AEROSPACE 305W AERODYNAMMICS LABORATORY

Water Channel Airfoil Analysis

Lab 2: Section 18
February 26, 2014
Performed in Room 44 Hammond Building

Peter B. Jackson

Lab Partners Names:
Paige Dumke and David Spadaro

Lab TA:
Christy Lihn
Course Instructor:
Richard Auhl




Abstract

In this experiment, a 3D airfoil SM701 wing was attached to a force balance in various
configurations and tested in the water channel. The chord length of the SM701 was 6 and had a
span of 18. The force balance was used to measure the aerodynamic forces and pitching
moments acting on the wing in the water tunnel. The water channel speed was calibrated as a
function of the dial setting, an approximate flow velocity was then determined for different dial
settings. The aerodynamic forces were determined by the voltage readings from the force balance
and corrected for the forces exerted on the mounting strut by the water flow. The increase in the
dial settings displayed a smaller velocity for the foam disk. The increased velocity showed lift
and drag forces to increase while the pitching moments to decrease. In lab results showed that
the best angle of attack for the SM701 was approximately 12.

AEROSPACE 305W AERODYNAMMICS LABORATORY


I. Introduction
In this laboratory, the water channel airfoil analysis was introduced in three main phases.
The experiment included the calibration of the water channel balance, water channel velocity and
the aerodynamic properties of the SM701 airfoil.
The aerodynamics forces were determined using the force balance instrument acting on
the 3D wing model. In the water channel the force balance was used to measure the main
components of the lift and drag forces, and pitching moments. Equation (1) was used to calculate
the aerodynamic forces and moments.

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

1

1

2

2

3

3
(1)


The balance load cells were used to determine the change in output voltages (E). The
change in output voltages was determined by the balance loads cells, which were multiplied by
the inverse of the influence coefficient matrix (
1
) to obtain the corresponding aerodynamic
forces and pitching moments.
Secondly was the water channel flow speed as a function of the dial settings. This was
accomplished by using a round foam disk, which was carefully deposited in the center of the
contraction section, and the time it took the disk to travel the 7 foot distance between two marks
on the test section in the water tunnel was recorded.
The final part was to determine the aerodynamic properties of the SM701. The 3D wing
model had an aspect ratio of 3 calculated using Equation (1) and the measurements of chord
length of 6 and a span of 18.
AEROSPACE 305W AERODYNAMMICS LABORATORY

=

2

(1)

Equation (2) was used to calculate the Reynolds number to be of approximately 62,009.4.

=
vc

=
vc

(2)

The maximum lift force was calculated to be 2.289 lbs using the Equation (3)


=
1
2
v
2
C
L
(3)

The maximum drag force of 0.4906lbs using Equation (4)

=
1
2
v
2
C
D
(4)

The wing model was mounted on a strut and placed in the water channel at different angles of
attack and the data was measured and record.



II. Experimental Procedure
The laboratory involved measuring the aerodynamic forces, moments and other
properties of a #D SM701 airfoil wing. To calibrate the force balance, the settings for the
instruments were determined by an initial loading with the strut alone and then with the airfoil.
The data was collected by applying known masses and measuring the resultant voltages in the
force balance load cells. Readings were taken for three components: the lift forces, drag forces,
and pitching moments. The angle of attack was measured from the bottom surface of the wing as
the center of the chord was used as the reference location. Corrections were made to account for
the +2.5 of error involved with this method. The experiment started at an angle of attack of
11.8 and finished at -25.9. The wing on the strut was carefully lowered into the water channel
about halfway. All three channels of the balance amplifier were zeroed by trimming the value to
AEROSPACE 305W AERODYNAMMICS LABORATORY

near zero volts and the computer was used to record the velocity voltages from all the channels
of the balance. Figure 1 displays the water channel balance and its components that were used to
measure the aerodynamics forces and moments acting on the 3D wing model.


Figure 1: Three Component Water Channel Balance
(All dimensions in inches)

The water channel speed was calibrated by the dial settings that were done at 1.0, 1.5,
2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 and 5.0 on the dial setting. And the times it took the round foam disk to
travel the 7 foot distance between two marks on the test section at different angles of attack were
recorded. The water speed was increased to the dial setting 2.8 and again the computer began to
record the voltages after the velocity had stabilized. After, the angle of attack was continually
AEROSPACE 305W AERODYNAMMICS LABORATORY

adjusted two turns in the negative direction for approximately 40 turns. At every two turns the
force balance voltages recorded.
Once that process was finished the SM701 was dismounted and the voltages from the
balance were recorded from the strut alone. The voltages were recorded from the dial settings
that ranged from 1.0 to 4.0. Using the above recorded data, the lift, drag, and pitch were
calculated. Figure 2 displays the SM701 3D wing airfoil mounted on the force balance and
submerged in the water channel during testing.


Figure 2: The SM701 3D Wing mounted on the force balance

Figure 3, shows how the lab was setup in the water channel including the computer setup
and the arrows displaying where the start and end points of the distance the foam disk had to
AEROSPACE 305W AERODYNAMMICS LABORATORY

travel in the test section. The water channel speed calibration was calibrated after the distance
traveled and time was recorded and a graph that represents the relationship displayed in Figure 4.


Figure 3: The Water Channel Setup Experiment


III. Results & Discussion
IV.
The Table below represents the calculated coefficients of matrix (A) and the inverse
matrix (A
-1
)

during the pre-lab assignment, and their units are volts/lb.

Table 1: Coefficients of Matrix A and A
-1

Coefficients of matrix A (volts/lbs) Coefficients of matrix A
-1
(volts/lbs)
-1.0835 2.1805 -1.0542
0.1113 2.6265 0.0004
-0.0246 -2.3991 1.1471
-0.905 -0.008 -0.832
0.038 0.381 0.035
0.061 0.797 0.927


Start point End point
Computer setup
AEROSPACE 305W AERODYNAMMICS LABORATORY

Table 2 represents the percent errors calculated during the simulated loading procedure.

Table 2: Percentage Errors of Stimulated Load


Figure 4 displays the velocity verses dial setting for the morning 2 lab period. The dial
settings were in increments of 0.5 and the velocity ranged from 0 to 2.5 with slope of
approximately 0.57.


Figure 4: Velocity vs. Dial Setting Graph
Figure 5 is a graph of the forces and moments vs. velocity for the strut only where the
blue is the lift, red is the drag, and the green is the pitching moment. . The graph displays the
relationship between the different channels and the velocity with the three respective equations.
y = 0.5708x - 0.0498
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
(
f
t
/
s
)

dial setting
Percent Errors

CH 1 CH 2 CH 3
6.7% 1.4% 21.0%
3.8% 1.0% 8.2%

1.5% -1.0% 1.5%
0.7% -0.5% 0.0%

1.0% -6.0% 0.3%
0.4% -2.1% 0.9%
AEROSPACE 305W AERODYNAMMICS LABORATORY


Figure 5: Graph of Forces vs Dial Setting for the Strut Alone

Figure 6 is a graph CL

vs. alpha for wing alone. This shows that the highest angle of
approximately 12
o
for a C
Lmax
of approximately 1.8. In comparison the C
lmax
for lab 2 was
approximately 1.3 which is slightly less and the C
L
for lab 3.




y = 0.0001x
6
- 0.0014x
5
+ 0.0071x
4
- 0.0168x
3
+ 0.0174x
2
- 0.0072x + 0.0022
R = 0.9992
y = -0.0009x
6
+ 0.0136x
5
- 0.0755x
4
+ 0.1867x
3
- 0.1847x
2
+ 0.0617x - 0.0021
R = 0.9923
y = -0.0006x
6
+ 0.0089x
5
- 0.0493x
4
+ 0.1212x
3
- 0.1147x
2
+ 0.0396x + 7E-05
R = 0.9994
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
F
o
r
c
e

(
l
b
s
)

Dial Setting
AEROSPACE 305W AERODYNAMMICS LABORATORY


Figure 6: A Graph of C
L
vs. Alpha

Figure 7 is a graph of C
D
vs.

alpha for the wing alone showing that the best sink angle with this
airfoil for a C
D
of 0.0344 is was -7
o
corresponding to the least drag force.


Figure 7: A Graph of C
L
vs. Alpha

Figure 8, is a graph of C
M
vs. alpha showing that the pitching moment coefficient C
M

does not vary with angle of attack, or at least it did not vary significantly over the operating
range of angle of attack of the airfoil.

-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
C
l

Alpha (deg)
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
C
d

Alpha (deg)
AEROSPACE 305W AERODYNAMMICS LABORATORY



Figure 8: A Graph of C
M
vs. Alpha

Figure 9 is a graph of C
L
vs. C
D
is polar curve showing variations C
L
as a function of C
D
. The
C
Dmin
is approximately 0.003 for this Wing model. C
Dmin
for lab 2 was approximately 0.008
which higher than lab 3, meaning that SM701 airfoil has more lift to drag ratio than the S805
airfoil




Figure 9: A Graph of C
L
vs. C
D
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
C
m

Alpha (deg)
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
-0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
C
l

Cd
AEROSPACE 305W AERODYNAMMICS LABORATORY



Figure 10 illustrates the variations of the coefficients lift-to-drag ratio versus angle of
attack. As it is noted, this graph has one maximum point where the value of the lift-to-drag ratio
is the highest at this point. The angle of attack corresponding to this point is an optimum angle
attack. This angle was approximately 6
o
. For lab 2 that angle was approximately 6 as well.




Figure 10: A Graph of C
L
/C
D
vs. Alpha

In this lab, hysteresis was observed when decreasing the angle of attack of the wing after
stall at around -25.9
o
, the angle of attack when the flow reattached was generally lower than the
angle of attack where the flow separated during the angle of attack increase.




-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
C
l
/
C
d

Alpha (deg)
AEROSPACE 305W AERODYNAMMICS LABORATORY

V. Conclusion
This experiment illustrated the technique of using a force balance to measure
aerodynamic forces on the SM701 wing in the water channel. It was seen that although the force
balance is a beneficial tool in the testing process, it was important to adjust the data to construct
an accurate portrayal of the forces on the wing in flight. An adjustment made was for the
mounting strut. It was observed that the water flow exerted a large drag force on the strut, which
affected the readings on the wing.
The second objective displayed the water channel velocity calibration. In terms of a graph
this relationship should be a linear as expected showing a linear relationship between Velocities
and dial setting as displayed in Figure 4. Since the dial was increased it caused the water to flow
faster and the foam disk to move faster as well.
The aerodynamic properties of the SM701 were concluded that the best scenario for the
wing was at the angles of attack of around 12. From the data this concluded that the ideal C
L
was around -0.02, the ideal C
D
was around 0.03 as in Figure 9 and the ideal C
M
was about -0.03
as Figure 8.
The facility for the most part was well laid out. I believe testing different airfoils could be
an area of improvement. Most errors that were observed were the due to human error and this
particular method; therefore, this method has room for improvement for example, streamlining
the strut to reduce drag that causes increased forces and pitching moments.