80% Scaled NASA Common Research Model Wind Tunnel Test of JAXA at Relatively Low Reynolds Number

A wind tunnel test of a 80% scaled copy of the NASA Common Research Model (CRM) was performed in the 2m × 2m transonic wind tunnel of Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). The wind tunnel model was fabricated by JAXA consulting NASA Langley Research Center and the Drag Prediction Workshop committee members. The test was conducted at relatively low Reynolds number of 2.27 × 10 due to the limitation of the tunnel capability and boundary layer transition was simulated with optimized roughness. In the test campaign, static pressure distribution and aerodynamic forces were successfully acquired while the model main wings were deformed during the test due to the dynamic pressure. To make a fair comparison with the data from other sources in different circumstances, data normalization techniques were applied. Then, the data was compared with the data of the National Transonic Facility of NASA and CFD. The data normalization successfully realized fair comparisons for pressure distribution and lift coefficients while the tests were performed at the different circumstances such as the different Reynolds numbers.

[1]  James H. Bell,et al.  Pressure-Sensitive Paint Measurements on the NASA Common Research Model in the NASA 11-ft Transonic Wind Tunnel , 2011 .

[2]  Seigo Koga,et al.  Wall and support interference corrections of NASA common research model wind tunnel tests in JAXA , 2013 .

[3]  S. Obayashi,et al.  Convergence acceleration of an aeroelastic Navier-Stokes solver , 1994 .

[4]  Melissa B. Rivers,et al.  Experimental Investigations of the NASA Common Research Model in the NASA Langley National Transonic Facility and NASA Ames 11-Ft Transonic Wind Tunnel (Invited) , 2011 .

[5]  Craig A. Hunter,et al.  Support System Effects on the NASA Common Research Model , 2012 .

[6]  John C. Vassberg,et al.  Development of a Common Research Model for Applied CFD Validation Studies , 2008 .

[7]  Kazuomi Yamamoto,et al.  Comparison Study of Drag Prediction for the 4th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop using Structured and Unstructured Mesh Methods , 2010 .

[8]  Edward N. Tinoco,et al.  Summary of the Fourth AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop , 2010 .

[9]  John C. Vassberg,et al.  Summary of Data from the First AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop , 2002 .

[10]  Gregory G. Zilliac,et al.  A Comparison of the Measured and Computed Skin Friction Distribution on the Common Research Model , 2011 .

[11]  P. Spalart A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows , 1992 .

[12]  Seigo Koga,et al.  Analysis of NASA Common Research Model Dynamic Data in JAXA Wind Tunnel Tests , 2013 .

[13]  K. Nakahashi,et al.  Reordering of Hybrid Unstructured Grids for Lower-Upper Symmetric Gauss-Seidel Computations , 1998 .

[14]  Daniel P. Raymer,et al.  Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach , 1989 .

[15]  Albert L. Braslow,et al.  Simplified method for determination of critical height of distributed roughness particles for boundary-layer transition at Mach numbers from 0 to 5 , 1958 .

[16]  Edward N. Tinoco,et al.  Summary of Data from the Second AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop (Invited) , 2004 .

[17]  Kazuhiro Nakahashi,et al.  Some challenges of realistic flow simulations by unstructured grid CFD , 2003 .

[18]  P. Spalart Strategies for turbulence modelling and simulations , 2000 .

[19]  Melissa B. Rivers,et al.  Further Investigation of the Support System Effects and Wing Twist on the NASA Common Research Model , 2012 .