4.7 Article

High-blockage corrections for circular arcs at transitional Reynolds numbers

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2022.105139

关键词

Blockage correction; Aerofoil; Hydrofoil; Cambered plate; Water tunnel; Towing tank

资金

  1. School of Maritime Science and Engineering of Solent University
  2. Maritime Trust Fund via the 2018 Research, Knowledge Exchange, and Innovation Award
  3. Institute of Marine Engineering, Science, and Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study develops a blockage correction method using experimental methods, which allows for an extended range of model sizes that can be tested in water and wind tunnels, and contributes to the accurate accounting of blockage effects at transitional Reynolds number conditions.
Model-scale testing might suffer from blockage effects due to the finite dimensions of the test section. Measurements must be corrected to predict the forces that would have been measured in unconfined conditions. Blockage corrections are well-established for streamlined and bluff bodies, while more data is needed to develop corrections for bodies that generate both high lift and large wakes. In this work, towing tank and water tunnel tests of two-dimensional circular arcs are employed to develop a correction for a blockage ratio, i.e. the ratio of the frontal area of the geometry to the cross-sectional area of the test section, up to 0.2477. Experiments are conducted at positive incidences between the ideal angle of attack and deep-stall at transitional Reynolds numbers from 53530 to 218000. The results show that a linear blockage correction can be devised for the whole range of tested blockage ratios. Furthermore, the critical angle of attack and Reynolds number at which the force crisis occurs is independent of the blockage ratio. These results may allow extending the range of model sizes that can be tested in water and wind tunnels and may contribute to the accurate accounting of blockage effects at transitional Reynolds number conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据