Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supervisor:
Dr. Daria Surovtseva and Micah Thorbjornsen
Thesis coordinator:
Kamal Debnath
School of Engineering & Information Technology
Faculty of Engineering, Health, Science and the Environment
Charles Darwin University
Darwin
May 2014
2
This page intentionally left blank
Gethin Barden
3
ABSTRACT
Gethin Barden
4
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
The author is grateful to and would like to thank Dr. Daria Surovtseva and Micah
Thorbjornsen for their insight and supervision throughout this thesis. He would also like to
thank the Stone family and Brendan von Gerhardt for their assistance in construction of the
apparatus and their ongoing support. A final thanks is to the authors family who have
supported him throughout this thesis.
Gethin Barden
Table of Contents
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... 7
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... 8
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... 9
1.
2.
2.1.
2.1.1.
2.1.2.
2.2.
2.3.
2.3.1.
2.4.
2.4.1.
Methodology .............................................................................................................. 15
2.4.2.
2.4.2.1.
2.4.2.2.
2.4.2.3.
2.5.
2.5.1.
2.5.2.
3.
4.
4.1.
4.2.
4.2.1.
4.2.2.
4.2.3.
4.2.4.
4.3.
4.3.1.
4.3.2.
4.3.3.
4.4.
5.
5.1.
Gethin Barden
6
5.1.1.
Cylinder ..................................................................................................................... 36
5.1.2.
Orgive ........................................................................................................................ 37
5.2.
5.2.1.
Aerofoils .................................................................................................................... 39
5.2.2.
5.2.3.
5.3.
6.
7.
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 45
8.
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 46
9.
APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................... 47
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 61
Gethin Barden
Drag
Lift
CD
Drag Coefficient
CL
Lift Coefficient
Pressure
Atmospheric Pressure
Angle of attack
Area
Fluid density
Force
Moment
Moment of Inertia
Yield stress
Bending stress
avg
Elastic Modulus
Deflection
Gethin Barden
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Forces (N) at various wind tunnel speeds
Page 19
Page 26
Page 26
Page 30
Page 30
Page 31
Page 33
Page 34
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 41
Gethin Barden
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Sting and strut mounting methods
Page 11
Page 11
Page 12
Page 14
Page 15
Page 18
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 25
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 31
Page 32
Page 35
Page 36
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Gethin Barden
10
1. PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Fluid flow is involved in nearly any engineering application. It is an important consideration to
design for, or against. Fluid mechanics is especially important in mechanical engineering
applications. One of the primary tools used by engineers to design objects that are to encounter
fluid flows is a wind tunnel which draws air through a chamber and can be used to visualise
and measure the effects that the fluid imparts on the model. Charles Darwin University (CDU)
currently has a working wind tunnel with test section dimensions of 450mm x 450mm x
1000mm. The wind tunnel is primarily used in teaching the ENG480 Applied Fluid Mechanics
unit and for university displays to local senior school students. The fan is rated to provide
airflow of up to 40m/s, and the wind speed is measured by finding the stagnation pressure
through the use of a Pitot tube. Currently, a very basic setup for lift measurements has been
installed. Some features in which the CDU wind tunnel lacks include a method of displaying
the boundary layer, a method of taking pressure and temperature distributions along a surface
and, importantly for this thesis, a method of directly measuring drag and lift forces. This thesis
will primarily focus on providing an apparatus to measure lift and drag with the secondary focus
of producing a Practical Exercise Manual (Appendix A) for ENG480 students to utilise in their
studies.
In order to improve the wind tunnels functionality, a more accurate, stable and versatile method
of measuring the two major aerodynamic forces, lift and drag, is required. Previous students of
ENG480 created a device to roughly measure the drag force through springs and their extension.
Issues with this balance was that it was unstable, could be used at low velocities only and the
spring extension proved difficult to measure accurately. A force balance to measure drag, while
at the same time measuring lift, was highlighted as a necessary improvement to the wind tunnel
needed for the unit.
As the device is intended to be used primarily for ENG480 this thesis revolves around the design
of a practical or workshop for students to investigate the lift and drag properties of various
models. In the previous year, students designed models that would demonstrate lift, drag and
boundary layer. It is planned to continue to allow students to devise and create their own models
and, though these models will be constrained by the strut attachments, the force balance should
allow for various model designs to be built and tested.
Gethin Barden
11
2. LITERATURE SURVEY
2.1. Existing Force Balance System Designs
There are a number of force balance designs available for lift and drag measurement in a wind
tunnel and the drawbacks and benefits are well described. Balances are categorized by
components, or the number of forces measured. For example, a one-component balance
measures only one force whereas a three-component balance measures three (typically lift, drag
and pitching moment). Pitching moment is vital for aerofoil testing but not so important for
regular wind tunnel use. Force balances comprise of two aspects that need to be considered, the
method of mounting the model and the method of measuring the forces. Two requirements that
any mount must comply with are being reasonably aerodynamically discrete and supply a
sufficient hold on the model (Onera, 2009).
A quote for a sting without software and positioning system (force measuring component only) was in excess
of $50,000. With software and positioning system, price increased to over $120,000.
Development of a Wind Tunnel Force Balance Practical
Gethin Barden
12
Figure 2 Half model mount of Bombardier Business Jet (National Research Council of
Canada, 2009)
Gethin Barden
13
Gethin Barden
14
Gethin Barden
15
wire breakage leading to model loss and calibrating difficulty are two of these reasons (Barlow
et al, 1999). The other three systems use members and linkages to decouple forces. The platform
balance (see Figure 4) is the most commonly used but not exceptionally accurate in measuring
moments (Barlow et al, 1999). As measuring moments are outside the scope of this thesis this
is not an issue. The other two types increase in complexity of design and calculation, especially
the pyramidal balance. As the measurement of moments is outside the scope of this project and
a two component balance is what is required the focus will be on either a single specimen type
or an external platform balance.
2.4.1. Methodology
In most wind tunnel balance calibrations, static loading is the first step towards calibration
(Gonzalez et al, 2011). Before calibration commences, the mount should be installed in its final
position and the direction of the fluid recognised. With this, the strut is loaded with known loads
and the reading on the sensor recorded. A known weight or load is applied and the load entered
into the software. A second load, preferably with a large range to reduce errors, is then applied
Gethin Barden
16
and that load entered into the software (Phidgets Inc, 2013). It is a simple matter to then
interpolate between or extrapolate the loads to calculate any subsequent load applied.
The second step is the dynamic calibration (Gonzalez et al, 2011; Arney & Harter, 1964) which
uses a reference model to make final adjustments. An aerofoil model with known lift and drag
forces at certain operating conditions is generally used to ensure sufficient decoupling of force
has occurred and any additional coupling requirements are resolved.
Figure 5 Diagram of small object and forces acting upon it in submerged fluid flow
(Munson et al, 2009)
Drag=D= +
(1)
Experimentally, this integral can become a sum. If the intervals of an object with uniform width
are set as certain lengths and pressure measurements taken at these intervals, a pressure
Development of a Wind Tunnel Force Balance Practical
Gethin Barden
17
distribution can be found and the interval areas used to find the equivalent force (University of
Iowa, n.d.). The following equation gives the force component due to the pressure difference,
Dp.
1
2 [( ) + ( 1 )]1, 1,
(2)
Where i represents the interval number, s is the interval element length and represents the
submerged fluid. This method can also be used for lift by manipulating the equation. As this
only provides the pressure difference force component, it can be used, if done accurately, as a
close approximation for thin objects where friction drag will be negligible (a good example is
a flat plate perpendicular to the flow). This value will then give a force value that is occurring
experimentally and can be used to verify literature coefficient calculations.
1 2
2
(3)
(4)
Gethin Barden
18
Where U is the free stream air velocity, is the air density and A is the frontal area of the object.
This method will give us the theoretical amount of drag force for the object only. This will
allow for comparison of how much extra drag the apparatus adds to the system and how the lift
force is affected.
The reasons for selecting these models is that they are simple in shape and should be able to
test the functionality of the apparatus. The plate will be used to test the pronged mounts in the
preliminary design and the flat rear plate mount of the secondary design to ensure they are
capable of supporting the models they are required to. They will only be used to test whether a
correct drag force is being obtained. The aerofoil will be used with the aerofoil mounts and will
test both lift and drag.
Gethin Barden
19
Gethin Barden
20
aspect ratios. Table 1 displays the forces that are expected to be encountered in testing the flat
plate.
Table 1 - Forces (N) at various wind tunnel speeds
Object
Coefficient
Drag (Lift)
Flat Plate 1.97(0)
Clark Y
Source
10m/s
Drag (Lift)
4.45(0)
Munson et al,
2009
1.17(0)
Fail et al, 1959 2.64(0)
0.049(0.80) Silverstein,
0.02(2.60)
1935
0.045(0.28) Zimmerman,
0.02(0.91)
1933
20m/s
Drag (Lift)
17.81(0)
30m/s
Drag (Lift)
40.07(0)
10.58(0)
0.08(10.40)
23.80(0)
0.17(23.39)
0.07(3.64)
0.16(8.19)
Gethin Barden
21
3. PROJECT SCOPE
This thesis encompasses a large practical section. It aims to develop a working practical for
drag and lift measurement in the wind tunnel for ENG480 students. It is believed the thesis
results will greatly assist students in understanding fluid flow over submerged bodies and allow
comparison of theoretical methods. The primary objectives of this thesis are:
Construct and install an apparatus to directly measure lift and drag forces
Test apparatus to ensure that measured results are similar to actual forces
Develop a manual for the use of the apparatus, including installation and disassembly
Develop a method to record data over period of time and display both forces
concurrently
In order to progress the design, several constraints and requirements were put on the
development, these include:
Apparatus had to be built due to budget constraints and the unique nature of the CDU
wind tunnel.
Design must be able to withstand a 300N drag force and a 50N lift force which have
been calculated to be the peak loads.
Design must be capable of withstanding 40m/s air velocities while laden with model.
Able to support and test a number of models of various shapes such as flat pates, spheres
and aerofoils.
Be completely removable from the wind tunnel with no negative effect on airflow
Other additional design characteristics that are desirable, though may not be achievable in the
allotted time, include:
Design allowing the alteration of the angle of attack without removing the wind tunnel
test chamber from the diffuser.
A small access hole to access the chamber without having to detach the test chamber
from the diffuser or nozzle.
Gethin Barden
22
4. DESIGN STUDY
4.1. Apparatus Constraints
Models used in conjunction with the force balance should be constrained to follow good
practice and the design limits. The width and height of the models should be kept to less than
0.8 times the width and height of the test chamber (Barlow et al, 1999). In this instance, that
limit is 360mm for both height and width. The reason for this constraint is that models that
exceed this limit may encounter effects from the walls of the wind tunnel. An aerofoil, for
example, may produce more lift than it would realistically due to vortices not being able to
move around the ends of the model.
Calculations should be completed to ensure that the design force limits are not exceeded. Lift
force should not exceed 50N or 5kg as this exceeds the operating range of the load cell.
Similarly, drag should not exceed 300N if the 30kg load cell is equipped. If the 5kg or 20kg
load cells are equipped then the limit should be 50N or 200N respectively.
Gethin Barden
23
to be able to convert the load cell data from mV/V to newtons. As the load cells behave linearly,
the data can be converted by applying a linear equation to it. The program allows for two
equations, one for lift and one for drag, to be inputted and once done so will automatically
convert the data to a force value.
Calibration is conducted by applying a static force to the balance in the component directions
(ie horizontally or vertically). To produce this force, a precision digital force meter was
procured. Once the force is applied, the known force and the subsequent mV/V data value is
recorded. This is done for a second point in the same direction and from these two points the
linear equation can be derived and inputted into the program.
The interface of the program (Figure 7) needs to be suitable for ENG480 students to understand
with relative ease. As a result, the design is simplistic and detailed instructions are provided on
the interface for ease of use. In addition to this, there is further information regarding
procedures, including a calibration guide, in the Force Balance Practical Exercises Manual
(Appendix A).
Gethin Barden
24
Figure 8- Support strut design with part details created with 3D modelling software
As can be seen in figure 8 above, the support design is relatively simple. Part 1 comprises of
two halves which are bolted to the main strut by two bolts to ensure rigidity. The initial design
had the part countersunk into the main strut but issues with the computer controlled milling
machines available at the university meant that this could not be completed and so the design
was modified to accommodate for this. Part 2 is clamped between the two halves of part 1 with
a nut and bolt (and spring or flat washers as required). The angle of attack is adjustable by
untightening the bolt holding part 2, changing the angle and then retightening.
The materials being used for the prototype attachment parts (parts 1 and 2) will be ABS plastic
for the model support fittings. This plastic, if laid axially, yields under tension at approximately
20MPa and a yield under compression of 38MPa (Ahn et al, 2002). The parts would generally
be under compression and the smallest cross-sectional area is 120mm2 and would be capable of
Development of a Wind Tunnel Force Balance Practical
Gethin Barden
25
supporting 4.56kN before compression failure. As, at this point of minimum cross sectional
area, the part is supported by the strut, this will reduce buckling and make destruction due to
the maximum force of 300N very improbable. The strut itself was be made from Plexiglas,
which has a yield strength of 72MPa at 23oC and an elastic modulus of 3.3 GPa (Evonik
Industries, 2013). To reach the vertical centre of the tunnel from where the strut would be
secured, a span of approximately 300mm is required (y-component). The thickness of the
material is 10mm, though no significant load should be taken in this direction (z-component).
The last dimension is the horizontal component parallel with fluid flow (x-component) which
is the dimension that would have the most load applied to it. Calculations (see Appendix B)
have shown that, with a safety factor of 4, this x-component length needs to be 55mm.
Deflection calculations were then applied to these dimensions and it was found that at max load
a deflection of 5.8mm would occur. As a result, the x-component was increased to 70mm which
allowed for a maximum deflection of 2.9mm. This deflection calculation was tested by applying
a 15kg load to the strut which, under this load, should and did deflect by approximately 1.5mm.
Three model mounts were constructed to accommodate for models of various size and type.
The three mounts will be interchangeable with part 2 and images of each with a description can
be seen below in figures 9, 10 and 11.
Figure 9 Small pronged mount for smaller models. Three prongs inserted into predrilled
holes in model.
Gethin Barden
26
Figure 11 - Aerofoil type model mount. Model placed atop mount and bolted into place using
a piece of thin wooden board as a washer
Testing for drag was undertaken with the initial apparatus in the wind tunnel. The design was
tested using the model of a flat plate loaded on the small model mount as the large model mount
had manufacturing flaws. To initially calibrate the device, a static load of known force is applied
in the drag component direction. This was then used to calibrate the load cells using the
software. A run without a model was completed to ensure vibrations or failure did not occur.
The wind tunnel was taken to its full speed of 50Hz (40m/s) with no ill effects noted. The model
was introduced and recalibrated using a 10 pound (45.3N) static weight. As the wind tunnel
increased the fluid velocity to 30m/s the model started to vibrate though not catastrophically.
The speed was increased to 40Hz (about 32m/s) without any additional vibration though the
speed was not increased after this point. It was expected that with the larger mount these
Gethin Barden
27
vibrations would have been reduced as the model would be connected over a wider area. The
results from this testing can be seen below in Table 2.
Table 2 Test results from Flat Plate with preliminary design
Fluid Velocity (m/s)
10
0.6
1.5
20
9.1
7.6
30
15.0
17.7
As can be seen from Table 2, the apparatus measured significant forces in both the lift and drag
load cells. This indicates that the apparatus is not able to successfully decouple the forces. To
further illustrate this, a comparison with literature values and computational fluid simulations
can be seen in Table 3. The results immediately indicate that the forces, separately, are well
below the expected values of drag force for the flat plate. The sum of the two measured forces
however is similar, particularly at 20m/s, to the calculated forces. This indicates that the load
cells are successfully obtaining nearly all the force but are unable to split the force into its
components.
Table 3 - Preliminary test results
Fluid
Load Coefficient
COMSOL
(m/s)
Cell (N)
Cell (N)
Method (N)
Simulation (N)
10
0.6
1.5
4.4
4.2
20
9.1
7.6
17.8
17.0
30
15.0
17.7
40.1
38.5
In addition to the unsuccessful decoupling of the force, the vibrations apparent during testing
were also cause for concern. These vibrations, though they may be reduced with a larger mount,
will cause difficulty in reading the data and may cause damage to the wind tunnel. As a result,
the second design will be investigated and implemented.
Gethin Barden
28
This system would better decouple the lift and drag forces so they can be individually
measured. The strut is attached to members that are pinned and transfer forces along their
axes.
Gethin Barden
29
to the load cells. Obtaining aluminium nuts is difficult and welding something so small is
considerably difficult. Eventually, the nuts were fixed with strong adhesive which has been
successful.
All connections for the force balance system are made with M5 fasteners. M5 fasteners were
used as this is what is required by the load cells purchased. By designing the force balance with
M5 fasteners only, assembly is made easier by preventing mix ups and replacement parts are
easier to source.
Gethin Barden
30
be mounted from the rear. Models are mounted with four fasteners. For further information
regarding the dimensions of the force balance and model mounts see section 1 in Appendix A
(Force Balance Practical Exercise Manual).
The second design was tested initially with a Clark Y aerofoil. The load cells were calibrated
statically by a 10N load applied in both the horizontal and vertical directions. At this stage of
calibration, the apparatus was not perfectly square and so it was noted that a drag force did
influence the lift load cell slightly and vice versa. The design was tweaked so that the apparatus
was square which resulted in the successful separation of the lift and drag forces. The results
from the initial test (see Section 4.2.5) with the Clark Y aerofoil were acceptable and similar to
calculated values.
Gethin Barden
31
Table 4 Clark-Y aerofoil wind tunnel testing
Fluid Velocity (m s-1)
Lift (N)
Drag (N)
10
0.7
0.1
20
2.9
0.9
30
8.3
2.0
40
16.8
3.8
Lift (N)
10
1.12
20
4.28
30
8.65
40
12.82
Gethin Barden
32
Lift (N)
Drag (N)
10
0.74
0.12
20
2.97
0.48
30
6.72
1.08
40
12.00
1.91
Gethin Barden
33
Figure 16 indicates that lift forces calculated with Zimmermans coefficient and the
computational fluid simulations are quite similar to the results achieved in the wind tunnel. The
Silverstein coefficient, which was significantly higher than Zimmermans, produces
significantly more lift. Due to this reasoning and the evidence shown in results from simulations
and testing it can safely be assumed that the results achieved with Silversteins coefficients are
not representative of this model.
Some discrepancy does exist between the test results, simulations and Zimmerman coefficient
results. Zimmerman coefficient does not take into account the surface roughness of the material
and while the simulation software has inputs for the surface roughness these are not likely to
be exact. This would have some effect on the discrepancies. Another source of discrepancy
could be in the shape of the aerofoil. While close to the desired shape, irregularities will exist
in the test model and this could affect the lift results. Interference from the mount could also be
affecting the lift of the model. Results for the lower velocities however are very similar,
Gethin Barden
34
particularly between the test results and simulations, and so the results obtained for lift are
acceptable.
The results for the drag force of the wind tunnel tests compared to the simulation and coefficient
methods showed that the wind tunnel test drag forces are significantly higher than the
simulation results which are again higher than the coefficient results. This was expected as
additional drag force was expected to be created by the mount. The drag force would be caused
predominantly from the mount parts in contact with the model aerofoil. These areas will cause
added turbulence which will increase drag. For an aerofoil model with the flat plate mount the
additional drag at mid-range fluid velocities (20-30m/s) has been calculated to be 85% more
which increases as the fluid velocity increases.
9.50
1.40
19.00
6.51
23.75
10.70
28.50
15.46
33.25
20.80
The flat plate was relatively heavy compared to other models tested and the effect this had on
vibrations was evident. The vibrations in the horizontal component were not excessive due to
the constant force in that direction. The vibration in the vertical component was substantial and
this meant that an accurate lift reading could not be obtained. Despite this, it was evident that
the lift force was relatively constant as the vibrations stayed centred around the -3.5N mark
(-3.5N were the initial conditions due to the weight of the plate). The reason that the vibrations
were an issue with this system is because of the large ratio between the contact area of the
mount and the area of the model as well as the centre of gravity of the model not being directly
Development of a Wind Tunnel Force Balance Practical
Gethin Barden
35
over the top of the support. A lot of force acts upon the outer extremities of the plate and so
when vibration occurs there is considerable momentum involved.
When the data from testing is compared to the calculated and computational fluid analysis
values (Table 8), the difference is considerable. The measured drag force has been linearly
interpolated due to the data being taken at frequencies that did not match the desired fluid
velocities. This will introduce some error as the relationship is polynomial but this error is
insignificant compared to the discrepancy between the calculated and measured results. The
measured results are 30% less than the Fail et al (1959) coefficient calculated drag forces and
nearly 250% less than the Munson et al (2009) coefficient calculated drag force. Meanwhile,
the COMSOL drag force is nearly 300% greater (for 20 and 30m/s) than measured. Due to the
small aspect ratio of the plate, it is suggested that substantial vortices are forming behind the
flat plate which increases the base pressure, reducing the drag. The sharpness of the edges of
the plates, and the considerable roughness of the sides, may also have affected the amount of
vortices as both of these characteristics would introduce turbulent flow more quickly. The
difference in results could be caused by some friction in the force balance causing a loss of
force during transmission to the load cells.
Table 8 Flat plate drag force comparison
Fluid Velocity Coefficient
Drag
(m/s)
Force (N)
(N)
(interpolated) (N)
10
2.65-4.45
5.37
1.67
20
10.58-17.81
21.61
7.39
30
23.80-40.07
49.06
17.15
40
42.30-71.26
88.37
Force
Gethin Barden
36
5.1.1. Cylinder
The cylinder to be tested was hollow inside though had its ends capped and had a diameter of
50mm and a length of 100mm. The model was mounted directly onto the support (Figure 17)
so that the additional drag of a model mount would not affect the results. The cylinder was held
in place by two M5 threaded rods and 4 nuts.
Gethin Barden
37
Table 9 - Smooth cylinder results
Fluid Velocity (m s-1)
10
0.183
0.193
15
0.467
0.492
20
0.846
0.891
25
1.381
1.454
30
1.976
2.080
35
2.572
2.707
40
3.152
3.318
The results from this testing indicate that less drag is occurring in the wind tunnel than in the
simulations. From 15m/s through to 35m/s it is noted that the percentage error between the wind
tunnel results and the simulated results is between 7% and 12%. At fluid velocities below 10m/s
it is observed that the force being measured for small to medium sized models is often not
attained effectively and there is often a large error. It should be noted that for most models
simulated there was very little difference in drag for sub-10m/s velocities.
It was unexpected that the wind tunnel drag would be less than the simulated drag. This could
be caused due to friction losses in the apparatus or some error in the shape of the model.
The dimpled model experienced similar forces to that of the smooth model. From the simulation
results, a drastic decrease in drag of approximately 57% was expected from the dimpled model.
Though the dimpled model did produce less drag, it was not percentage based as expected. The
reduction in drag over all speeds was approximately constant and centred around 0.16N.
Resultantly, the dimpled simulation results would be quite different percentage-wise to the test
result. Issues with surface finish could have affected the performance of the dimples and
increased drag. Also, due to the complex surface structure of the dimples, the computational
fluid dynamics software had difficulty running the dimpled model at high mesh frequencies.
This could mean that the simulation drag data is lower than it should be.
5.1.2. Orgive
The orgive to be tested comprises of two sections. A 50mm diameter cylinder that is 80mm tall
which connects to a 50mm diameter based cone with a 4.5mm diameter tip and is 90mm tall.
This model was mounted from the rear using a flat plate with two bolt holes (Figure 18). It was
expected that the mount would increase drag slightly though not significantly. This was due to
Development of a Wind Tunnel Force Balance Practical
Gethin Barden
38
the mount being thin and completely behind the back of the orgive. The main effect the mount
would have would be on the wake of the orgive.
10
0.025
0.038
15
0.076
0.086
20
0.160
0.153
25
0.236
0.239
30
0.382
0.344
35
0.554
0.468
40
0.741
0.611
The simulations predicted that the dimpled model would have slightly lower drag values (1015% reduction at mid-range velocities) than its smooth counterpart. As the resultant forces are
quite low, this reduction of force was minimal. During testing, it was noted that the dimpled
orgive shape achieved very similar results to the smooth model and that it could not be
conclusively said whether the drag was increased or decreased by the dimples.
Development of a Wind Tunnel Force Balance Practical
Gethin Barden
39
5.2.1. Aerofoils
Aerofoils are a good method of demonstrating the concepts of lift and drag and so a number of
students built aerofoils to demonstrate these fluid properties.
The first project involved the construction of an aerofoil that would be suited to supersonic flow
and testing it in subsonic conditions. The students expected to achieve less lift than drag for
their supersonic aerofoil (Figure 19), though the difference between lift and drag would
decrease as fluid velocity increased (Daley et al, 1947). This theory, when tested at the natural
angle of 6o, was proved correct as can be seen in Table 8 (fluid velocity (m/s) is equal to
approximately 0.76 times the fan frequency (Hz)).
Figure 19 Supersonic aerofoil fitted with pressure taps (Kelly et al, 2014)
Table 11 Data from testing of supersonic aerofoil (Kelly et al, 2014)
Fan Frequency (Hz)
Lift (N)
Drag (N)
Percentage difference
between lift and drag (%)
35
1.21482
3.80756
68.09
40
2.78265
5.04995
44.95
45
4.83952
6.52868
26.15
50
7.46969
8.35844
10.84
Gethin Barden
40
Gethin Barden
41
Gethin Barden
42
Torque calculated
(Nm)
(Nm)
15
2.3
0.0345
0.0015
20
4.0
0.0600
0.0037
25
6.3
0.0945
0.0072
30
9.0
0.1350
0.0140
35
12.6
0.1890
0.0248
As can be seen in Table 9, the measured forces are considerably different to the calculated
forces due to the reasons mentioned. The results do show polynomial behaviour which is to be
expected as the force should be proportional to the square of the fluid velocity. Overall, the
measured torque gives an indication of what forces are applied to a turbine in fluid flow.
Gethin Barden
43
The variety of models also indicated areas where improvements are required. The strut is not
completely rigid and so with heavier models tends to move laterally (in the direction
perpendicular to the flow). This observation has been highlighted, with others, as one area
where the force balance and wind tunnel can be improved.
Gethin Barden
44
Basic theory
Gethin Barden
45
7. CONCLUSION
Wind tunnels, even in this day where computer simulations are commonplace, are still an
important part of research and product testing. The force balance is an important apparatus for
wind tunnels as it provides the quantitative data that is required for further calculations. As
such, this thesis was focussed around the construction of a force balance and a subsequent
practical exercises manual.
The first part of this thesis involved the construction of an apparatus to measure force. An initial
design was manufactured in an attempt to directly measure the forces on the support via load
cells. It was noted that the forces were not successfully decoupled and so the design was
revisited and an improved design completed that successfully decoupled the forces by using a
series of linkages.
In addition to the physical apparatus, a software program had to be developed to convert the
data to a force. Once the software was completed and statically calibrated, test models were
used to determine whether the forces were being decoupled with initial testing yielded good
results.
Throughout this thesis, forces were calculated for each model using literature coefficients and
computational fluid analysis software. These theoretical forces would be used as a guide as to
how accurate the results from the force balance were. Results compared well with the Clark Y
aerofoil test model which obtained lift forces within 5% of the theoretical values at intermediate
speeds of 20 and 30m/s. The aerofoil also achieved significantly more drag which was expected
due to the interference of the model mount. Excellent results were also obtained when peer
testing was conducted. For the cylinder and orgive models, errors of less than 12% were
obtained. These results indicate that the force balance is achieving relatively accurate results
considering that they will experience some interference from the mounting system.
The production of a practical exercise manual was a major deliverable in the context of this
thesis. The manual was made available to ENG480 students prior to them commencing their
projects and was successful in communicating the operation and constraints of the wind tunnel
and force balance. Their use highlighted the versatility of the apparatus and the use over the
semester showed that it was easily removed and durable. The manual will also be used by
laboratory technicians who will be required to calibrate and maintain the apparatus.
The force balance produced achieved all of the primary objectives in that it is versatile,
removable and provides an accurate representation of forces on a model submerged in fluid
flow in the wind tunnel.
Development of a Wind Tunnel Force Balance Practical
Gethin Barden
46
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for future works into developing the force balance and wind tunnel include:
Create a software program that enables easier calibration, better display and potential
plotting against time. This will allow for the average to be taken and reduce the impact
of vibrations on readings.
Install rollers that support the force balance laterally to reduce vibration and increase
stability
Alter the balance so that two struts can be used to support models which will allow for
additional stability.
Gethin Barden
47
9. APPENDIX
Appendix A: Practical Exercise Manual
Apparatus Description........................................................................................................... 48
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
Software ................................................................................................................................ 52
1.4.1.
1.4.2.
Software Calibration.......................................................................................................... 53
1.5.
2.
Theory ........................................................................................................................................... 55
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
3.
3.1.
Model Construction................................................................................................................... 57
3.1.1.
3.2.
Gethin Barden
48
Gethin Barden
49
1.2. Assembly
The apparatus should be assembled in the following sequence. See figure 1 for diagram.
1) Attach strut 2 to the base at the pinned point ensuring the orientation is correct.
2) Screw the lift load cell (6) into position ensuring the directional arrow is pointing up.
3) Attach the lift strut (5) to strut 2 and then insert bolt through the bottom of the base,
through the lift load cell and into the end of the strut.
4) Attach the drag load cell (4) onto the base support, ensuring that the arrow is pointing in
the same direction as the fluid. Use a spring washer to ensure the load cell stays in
position when tightened.
5) Secure the apparatus in position under the wind tunnel test chamber.
6) Attach the main support (1) to the end of strut 2, ensuring that the model support end is
inside the test chamber.
7) Attach the drag strut (3) to the main support (1) and then secure the end to the drag load
cell (4).
8) Connect the load cells to the bridge as per the wiring diagram in the next section.
9) Connect bridge to the laptop using the micro-USB cable provided.
Adjust the screws that connect the lift and drag load cells to the struts to ensure that the
apparatus is square. For disassembly, the order should be reversed.
Gethin Barden
50
Figure 3: Phidget bridge showing correct wiring for micro load cells (red to 5V, green to +, white to and black to G);
Image taken from http://www.phidgets.com/products.php?category=34&product_id=3133_0
Gethin Barden
51
Gethin Barden
52
1.5. Software
Software for the force balance apparatus has been developed with National Instruments LabVIEW 2011.
The software takes the mV/V data obtained from the load cell and automatically converts the value to a
force in Newtons (N). The image below (Figure 4) shows the interface for the balance. An executable
program was created for this program however this limits the balance to its initial calibration parameters
as recalibration requires access to the block diagram (Figure 5) which can only be achieved using
LabVIEW.
Gethin Barden
53
Figure 5: LabVIEW block diagram, note the place to add calibration formulas
Gethin Barden
54
Gethin Barden
55
2. Theory
Lift and drag are two important concepts in engineering. Lift is created by a difference in pressure
between the top and the bottom of an object. For lift to occur there must be a lower pressure on top of
the object and a higher pressure underneath which pushes the object upwards. This is generally achieved
in aerofoils by forcing the air flowing over the top of the foil to travel faster therefore reducing the
pressure. This is why most aerofoils will have a larger curve on top so that the surface is longer.
Drag is also partly created by a pressure difference. Lower pressures will exist behind an object as
pressure at the front increases as the fluid encounters the object and is slowed down. Once behind the
object it accelerates again to produce a lower pressure. An easier explanation is that the inertia of the
fluid impacting the object will create a force that pushes the object in the direction of the free flowing
fluid. In addition to the drag due to the pressure difference, there will also be a force due to the friction
created as the fluid flows over the object.
A number of different methods exist to find the drag and lift forces. Firstly, research has been conducted
on many different objects and shapes. This research leads to the development of lift and drag coefficients
which can be used to find lift and drag forces for different dimensions and fluid velocities. Secondly,
for lift especially, the pressure difference can be found between the top and the bottom (or front and
back for drag) of the aerofoil. Thirdly, with the rise of computers, simulation software exists that will
use algorithms to calculate forces on an object in fluid flow and finally, there is the use of a balance or
force measuring device to directly measure the forces.
Gethin Barden
56
turbulence. This is particularly evident when the join is sudden and so designs are often altered to
accommodate this or reduce its effects.
The force (F) and coefficient (C) can be changed with the respective lift values without altering the
formula (the area will also change due to the direction of the force changing). These values, presuming
the model is dimensionally accurate, should give close representations to the true force acting on the
model.
Gethin Barden
57
3. Practical Exercises
3.1.
Model Construction
The aim of this practical exercise is to develop a model that demonstrates the properties of lift and drag.
This model can then be produced and tested as per section 3.2 of this manual.
Use a shape that lift and drag forces can be calculated for.
Set a goal for the model to achieve. One method of doing this is to create a real life scenario and
then use scaling laws to create a model that will represent the scenario.
Keep model weight down. Models should be as lightweight as possible to take stress of the
apparatus.
Keep the maximum model width/height to 360mm. Good wind tunnel practice is to ensure that
models are not interfered with by the sides of the tunnel. The accepted maximum width for a
model is 80% of the test chambers width.
Aerofoil models should be relatively large to reduce the effect that the apparatus will have on
the force readings.
Allow for pressure taps to be inserted so that pressure distributions can be taken in other
practical exercises
If using the flat plate mount and an angle of attack is desired, create a wedge to clamp between
the bottom plate and the model.
3.2.
The purpose of this exercise is to test a model at a range of different velocities and use the data obtained
calculate the coefficients of lift and drag for the model at its natural angle of attack.
1. Create model (this should be completed well in advance to the practical), preferably based on a
shape that has literature values for lift and drag coefficients available.
2. Mount model on the most applicable mount (see section 1.3) and bolt mount to the main strut.
3. Open the LabVIEW program and commence with the instructions seen in section 1.4.1 or on the
program interface.
4. Once setup, start the wind tunnel (see section 1.5 for basic wind tunnel operation procedures) at a
low fluid velocity (10m/s or 12.5Hz is a good starting speed).
5. Increase the speed to the first desired fluid velocity. Allow the flow to stabilise by waiting 30
seconds and record the lift and drag force displayed.
Development of a Wind Tunnel Force Balance Practical
Gethin Barden
58
6. Once measurements are completed, turn off wind tunnel, open the test chamber and remove the
model.
7. Using the lift and drag data obtained, calculate the lift and drag coefficients. Compare the calculated
and literature coefficient values for your model and plot against each other. Discuss the results and
any discrepancies or trends in the data.
8. (Optional) Create a 3D model of your object using a 3D CAD program and use Computational Fluid
Dynamics software to find lift and drag forces for comparison with the lift and drag obtained in the
testing.
Gethin Barden
59
300
= = 0.01 =
72 000 000
4
, = 18 000 000
3 0.01 3
=
=
;
12
12
= = 300 0.3 = 90
=
12 90
=
;
2 0.01 3
= 0.0548
3
300 0.33
=
= 0.0058
3 3 3.3 109 1.4 107
5.8mm deflection considered to be too much so x was increased to 70mm. This yielded a
deflection of 2.9mm which was considered suitable.
Gethin Barden
10.REFERENCES
AirfoilTools.com 2013, Clark Y Airfoil, AirfoilTools.com, viewed 10/10/2013,
<http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=clarky-il>
Ahn, SH, Montero, M, Odell, D, Roundy, S, Wright, PK 2002, Anisotropic material
properties of fused deposition modelling ABS, Rapid Prototyping, vol 8, iss 4 accessed via
Emerald
Anderson, JD 2001, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, McGraw-Hill Science, New York, NY
Arney, GD & Harter, WT 1964, A Low-Load Three-Component Force Balance For
Measurements In A Low-Density Wind Tunnel, Von Karman Dynamics Gas Facility, ARO
Inc, Tennessee, USA, accessed 10/07/2013, <www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0453130>
Ashby, MF & Jones, DRH, Engineering Material I An Introduction to Properties,
Applications and Design, 3rd edn, Elsevier Ltd., Oxford, UK
Aviation-for-kids 2012, The Magnus Force, Aviation-for-kids.com, accessed 26/05/2015,
<http://www.aviation-for-kids.com/the-magnus-force.html>
Barlow, JB, Rae, WH & Pope, A 1999, Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing, 3rd edn, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc, Massachusetts, USA
Bychkov, V 2013, Fluid Dynamics; Computer laboratories using COMSOL 4.3a, Umea
University, Sweden, accessed 10/10/2013,
<http://www.umu.se/digitalAssets/120/120985_instructions-forfluiddynamics_comsol_v4.3a.pdf>
Daley, BN, Humprey, MD & Lindsey, WF 1947, The Flow and Force Characteristics of
Supersonic Airfoils at High Subsonic Speeds, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,
Washington, USA, accessed 25/05/2014,
<http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1947/naca-tn-1211.pdf>
Ebidon 2013, UCPCN-UB Base Unit Manual, Ebidon International, Madrid, Spain
Evonik Industries 2013, Technical Information: Plexiglass, Evonik Industries, Darmstadt,
Germany, accessed 20/10/2013,
<http://www.plexiglas.de/sites/dc/Downloadcenter/Evonik/Product/PLEXIGLASSheet/PLEXIGLAS/211-1-PLEXIGLAS-GS-XT-en.pdf>
Fail, R, Lawford, JA & Eyre, RCW 1959, Low-Speed Experiments on the Wake
Characteristics of Flat Plates normal to an Air Stream, Aeronautical Research Council
Ministry of Supply, London, UK, accessed 25/05/2014,
<http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/3120.pdf>
Foss, J, Tropea, C & Yarin, A 2007, Springer Handbook of Experimental Fluid Mechanics,
Springer Reference, ISBN: 978-3-540-33582-5.
Gonzalez, MA, Ezquerro, JM, Lapuerta, V, Laveron, A & Rodriguez, J 2011, Components of
a Wind Tunnel Balance: Design and Calibration, Wind Tunnels and Experimental Fluid
Dynamics Research, Intech, < http://www.intechopen.com/books/wind-tunnels-and-
62
experimental-fluid-dynamics-research/components-of-awind-tunnel-balance-design-andcalibration>
Kelly, J, Bahlodia, A, Singu, Y, Sivasubramanian, A, Singh, A & Vankadari, S 2014, Design
and analysis of a supersonic air foil to demonstrate compressible fluid flow, Charles Darwin
University, Darwin, Australia
Kundu, PK, Cohen, IM & Dowling, DR 2012, Fluid Mechanics, 5th edn, Elsevier, Oxford,
UK
Miranda, S 2000, Active control of separated flow over a circular-arc airfoil, M. Sc. Theses,
Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, accessed 10/07/2013,
<http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-0808200013180002/unrestricted/02Thesis_Miranda.pdf>
Munson, BR, Young, DF, Okiishi, TH & Huebsch, WW 2009, Fundamentals of Fluid
Mechanics, 6th edn, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Massachusetts, USA
NASA refer to National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2010, What is Drag?, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Ohio, USA, viewed 16/09/2013 <www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k12/airplane/drag1.html>
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2011, Drag Measurement, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ohio, USA, viewed 16/09/2013
<www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/dragdat.html>
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2012, External Force Balance, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ohio, USA, viewed 16/05/2014
<http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/tunbalext.html>
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2012, Model Mounts, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Ohio, USA, viewed 16/05/2014
<http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/tunbalmnt.html>
National Research Council of Canada 2009, High-Speed Wind Tunnel, National Research
Council Institute of Aerospace Research, Ontario, Canada, viewed 16/10/2013,
<http://archive.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/multimedia/highspeed-wind-tunnel.html>
Onera, 2009, Model supports, Onera, France, accessed 21/09/2013,
<http://windtunnel.onera.fr/model-support>
Phidgets Inc 2012, 3133_0 Micro Load Cell (0-5kg), Phidgets Inc, Alberta, Canada,
accessed 16/05/2014,
<http://www.phidgets.com/products.php?category=34&product_id=3133_0>
Phidgets Inc 2013, 1046 User Guide, Phidgets Inc, Alberta, Canada, accessed 16/10/13,
<http://www.phidgets.com/docs/1046_User_Guide>
Ried, F 1997, The Magnus Effect, Parabola Online, vol 33, iss 1, pp3-6, accessed via
University of New South Wales, Australia
Reis, MLCC, Castro, RM & Mello, OAF 2013, Calibration uncertainty estimation of a straingage external balance, Measurement, vol 43, pp 24-33, accessed via ScienceDirect
Development of a Wind Tunnel Force Balance Practical
Gethin Barden
63
Schaefer, WT 1965, Characteristics of Major Active Wind Tunnels At The Langley Research
Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Virginia, USA, accessed via Defence
Technical Information Center
Silverstein, A 1935, Scale effect on Clark Y airfoil characteristics from N.A.C.A Full Scale
Wind-Tunnel Tests, National Advisory Committee, viewed 19/10/2013,
<http://www.aerodesign.ufsc.br/teoria/artigos/aerodynamics/nr0502.pdf>
Smiadak, DM 2008, Lift Coefficient for an Airfoil, Grand Valley State University, Michigan
USA, accessed 10/10/2013, <claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~smiadakd/EGR365-Lab9.pdf>
The Engineering Toolbox, Drag Coefficient, EngineeringToolbox.com, viewed 19/10/2013,
<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/drag-coefficient-d_627.html>
University of Iowa, 2002, Measurement of Pressure Distribution and Lift for an Airfoil, Iowa,
USA, accessed 16/10/2013, <www.engineering.uiowa.edu/~cfd/pdfs/57-020/lab4.pdf>
Zimmerman, CH 1933, Characteristics of Clark-Y Airfoils of Small Aspect Ratio, National
Advisory Committee of Aeronautics, viewed 19/10/2013,
<http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1933/naca-report-431.pdf>
Gethin Barden