You are on page 1of 5

University Of Canterbury

Department of Mechanical Engineering


Aerodynamics and Ground Vehicle Dynamics
WIND TUNNEL ANALYSIS OF AN NACA 0018 AEROFOIL
Author:
Ben Munro
78984907
Lab Supervisor:
Dr. Patrick Gorgangram
Professor:
Dr. Mark Jeremy
September 26, 2013
1
Wind Tunnel Analysis of an NACA 0018 Aerofoill
Ben Munro
University of Canterbury
Abstract
The mechanical properties of a unidirectional and [0, 30]
s
laminate were measured. This report details the methods used to nd
the mechanical properties of a laminate experimentally, then analytically by micromechanics and and nally by macromechanics.
It was found that Classical lamination theory (macromechanics) agreed with the experimental data for E
x
and E
y
to a high degree
of accuracy, where the Slab Model (micromechanics) was only able to calculate E
1
with any accuracy.
1. Introduction
Fiber reinforced composites, due to their high specic sti-
ness, high specic strength, excellent resistance to corrosion and
superior fatigue performance, have become attractive structure
materials not only in the weight sensitive aerospace industry,
but also in marine, armor, automobile and sporting goods. Knowl-
edge of the mechanical behavior of a composite is required if
it is to be used in critical situations under load, such as an air-
plane turbine blade or a space station impacted by various ying
space debris [1-3].
The mechanical properties of a composite material are aected
by both the individual lamina and the way that the lamina is
stacked to form the laminate. The volume fraction of ber in a
lamina determines the mechanical properties of composite ma-
terial. Knowledge of the ber volume fraction allows us to
predict the mechanical of a composite using a micromechan-
ics theory, the Slab Method. To take advantage of the unique
properties of ber reinforced laminates, a structure often con-
tains multiply layers orientated in the direction of the function
of the structure. By changing the ber orientation and stack-
ing sequence of composite laminates, the structural properties
can be varied signicantly. We can calculate the eect of ply
orientation using classical lamination theory; this allows us to
also predict failure in a laminate, allowing the designer to op-
timize the structural response of a composite component to a
given load.
Therefore, the objective of this laboratory is to characterize
the mechanical properties of a carbon ber laminate and epoxy
experimentally using the methods described in ASTM E132
[4], ASTM D3039 [5] and ASTM D3518 [6]. Furthermore,
by performing calculations using Slab Theory (Micromechan-
ics) and Classical Lamination Theory (Macromechanics), we
would gain familiarity using theoretical methods for predicting
the mechanical behavior of composites and how these values
compare to experimental results.
2. Method
Materials
The Composite material tested in this laboratory was a ber
reinforced laminate. The epoxy resin (ES180 Epoxy Lami-
nating System, Nuplex Composites) consists of a pre-polymer
(base) and cross-linker (hardener). The reinforcement used in
this laboratory was carbon ber (T700S, Toray Inc.). The ber
has a tensile strength of 4900 MPa and a tensile modulus of 230
GPa.
Specimen Preparation
Details of the laminate fabrication method has been described
previously [7]. Briey, this involved (i) the cutting of the carbon
ber lamina; (ii) the mixing of the epoxy resin; (iii) preparation
of the mold; (iv) stacking of the lamina; (v) Vacuum assisted
inltration of the resin into the laminar; and nally (vi) curing
of the laminate. Once the curing cycle was completed, samples
were cut in accordance with ASTM D3039 by the lab demon-
strator. Three axial samples and three transverse samples were
cut (Figure 1) with a diamond saw. Use of a diamond saw pro-
duces a clear edge and will reduce wear. Dimensions of each
sample can be found in Appendix A. Unidirectional samples
were prepared by the lab demonstrator independent of the lab.
Preprint submitted to (cant delete) September 26, 2013
Tensile Testing
Tensile testing was performed on a MTS80 (MTS Systems
Corporation) table top unit with a constant crosshead speed of
1mm/min. The testing machine was equipped with a 100kN
load cell and hydraulic wedge grips with maximum clamp pres-
sure of 20MPa. A grip pressure of 14MPa was used for the ax-
ial samples, and 2.5MPa for the transverse samples. Data was
recorded from the test unit on a computer running LabVIEW
software (National Instruments Ltd). Grip length is the free
length of the grips. This was determined by clamping a piece
of paper and measuring between the clamp marks with a digital
caliper.
Before the tension testing was commenced, the specimen area
( A = wh) was determined at three places in the gauge section.
The area was reported as the average of these three measure-
ments. The specimens were then placed in the grips of the test-
ing machine by the lab demonstrator; care was taken to align
the axis with the test direction. To avoid initial stress within
the specimen during the griping of the sample, the The strain
transducers were then attached to the sample by the lab demon-
strator.
Force was then applied to the specimen at the rate of 1mm/min,
while recording data. When the specimen had elongated 0.8mm,
the strain transducer was removed and the force reapplied un-
til failure. The cross-head displacement versus force and strain
versus force was recorded during the experiment. The mode
and location of failure were recorded for the specimen. Three
axial samples and three transverse samples of the [0,30] lami-
nate were tested. An axial and transverse sample of the unidi-
rectional laminate prepared by the demonstrator was also tested.
Fiber Fraction Analysis
Samples prepared by the lab demonstrator in a manner equiv-
alent to the [0,30] laminar were imaged by an optical micro-
scope (brand). 12 images were taken for ber fraction calcula-
tions. The images were processed in ImageJ (National Institutes
of Health) to extract the ber fraction. To do this, the image was
converted from an RGB color le into an 8-bit image. The im-
age was then cut down so that only the in focus area remained.
The thresholding function was then used to illuminate a cer-
tain area of the image based on brightness; this corresponded to
the bers in the matrix. The measure function was then set to
measure the area within the threshold limit, i.e. the ber area.
A measurement was taken and the threshold was then reduced
to include the entire picture. Another measurement was then
taken. The ber fraction was dened as the ber area divided
by the total area of the image. Figure 1 shows this process. This
was repeated for 8 images.
Table 1: Table of values used in [0, 30]
s
axial property calculations
Sample
1
( %)
1
(MPa)
2
(%)
1
(MPa)
I 0.0992 62.169 0.2979 180.461
II 0.100 55.673 0.302 169.889
III 0.100 58.346 0.297 176.931
3. Results
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Angle of Attack (deg)
L
if
t C
o
e
f
f
ic
e
n
t (
C
L
)
Experimental and Computed C
L
vs. Angle of Attack


Experimental C
L
2011 Experimental C
L
Mallon
XFOIL
data5
data6
5th Degree Polynomal Fit
Figure 1: Comparison of results
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Angle of Attack (deg)
L
i
f
t
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
e
n
t
(
C
L
)
C
L
vs. Angle of Attack



y = 6.452e07*x
5
+ 1.012e05*x
4
0.0001417*x
3
+ 0.0007912*x
2
+ 0.07615*x 0.1122
C
L
5th Degree Polynomal Fit
Figure 2: Comparison of results
3
4. Discussion
Appendix
Table 2: Experimental Conditions
Run Angle of Attack ( %) Velocity (m\s) Temperature (c)
1 0 18.15 19.6
2 3 18.46 18.4
3 6 18.63 18.4
4 9 18.46 18.4
5 11 18.41 18.5
6 13 18.37 18.7
7 15 18.59 18.7
8 18 18.72 18.6
9 18* 18.41 18.8
10 15* 18.19 18.8
11 11* 34.61 19.4
* Boundary layer tripped
4