = 0.0135(1 + 1.5e
with
s
 2
u
u
3  =
(1
)dz
(1)
2
Ue
0 Ue

where 3  represents the energy loss thickness of the second

kind within the boundary layer and the Reynolds numbers are

The Role of Wind Tunnel Experiments in CFD Validation 5

Figure 3. (a) U/Ue = U/Ue () laminar and turbulent boundary layer velocity profiles on a NACA0012 pitching airfoil. (b) < u >, < v >,
< uv > turbulent quantities as a function of on a NACA0012 at 0 = 6 , = 6 , k = 0.188, s/c = 0.67, and Rec = 105 .

respectively based on the integral term 3  and on the length s

along the curved airfoil surface. The above formulation thus
allows to delineate the instantaneous border between the laminar flow state and the onset of transition, as a function of the
phase t of the oscillation. When compared to other transition criteria based on other integral quantities (displacement
thickness or the momentum loss thickness 2 ), the criterion

based on 3  is shown to improve the instantaneous detection

of transition and the CFD results when implemented in the
numerical code (Barla et al., 2005; Geissler et al., 1999).
An example illustrating the detection capability of the criterion based on 3 is shown in Figure 4 for the NACA0012
airfoil. For both airfoil motions, the Reynolds number based
on 3 is plotted as a function of ReS , and the transition is given

6 Compressible Flows - Subsonic to Supersonic

Figure 3. (Continued)

by the solid line. Black symbols correspond to a transitional

or turbulent boundary layer state and the open symbols to a
laminar one. In Figure 4a, results show that at the lower angle
of attack (0 = 0 ), the boundary layer state remains laminar for all the phase t of the oscillating period. Similarly,
the boundary layer is turbulent all over the oscillating period

at the higher value (0 = 3 ). On the hysteresis loop corresponding to the critical case 0 = 2 , the criterion are shown
to well delineate the laminar and turbulent regimes. When
the flow velocity increases, the laminar flow is established
along the airfoil upper side during a little bit less than the
half period 185 < t < 330 . The pitching motion airfoil

The Role of Wind Tunnel Experiments in CFD Validation 7

Figure 3. (Continued)

is shown in Figure 4b at 0 = 2 , = 2 and for reduced

frequencies k = 0.03 and k = 0.35. At the lower frequency
value k = 0.03, the flow has a quasi-steady behavior and produces a thin hysteresis loop and a laminar regime at low incidence values (160 < t < 220 ). Unlike the low frequency
case, the result at k = 0.35 shows a larger hysteresis loop and

a more pronounced phase shift in establishing the laminar

boundary regime that is also well delineated by the criterion.
Comprehensive measurements of unsteady 2D and 3D
flows over oscillating airfoils and wings have been performed
within the UNSI (Unsteady Viscous Flow in the context
of fluidstructure interaction) European Commission project

8 Compressible Flows - Subsonic to Supersonic

Figure 4. Transition criterion on 3 (solid line), ELDV laminar

velocity profile (open symbols), and transitional or turbulent velocity profile (solid symbols) on NACA0012 airfoil. (a) Translation in fore-and-aft motion at fixed angle of attack 0 = 0 (circle), 0 = 2 (triangle), 0 = 3 (diamond) at 0 = 0 , = 0.27,
k = 0.188, s/c = 0.37; (b) pitching motion at fixed upstream velocity U (Rec = 105 ) and s/c = 0.58 at 0 = 2 , = 2 , = 0,
k = 0.03 (diamond) and k = 0.35 (triangle).

(Berton et al., 2003). Detailed databases including ELDV

phase-averaged boundary layer velocity profiles and turbulent quantities, pressure surface distributions, overall forces
measurements, and flow visualizations have been established.
Such benchmark databases have thus been used for enhancement and CFD validation. A better understanding of some
flow physics features specifically generated by turbulence
and by the flow unsteadiness has been gained during this
UNSI project. However, comparisons between experiments
and CFD have also proved the need to overcome existing
challenging problems such as the improvement of transition
and turbulence modeling in unsteady flow regimes.
Indeed, the accurate turbulence modeling in either separated or unsteady flow regimes remains a real challenge for

both experiments and CFD approaches. Although ReynoldsAveraged NavierStokes turbulence models are still very
widely used, they are about to be gradually supplanted by
large eddy simulation (LES), which still remains elusive for
complex flow geometries especially at high Reynolds number. As a result, the hybrid RANSLES techniques including detached Eddy simulation are being increasingly used
to model separated and unsteady flows (Haase, Braza and
Revell, 2009). An example of this hybrid approach is the
simulation of the flow around a circular cylinder (Perrin
et al., 2008; Bourguet et al., 2008), which illustrate the
use of a refined experimental data, for turbulence modeling
improvement and CFD validation.
Experiments on the turbulent flow past a circular cylinder have been conducted using a time-resolved PIV 3C
method and a time-averaging procedure (Perrin et al., 2008)
at Reynolds number Rec = 1.4 105 in a confined test section environment, regarding the blockage coefficient (20%)
and the aspect ratio (4.8). Figure 5a (Bourguet et al., 2008)
gives an example of the flow field velocity data provided
by TRPIV 3C measurements around the cylinder. The flow
data consist of statistical and time-dependent velocity fields
that aim at providing a physical analysis of the coherent and
turbulent part of the flow. Such data have been used to improve the turbulence modeling in the strongly separated and
unsteady flows in the cylinder wake. The numerical simulation of the flow is carried out with exactly the same 3D
boundary conditions as in the experiments and in the same
conditions of confined environment. The numerical approach
is based on the organized eddy simulation in the context of the
DES. The statistical turbulence modeling URANS (Unsteady
Reynolds Averaged NavierStokes) is used in the near wake
region, coupled with an LES modeling in the detached flow
region. The time-averaged longitudinal velocity fields provided by TRPIV 3C are shown to be efficiently predicted by
the DES/OES simulation in Figure 5b.

2.2 Dynamic stall in 2D/3D unsteady flow

configurations
The term of dynamic stall was initially referring to the unsteady and 3D phenomenon occurring on the retreating rotor blade sections in forward flight (Mc Croskey, Carr and
Mc Alister, 1971). The physical phenomenology by which a
separation bubble forms near the leading edge of the upper
side surface grows in size and leaves the surface to form a
strong vortex (or several vortices), which is rolled up along
the surface and shed in the downstream wake, is one of the
most reviewed process in the aerodynamics open literature. A
comprehensive review of both experiments and CFD methods

The Role of Wind Tunnel Experiments in CFD Validation 9

Figure 5. (a) Flow around a circular cylinder measured by time-resolved PIV 3C; (b) comparison between TRPIV 3C field and DES
(Organized Eddy Simulation) OES results.

implemented for dynamic stall has been published (Maresca,

Favier and Rebont, 1979; Piziali, 1994; Favier et al., 1988;
Favier, Maresca and Rebont, 1982; Carr, 1998; Ekaterinas
and Platzer, 1998; Bouseman, 2000). However, although a
proper simulation of the surrounding rotary wing flow requires considering various parameters, including simultaneous velocity and incidence fluctuations, three-dimensional
and compressible effects, most of the studies undertaken on

this phenomenon have separated the various parameters influences by investigating 2D unsteady flows over airfoils oscillating either in pitch and/or in translation parallel to the
freestream direction (Favier et al., 1988; Favier, Maresca and
Rebont, 1982).
Consequently, much of the current works on dynamic stall
are done in the two-dimensional area, and 2D wind tunnel
experiments dedicated to dynamic stall studies have given

10 Compressible Flows - Subsonic to Supersonic

Figure 6. (a) Experimental set-up; (b) lift coefficient; (c) drag coefficient; (d) moment coefficient. CFD vs. experiments on forces and
moment coefficients, on 0A209 pitching airfoil at 0 = 9.8 , = 9.1 , k = 0.05, M = 0.31, Rec = 1.15 106 .

rise to substantial databases, mainly using the airfoil pitching

motion to simulate the stall phenomenon. Such databases provided a detailed characterization on the aerodynamic behavior of airfoils oscillating across different ranges of frequency,
angle of attack, amplitude variation of the incidence oscillation, amplitude variation of the velocity oscillation, airfoil
geometry, and Reynolds number range, including high subsonic and transonic flow regimes. Among many other studies,
a typical example of experimental and numerical work carried out on the dynamic stall of the OA209 airfoil section
is shown in Figure 6 (Geissler et al., 1999, 2005). In Figure 6a, the experimental set-up shows the OA209 model in
the 1 m 1 m test section of the DLR-Gottingen (Deutsche
Forschungsanstaltfur Luft and Raumfahrt) wind tunnel TWG
(transonic wind tunnel). Unsteady pressure distributions have
been measured at the model mid-section with pressure sensors and have been integrated to obtain normal forces and

moments (Geissler et al., 2005). The upper and lower wind

tunnel walls were adaptive, and a steady adaptation has been
applied for the mean incidence 0 = 9.8 and kept unchanged
during oscillations.
The measurements show all measured 160 consecutives
cycles in Figure 6b, c, d and are compared with calculated
results. CFD is performed using a time-accurate implicit
NavierStokes code based on the Approximate Factorisation Implicit methodology with the Spalart Allmaras oneequation turbulence model (Geissler et al., 1999). Experimental and calculated results of forces and moment are in
close agreement even in regions of dynamic stall vortex development and shedding. The drag rise, as well as the negative
pitching moment peaks, is almost covered by the numerical
prediction. Nevertheless, measurements show a significant
spreading of cyclic curves, especially in regions of massive
flow separation. In these regions, the use of an adequate

The Role of Wind Tunnel Experiments in CFD Validation 11

data reduction phase-averaging technique over 160 cycles
appears to be a requirement in evaluating accurately the CFD
capability as well as the uncertainty of measurements.
However, it should be noticed that the force and moment
hysteresis loops generated by the airfoil pitching oscillation
alone exhibited only quasi-steady behavior during the flow
reattachment phase. Indeed, the flow reattaches on the upper side when the instantaneous incidence is sufficient
low ( < 0 ) similarly to the 2D steady boundary layer flow
regime. Consequently, there is no gain in the mean lift and
drag coefficients over the oscillating period when compared
to their corresponding steady values. When simulating the
2D dynamic stall by means of either the airfoil translation
motion or the combined translation pitching motion at high
fixed incidence value of the airfoil (typically at 0 = 20 ),
the boundary layer flow reattachment appears to be a truly
unsteady phenomenon (Maresca, Favier and Rebont, 1979;
Favier et al., 1988; Favier, Maresca and Rebont, 1982), which
cannot occur in steady flow regimes at the same high incidence value 0 . Consequently, there is a significant gain in
the mean lift and drag coefficients over the oscillating period
when compared to their corresponding steady values. Such an
unsteady boundary reattachment and the corresponding gain
on the mean lift and drag coefficients still remain challenges
for the CFD modeling.
Unlike the investigations conducted on the airfoil stall in
2D flows, the literature survey indicates that a limited number of CFD works has currently been attempted to make the
step from 2D to 3D simulations of dynamic stall (Ekaterinas,
1995; Spentzos et al., 2007). The literature survey also reveals that very few experimental works (Piziali, 1994; Berton
et al., 2003; Coton and Galbraith, 1999) have been conducted
on wings of low and moderate aspect ratio, which are closer
to modern rotor blades. Moreover, experiments mainly concern flow visualizations using micro tufts and pressure surface measurements (Piziali, 1994; Spentzos et al., 2007) and
databases including both local velocity profiles, surface pressure, and overall forces measurements are rather rare (Berton
et al., 2001, 2003).
The example in Figure 7 (Spentzos et al., 2007) provides
some experimental and CFD results on the investigation of
the flow topology and the boundary behavior during the occurrence of 3D dynamic stall over a tapered wing oscillating
in pitch at M = 0.2 and high Reynolds number Re = 106 .
Experiments were conducted at LABM using the ELDV 3C
method to determine the phase-averaged velocity and their associated turbulent quantities on an oscillating tapered wing
in 3D flow (Berton et al., 2001, 2003). The database additionally includes overall forces and local pressure surface at
different spanwise sections in altitude (z/ h) and chordwise
stations (x/c).

The CFD solver uses the Reynolds Averaged Navier

Stokes equations expressed in the 3D form and the baseline
k equations turbulence model have been used. More details on the CFD solver can be found in the study by Spentzos
et al. (2007). In this figure, two unsteady flow cases were
computed, both having a mean incidence angle 0 = 18 and
amplitude = 6 , same reduced frequency k = 0.06, and
two different section altitudes along the span (a) z/ h = 0.5
and (b) z/ h = 0.7. Comparisons between CFD vs ELDV are
performed on the U-velocity profiles at four different phase
angles during the oscillation cycle t = 0 , 90 , 180 , and
270 . In each plot of Figure 7, one can see an embedded plot
of the cross spanwise section where the probing station is
also shown. The chordwise location of the ELDV probing,
streamlines, as well as the pressure contours are presented at
the corresponding phase angle t.
Such comparisons lead to conclude that CFD results are in
excellent agreement with the experimental data. The velocity profiles at phase angles t = 0 and 270 reveal a fully
attached flow at all spanwise and chordwise stations. In contrast, the velocity profiles at t = 90 and 180 show the
massive recirculation of the flow. The onset and the extent
of the separation are shown to be well predicted by CFD. It
is only for the inboard station that the CFD slightly underpredicts the separation at a phase angle of t = 180 . It is
also interesting to note that the CFD results predict very well
the velocity profiles at the outboard station of z/ h = 0.7. In
this region, closer to the wing tip, the flow is strongly 3D,
and the dynamic stall vortex appears to interact with the tip
vortex resulting in a very complex flow field. Such detailed
ELDV boundary layer measurements thus appear to be suitable for CFD validation, and such CFDELDV comparisons
constitute one of the very few examples existing in literature
where the boundary layer properties are directly compared
with CFD results. The common pressure predictions are useful as first indicators for the validity of a CFD. However,
since turbulence models have a strong influence in the nearwall region, comparisons like the ones above show clearly the
potential of CFD when carefully validated on experiments.

3 INTEGRATING THE USE OF WIND

TUNNEL EXPERIMENTS AND CFD
The previous few examples have shown that an effective CFD
validation must be based on suited and well documented
databases, especially when unsteady flows configurations are
concerned. However, uncertainties necessarily exist in results issued from both CFD tools and wind tunnel measurements. Obviously, experiments and CFD have to be used in

12 Compressible Flows - Subsonic to Supersonic

Figure 7. CFD vs. ELDV experiments on the U-velocity components at different phases t of the 3D dynamic stall, top to bottom
t = 0 , 90 , 180 , and 270 . Tapered wing in pitching motion at 0 = 12 , = 6 , k = 0.060, and Rec = 106 , M = 0.20, chordwise
station s/c = 0.40 and altitudes along the span (a) z/ h = 0.50 and (b) z/ h = 0.70.

The Role of Wind Tunnel Experiments in CFD Validation 13

Figure 7. (Continued)

a complementary way to improve the validity of both methods. Evaluating those uncertainties and understanding their
impacts in the validation process are required for efficiently
integrating experiments and CFD approaches.
The fundamental strategy of validation is to assess how
accurately the computational results compare with the experimental data with a precise quantification of the errors
and careful estimates of the uncertainties of both techniques,
which is often a challenging task. Different sources of errors
have to be clearly identified and estimated in CFD (Roache,
1993). A few examples include, for instance, the numerical
implementation of the governing equations in the space of
discretization, the grid refinement, the convergence issues, as
well as the lack of accuracy of physical models implemented
in the codes. This is particularly true for the turbulence models used in CFD to predict the behaviors of unsteady boundary layers (laminar, transitional, and turbulent), and separated
and/or vortical flow regions.
As far as experiments are concerned, the quantification of
uncertainties is a difficult and necessary task, which includes
the evaluation of different sources of errors, classified into
two categories: the errors resulting from the instrument and
the measurement method on the one hand and bias errors
resulting from the techniques of statistical data reduction on
the other hand, which are much more difficult to assess. Typical errors that are generally quantified concern, for instance,
geometrical factors of the model, blockage and wall interference effects, and the adequate and complete definition of
steady/unsteady flow conditions and boundary conditions. A
more difficult job is to estimate the errors generated by the
techniques of data reduction, to analyze the velocity fields,
and understand for instance the vortex dynamics or the scales

of turbulence (Raffel et al., 2007). However, uncertainty

margins must be provided in order to allow meaningful
conclusions on the physical model to be analyzed.
It must be emphasized that both global and local measurements constituting the database need to be considered as safe
and accurate. They are generally including overall forces and
moments measurements by balances, surface pressure and
skin friction measurements in both axial and azimuth directions, flow features visualizations, flow field measurements,
and/or boundary layer velocity profiles by laser techniques,
which can be used to study transition and flow separation at
higher angles of attack. To fully satisfy the requirements of
the three-folded role of wind tunnel experiments, different
kinds of database should be specifically established:
1. Databases providing a description of the phenomenology
of the flow, which constitute an a posteriori check of the
CFD predictive results. A few examples are for instance
ELDV measurements through bubble and transition
regions shown in Section 2.
2. Benchmark databases that provide overall aerodynamic
performances and local aerodynamic quantities (including phase-averaged velocities and turbulent quantities).
A few examples are the databases corresponding to oscillating airfoils and wings shown in Section 2. Such complete and detailed databases should be used to improve
the turbulence modeling in unsteady flows, provide a reference comparison between different numerical codes,
and validate CFD approaches in different conditions of
unsteadiness.
3. Databases dedicated specifically to the validation of
whole or part of CFD codes, as, for instance, different

14 Compressible Flows - Subsonic to Supersonic

unsteady flow conditions generated by the dynamic stall,
as a function of airfoil geometry, amplitude, frequency,
etc.
For these three types of databases, the future trends imply that
CFD simulations have to be synergistically used with wind
tunnel testing. With the help of detailed flow simulations provided by a CFD simulation, it is thus advantageous to organize
optimally the flow diagnostics and the measurements methods in the wind tunnel testing. Moreover, new methods, such
as the virtual reality or the 3D real flow representation, have
to be implemented to analyze and compare the large amount
of results generated by experiments and CFD.

4 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Integrating the use of experiments and CFD will be one of
the major challenges to perform an efficient cross fertilization
between the two approaches. Future challenges and requirements for experiments and CFD will include the successful
numerical simulations of available experimental databases
and the complete validation of relevant and detailed experiments, especially for unsteady flow phenomena on complex
3D geometries. In this context, the respective roles of experiments and CFD thus appear as synergistic and complementary in the dialectic process.
This strategy of integration is an emerging trend and must
be strongly encouraged and developed for the maturation of
the CFD approach. The dual role of mutually guiding and
stimulating the advances and benefits of each approach will
lead us to improve the global knowledge on fluid flow physics.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It was a pleasure to have fruitful discussions with my
colleague, Dr Christian Maresca, Emeritus Senior Research
Scientist at CNRS, during the preparation of this review.

REFERENCES
Barakos, G. and Drikakis, D. (2003) Computational study of unsteady turbulent flows around oscillating and ramping airfoils.
Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 42, 163186.
Barla, C., Geissler, W., Berton, E., Raffel, M. and Favier, D. (2005)
Dynamic stall investigations on NACA0012 and OA209 airfoils.
Proceedings of the 31st European Rotorcraft Forum, Florence,
September 2005.

Berton, E., Favier, D., Nsi Mba, M., Maresca, C. and Allain, C.
(2001). Embedded LDV measurements methods applied to unsteady flows investigation. Exp. Fluids, 30(1), 102110.
Berton, E., Allain, C., Favier, D. and Maresca, C. (2003) Experimental methods for subsonic flow measurements, in Progress
in Computational FlowStructure Interaction (eds W. Haase, V.
Selmin and B. Winzell), Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics
and Multidisciplinary Design, Springer, Berlin, vol. 81, pp. 97
104 and pp. 155164.
Bourguet, R., Braza, M., Harran, G. and El Akoury, R. (2008)
Anisotropic organised eddy simulation for the prediction of nonequilibrium turbulent flows around bodies. J. Fluids Struct.,
24(8).
Bouseman, W.J. (2000) Airfoil dynamic stall and rotorcraft maneuverability. NASA Report TM 2000-209601, July 2000.
Carr, L.W. (1998) Progress in analysis and prediction of dynamic
stall. J. Aircaft, 25(1), 617.
Coton, F.N. and Galbraith, McD. (1999) An experimental study of
dynamic stall on a finite wing. Aeronaut. J., 103(1023), 229236.
Davidson, L., Cokljat, D., Frohlich, J., Leschziner, M.A., Mellen,
C. and Rodi, W. (2003) LESFOIL: large eddy simulation of flow
around a high lift airfoil, in Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics
and Multidisciplinary Design, vol. 6 Springer, Berlin.
Desai, S.S. (2003) Relative roles of computational fluid dynamics
and wind tunnel testing in the development of aircraft. Curr. Sci.,
83(1), 4964.
Ekaterinas, J.A. (1995) Numerical investigation of dynamic stall of
an oscillating wing. AIAA J., 33(10), 18031808.
Ekaterinas, J.A. and Platzer, M.F. (1998) Computational prediction
of airfoil dynamic stall, Progr. Aerosp. Sci., 12, 759846.
Favier, D., Agnes, A., Barbi, C. and Maresca, C. (1988) The combined translation-pitch motion a new airfoil dynamic stall simulation. J. Aircraft, 9, 805814.
Favier, D., Maresca, C., Nsi Mba, M., Berton, E. and Agnes,
A. (1997). New type of Embedded Laser Doppler Velocimeter
(ELDV) for measurement of rotary wings boundary-layer. Rev.
Sci. Instru., 66(6), 24472455.
Favier, D., Maresca, C. and Rebont, J. (1982) Dynamic stall due
to fluctuations of velocity and incidence. AIAA J. 20(7), 865
871.
Geissler, W., Chandrasekhara, M.F., Platzer, M. and Carr, L.W.
(1999) The effect of transition modeling on the prediction
of compressible deep dynamic stall. Proceedings of Seventh
Asian Congress of Fluid Mechanics, Chennai (Madras), India,
December 1999.
Geissler, W., Dietz, G., Mai, H., Bosbach, J. and Richard, H. (2005)
Dynamic stall and its passive control investigations on the OA209
Airfoil Section. Proceedings of 31st European Rotorcraft Forum,
Florence, Italy, September 2005.
Haase, W., Aupoix, B., Bunge, U. and Schwamborn, D. (2006)
FLOMANIA: a European initiative on flow physics modeling,
in Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary
Design, vol. 94 springer, New York.
Haase, W., Braza, M. and Revell, A. (2009) A European effort on
hybrid RANSLES modeling, Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, vol. 103, Springer, Berlin.

The Role of Wind Tunnel Experiments in CFD Validation 15

Johnson, W. (2001) Calculations of the aerodynamic behavior of
the tilt rotor aeroacoustic model (TRAM) in the DNW. Proceedings of the of the 57th Annual Forum, Washington DC, May
2001.
Landgrebe, A.J. (1971) An analytical and experimental investigation of helicopter rotor hover performance and wake geometry
characteristics. USAAMRDL, US Army Air Mobility Research
and Development Laboratories, Technical Report 71-24, Moffett
Field, CA, June 1971.
Maresca, C., Favier, D. and Rebont, J. (1979) Experiments on an
aerofoil at high angle of incidence in longitudinal oscillations. J.
Fluid Mech., 92, 671690.
Mc Croskey, W.J., Carr L.W. and Mc Alister K.W. (1971 Dynamic stall experiments on oscillating airfoils. AIAA J., 14(1),
5763.
Pascazio, M., Autric, J.M., Favier, D. and Maresca, C. (1996)
Unsteady boundary-layer measurement on oscillating airfoils:
transition and separation phenomena in pitching motion.
Proceedings of the 34th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and
Exhibit. AIAA paper 96/0035, Reno, January 1996.

Perrin, R., Braza, M., Cid, E., Cazin, S., Chassaing, P., Mockett, C.,
Reimann, T. and Thiele, F. (2008) Coherent and turbulent process
analysis in the flow past a circular cylinder at high Reynolds
number. J. Fluids Struc., 24(8).
Piziali, R.A. (1994) 2D and 3D oscillating wing aerodynamics for a
range of angles of attack including stall. NASA Report TM-4632,
September 1994.
Raffel, M., Favier, D., Berton, E., Rondot, C., Nsi Mba, M. and
Geissler, W. (2006) Micro PIV and ELDV wind-tunnel investigation of the laminar separation bubble above a pitching helicopter
blade tip. J. Meas. Sci. Techno., 17, 15311658.
Raffel, M., Willer, C., Wereley, S. and Kompenhans, J. (2007)
Particle Image Velocimetry, a Practical Guide, 2nd edn, Springer,
Berlin.
Roache, P.J. (1993) Quantification of uncertainty in Computational
Fluid Dynamics. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 254, 5978.
Spentzos, A., Barakos, G., Badcock, K., Richards, B., Coton, F.N,
Galbraith, R.A., Berton, E. and Favier, D. (2007) Computational
fluid dynamics study of three-dimensional dynamic stall of various planform shapes. J. Aircraft, 44(4), 11181128.