EXPERIMENTAL, NUMERICAL, AND THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

OF SUPERSONIC FLOW OVER A DOUBLE-WEDGE AEROFOIL

BEng Aerospace Engineering

Module: AERODYNAMICS

Name: INYANG UBONG-ABASI

ID Number: 14059010

Tutor: PETER THOMAS

11TH APRIL, 2016

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

School of Engineering and Technology A4S BEng Aerodynamics Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 1
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. PLINT SUPERSONIC WIND TUNNEL EXPERIMENT ANALYSIS 2
2.1 Experiment Set Up/Procedures 2
2.2 Experimental Result Data 3
2.3 Flow Visualization 3
3. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 4
3.1 Ackaret’s Linear Theory 4
3.2 Theory Limitations & Assumptions 4
3.3 Theorectical Calculations 4
3.3.1 Results 4
4. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS 5
4.1 Computational Fluid Dynamics 5
4.2 Governing Theories 5
4.3 CFD Parameterization 5
4.3.1 Geometry Modelling 5
4.3.2 Initial Boundary Conditions 6
4.3.3 Mesh Generation 6
4.3.4 Mesh Dependency 6
4.3.5 Physics Models 7
4.4 Post-Processing Results 7
4.4.1 Converngence 7
4.4.2 Flow visualization 8
4.4.3 Pressure coefficient values 9
5. DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON OF RESULTS 9
7. REFERENCES 10

ID: 14059010 ii
School of Engineering and Technology A4S BEng Aerodynamics Report

ABSTRACT
This report details the analysis of the surface-pressure distribution and boundary-layer shock-wave
interaction around the flow fields across a double-wedge aerofoil in a high speed (supersonic)
application. The aerodynamic characteristic, pressure coefficient (𝐶𝑝 ) is analysed by employing
experimental, theoretical and numerical methodologies. Theoretical calculations making use of
Ackeret’s linearised theory, and numerical analysis through Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
governed by the Navier-Stokes equation are applied to the parameterised aerofoil. Results and
observations from the theoretical and numerical techniques in comparison to the data reduction results
obtained from a Plint supersonic wind tunnel experiment are noted and discussed. The existence of
shock waves is seen further on this report for the lower region of the double-wedge aerofoil leading
edge assuming constant shape (semi-wedge angle 𝜀 = 5°) at varying incidence angles (angle of attack,
𝛼).

1 INTRODUCTION
The structure of boundary layer in wall- and a sharp leading edge design are adopted to
bounded flows have been the focus of eliminate drag caused by detached bow wave,
considerable research in the aerospace industry allowing oblique wave to attach to the leading
over the past decades due to its importance in edge eliminating the area of high pressure
fundamental studies and practical applications ahead of the wing [3].
[1]. However, for a lifting body moving at speeds

greater than the speed of sound, the adverse For the case of the double wedge aerofoil used
pressure gradient boundary layer in the in the laboratory experiment (and also
supersonic flow field is more complex due to throughout this case study), snapshots indicate
compressibility effects. The present work that the pressure coefficient deviates with
makes use of supersonic flow module changes in incidence angle in a steady flow case.
incorporated in a Plint supersonic wind tunnel The experimental findings are compared to
to carry out experimental investigations analytic methods of deriving the pressure
capturing the pressure at face “c” (see figures 2- coefficients using Ackeret’s theory. Also, CFD
6) which is then used in calculating the pressure analysis is utilised to replicate the experimental
coefficient(𝐶𝑝 ). Aerofoils used for supersonic conditions and obtain the pressure coefficient
application are broadly classified into two values as well as showcasing shockwaves
types; bi-convex aerofoil and double-wedge similar to those observed during the
aerofoil. The cross-sectional profile of the experiment. The level of accuracy, limitations
aerofoils are shown below in figure 1. applicable to each method, assumptions and
errors for each technique are discussed further
on in this text.

NOTE: This study is primarily focused on the 2-

Dimensional flow across the aerofoil body in the
free steam direction, effects in the span wise
direction are deemed negligible.

Figure 1: Cross-sectional view of typical

supersonic aerofoil [2]

Aerofoils experience increased pressure drag at

high Mach numbers. For a supersonic aerofoil
profile, features such as; thinner cross-section

ID: 14059010 1
School of Engineering and Technology A4S BEng Aerodynamics Report

2 PLINT SUPERSONIC WIND TUNNEL EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS

In order to analyse the boundary layer shock wave effects and pressure distribution about the Double-
Wedge aerofoil at supersonic flight speed, an experiment was conducted utilizing the University of
Hertfordshire Plint Supersonic Wind Tunnel Laboratory.

Mach Number 1.8 (max) Total Temperature up to 300K

Maximum Flow Speed up to 490 m/s Run Time 2 minutes
Reynolds No up to 27.2x106 /m Typical Recharge Time 15 minutes
Total Pressure ~1 bar Turbulence intensity n/k

Table 1: Plint Supersonic Tunnel Performance [4]

2.1 Experiment Set Up/Procedures

A Double-wedge aerofoil (chord length: 29.886 mm, semi-wedge
angle 𝜀: 5°) was set up inside the supersonic wind tunnel prior
to the commencement of the experiment.

Figure 2: Aerofoil model incidence set-up Figure 3: Double-wedge in Tunnel

All experimental procedures hereafter are documented below;
I. The aerofoil model was set at a declined III. The Supersonic wind tunnel was switched
incidence angle of 𝛼 = -5, thereby aligning on, the control valve was opened till the
the bottom surface parallel to the free pressure gauge was set to 105 lb/in2 which
stream (𝜀 = 10°), and the aerofoil nose established a supersonic flow of Mach
downward. number 1.8.
II. The clamp lever was operated, regulating IV. The mercury levels in each of the three U-
the pressure inside the mercury filled tubes (‘ps’, ‘p’& ‘𝑝∞ ’) were monitored until
manometer tubes as appropriate. The a steady state was reached, after which the
upward movement of the lever indicated U-tube bank was clamped to allow
an unclamped mercury tube bank, whilst pressure readings from both limbs of each
the downward pulling of the lever indicated U-tube to be recorded (in inches).
indicated otherwise. V. Air supply into the wind tunnel was then
cut off using the control valve.
VI. The process as described in steps (I-V) was
repeated for incidence angles 𝛼 = -3° 𝑡𝑜 𝛼 =
5° in increments of 2°.
VII. Atmospheric pressure value in inches of
mercury was recorded using
measurements off the Fortin barometer.
This was required for later analysis.
VIII. Observations and sketches of shock wave
formation and expansion over the aerofoil
model were recorded using a Schlieren
Optical System configuration. Dark bands
indicated the presence of shock waves
whilst light bands denoted expansion
Figure 4: Manometer U-tubes and Clamp waves.
ID: 14059010 2
School of Engineering and Technology A4S BEng Aerodynamics Report

2.2 Experimental Result Data

As per procedures I-VII of the plint supersonic tunnel experiment described above, the data in table 2
below represents readings taken during this lab experiment by the students.
 Assumptions
During the course of data analysis, it should be noted various assumptions were made. The Key
assumption being that only the mercury levels in the U-tube labelled ‘p’ undergoes substantial change
with respect to the incidence angle 𝛼 and as such the values obtained from the U-tubes labelled ‘ps’ &
‘𝑝∞ ’ can be kept as constant. A data reduction data table is utilised for this report and values obtained
from the experiment alongside calculated results are presented below.
For calculations, values obtained for Pabs (absolute pressure) is used, as pgauge (barometric pressure)
values are negative and further calculations would result in nonviable results.
𝑝𝑏𝑎𝑟
(inHg) 29.98

𝑝𝑎𝑏𝑠 𝑝𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒
1 2
(Left) (Right) (inHg) (inHg)

𝑝𝑠 (inHg) 18 18.2 30.18 -29.78

𝑝∞ (inHg) 29.45 5.65 6.18 -53.78
𝑝𝑠 /𝑝∞ 4.88
𝑀∞ 1.715
Table 2: Data reduction table
𝛼 𝜀 𝑝1 𝑝2 𝑝𝑎𝑏𝑠 𝑝𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒
𝑝/𝑝∞ 𝐶𝑝
(deg) (deg) (inHg) (inHg) (inHg) (inHg)
5° 10° 28.8 6.4 7.58 -52.38 1.2265 0.1100
3° 8° 28.8 6.4 7.58 -52.38 1.2265 0.1100
1° 6° 29 6.25 7.23 -52.73 1.1699 0.0825
-1° 4° 29.4 5.9 6.48 -53.48 1.0485 0.0236
-3° 2° 29.6 5.5 5.88 -54.08 0.9515 -0.0236
-5° 0° 30 5.1 5.08 -54.88 0.8220 -0.0865
Table 3: Calculated pressure values from experimental data

2.3 Flow Visualization

Figure 5

ID: 14059010 3
 School of Engineering and Technology A4S BEng Aerodynamics Report

3 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

3.1 Ackeret’s Linear Theory

Theoretical analysis involved the application of deviates only slightly from the free-stream
Ackeret’s theory of linearized supersonic flow on direction [5].
the aerofoil parameters. The basic assumption of  Assumptions
linear theory is that pressure waves generated by  The flow is assumed adiabatic, hence also
thin sections are sufficiently weak that they can be treated as isentropic, inviscid, and also
treated as Mach waves [5]. Ackeret was able to evaluated at the steady state.
reduce the governing system of nonlinear Euler  Generally, the flow is also assumed to be two-
equations for an inviscid flow to a much simpler dimensional frictionless (i.e. no viscosity)
linear equation which could readily solve for Lift shock free flow [3].
coefficient, Drag coefficient and pressure The following parameters were applied to the
coefficient on an airfoil surface, since 𝜃 is known theoretical calculations in order to obtain values
at every point on the airfoil surface. for 𝑪𝒑 .
The lift coefficient obtained is found to be more Mach Number 1.8
accurate than the pressure parameters due to; Aerofoil Chord (mm) 29.886
 first order linear function effects, Internal leading/trailing edge angle 5°
 second order terms and skin friction being Table 4: Problem parameter
considered negligible. The following table represents calculation results
for the coefficients of pressure for each surface of
the entire double wedge shape at all 6 varying
angles of attack.
𝜶 Aerofoil Surface Upper Surface Lower Surface

(deg) a b c d
5° Stream Deflection 0 -10 10 0
Fig 7. First-order pressure on aerofoil [6] (Deg)
Stream Deflection 0.000 -0.175 0.175 0.000
(Rad)
Pressure Coefficient 0.000 -0.233 0.233 0.000
(𝐶𝑃 )
3° Deflection (Deg) 2 -8 8 -2
Stream Deflection 0.035 -0.14 0.14 0.035
(Rad)
Pressure Coefficient 0.047 -0.187 0.187 -0.047
(𝐶𝑃 )
1° Deflection (Deg) 4 -6 6 -4
Fig 8. Second-order pressure on aerofoil [6] Stream Deflection 0.070 -0.105 0.105 -0.070
(Rad)
Ackeret’s linearized theory formula for pressure Pressure Coefficient 0.093 -0.140 0.140 -0.093
(𝐶𝑃 )
is given in coefficient form by; -1° Deflection (Deg) 6 -4 4 -6
2𝜀 2(𝜃−𝛼)
𝐶𝑝 = = Stream Deflection
(Rad)
0.105 -0.070 0.070 -0.105
2 −1
√𝑀∞ 2 −1
√𝑀∞
Pressure Coefficient 0.140 -0.093 0.093 -0.140
(𝐶𝑃 )
-3° Deflection (Deg) 8 -2 2 -8
3.2 Theory Limitations & Assumptions Stream Deflection 0.140 -0.035 0.035 -0.140
(Rad)
 Limitations Pressure Coefficient 0.187 -0.047 0.047 -0.187
 Ackeret’s theory is restricted to use for thin (𝐶𝑃 )
airfoil at small angle of attacks. -5° Deflection (Deg) 10 0 0 -10
Stream Deflection 0.175 0.000 0.000 -0.175
By “thin” airfoil, it is meant that the thickness, (Rad)
camber, and angle of attack of the section are such Pressure Coefficient 0.233 0.000 0.000 -0.233
(𝐶𝑃 )
that the local flow direction at the airfoil surface
Table 5: Theoretical Calculations

ID: 14059010 4
School of Engineering and Technology A4S BEng Aerodynamics Report

4 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

4.1 Computational Fluid Dynamics

Numerical analysis was carried out on the double-wedge airfoil model using computational method
(Computational Fluid Dynamics). Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is an essential part in fluid
dynamics which permits the user to solve and simulate an experiment or situation in ideal conditions
and user-specified environment in order to predict fluid behaviour and their effects, with pressure
distribution analysis being a vital discipline. CFD has become an established methodology alongside
theoretical and experimental methods, providing an understanding of the aerodynamic properties of
wide range of structures. For this report, various simulations replicating the wind tunnel experiment
were carried out utilizing Star CCM+®, a commercial CFD software widely used in industrial
applications. The governing equations, simulation set-up, geometry modelling and post processing
results are described as this chapter carries on.
element-wise Cartesian coordinate form is
4.2 Governing Theories observed. The dimensions for the control
The numerical method used to simulate and volume is expressed as δx, δy, and δz. U (m/s)
solve flow problems in Star CCM+® is a Finite represents initial velocity in the x direction, v
Volume (FV) method in which flow is assumed (m/s) – y direction and w (m/s) – z direction.
to be governed by the Reynolds-Average  Limitations
Navier-Stokes (RANS) equation. RANS CFD simulations are strongly dependent on the
equations are time averaged equations of computational resources as the solvers require
motion for fluid dynamics where an overwhelming amount of computational power.
instantaneous quantity is decomposed to its The accuracy of the post-processor results also
time-averaged and perturbing terms. The RANS depend on the physical models applied and a
equations are primary applied to turbulent comprehensive understanding of the physical
flows, same as the simulation to be computed. phenomena that are dominant in conditions
The RANS equations reduce to the well know which are being replicated/simulated.
Euler equations for the case of inviscid flow .
[10]

In CFD applications, both equations are utilised 4.3 CFD Parameterization and Set Up
to simulate aerodynamic performance in a flow Computer Aided Design (CAD) software
field. program CATIA V5 and STAR CCM+® were
made use of in creating virtual models and
conditions necessary for simulating the wind
tunnel experiment.

4.3.1 Geometry Modelling

The aerofoil geometry was modelled in CATIA
V5, translated into an IGES file (.igs) and
translated into STAR CCM+® domain with the
use of its import CAD function. The flow
computational domain was modelled directly
on STAR CCM+® after the CAD aerofoil model
was imported. To ensure the correct
integration of the CAD Model from CATIA V5 to
Figure 9: Continuity of a Finite Volume [7] STAR CCM+®, measurements were taken
within the STAR CCM+® to confirm the
A general expression for the surface force per
geometry to that tested in the wind tunnel.
unit volume of a deformable body is expressed
in figure 9. In the same figure the methodology
for discretisation of a flow problem into
ID: 14059010 5
School of Engineering and Technology A4S BEng Aerodynamics Report

Prism Layer 1.5

stretching
Prism layer thickness 25% of Base
(absolute=1.25mm)
Surface Curvature 60 (increases mesh density)
Size Type Relative to Base
Size Method Min & Target
Relative Minimum 25% of Base (absolute=0.005m)
Size
Relative Target Size 100% of Base
Figure 10: 3D View of CAD Airfoil geometry with
(absolute=0.005m)
dimensions
Tet/Poly Volume 0.05
Blending
4.3.2 Initial Bondary Conditions Table 7: Mesh parameters
The initial boundary conditions, and numerical
values applied to the flow computational
domain for all cases of the CFD simulations are
specified in table and Fig. shows a transparent
scene of the aerofoil model in the wind tunnel
computational replica;
Material Air (Values from STARCCM+®
10.04.009)
Pressure (Constant) 101523.93 Pa (29.98 inch.Hg)
Static Temperature 300 K
(Constant)
Turbulence Intensity & Viscosity Ratio Figure 11: 3D Mesh visualisation (Side view)
Specification In order to achieve a dense mesh about the
Turbulent Velocity 1 m/s
Scale (Constant)
aerofoil model, the surface size min. & max. values
Velocity (Constant) [X=583.1, Y=0, Z=0] m/s (Mach for the double wedge model were altered.
1.715) Relative Minimum Size 3% (absolute=0.15mm)
Stop criteria 1000 iterations
Relative Target Size 7.5% (absolute=0.375mm)
Table 6: Initial Condition parameters
4.3.3 Mesh Generation Table 8: Mesh values applied to double
wedge model
The mesh parameters used on the double wedge
model and its domain are listed below in table…I
believe the mesh density for the aerofoil model
and its immediate domain surrounding is
sufficient enough to capture the output
requirements and coarse enough to allow a
feasible convergence. The mesh is displayed in
figure 10.
Domain Size (Normal 650mm × 100mm
to Flow Direction) Figure 12: 3D Mesh visualisation (inside flow
Meshing Models Polyhedral Mesher
domain)
Prism Layer Mesher
4.3.4 Mesh Dependency
Surface Remesher Different base sizes were used for meshing to
Base Size 5mm obtain good mesh dependency for result
Number of Prism 12 analysis. This was done so the least amount of
Layers mesh cells could be used, reducing simulation

ID: 14059010 6
School of Engineering and Technology A4S BEng Aerodynamics Report

run time but at the same time obtaining viable

results.

4.3.5 Physics Models

A list of all the selected physics models applied to all cases of simulations is specified below:
Coupled Flow
Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence (One equation Model)
Standard spalart-allmaras
Reynolds-Averaged Navier Stokes
Turbulent
Gas
Steady Flow
Gradients
Three-Dimensional
Ideal Gas
Two-Layer All y+wall Treatment
Table 9: Physics models applied to simulations

4.4 POST-PROCESSING RESULTS

4.4.1 CONVERGENCE
After the pre-processor and solver processor stage of a CFD analysis, the post processor solution is not
calculated all at once, but rather iteratively.
A Converged solution means that the solver has done its job and the results obtained are viable to an
extent, although this does not guarantee the solution is correct. In the case of the simulations which were
carried out, 600-800 iterations was enough to obtain convergence with a residual level of 1E-03 oscillating
about a fairly steady value. An image of sample convergence obtained from one of the simulations can be
seen below in figure 13.

Figure 13: Residual convergence graph for 𝜶 = 5°, velocity: 583.1 m/s in 600 iterations

ID: 14059010 6
School of Engineering and Technology A4S BEng Aerodynamics Report

4.4.2 Flow visualisation

Figure 14 - Flow Visualisation for α=5° at 583.1m/s

Figure 15 - Flow Visualisation for α=3° at 583.1m/s

Figure 16 - Flow Visualisation for α=1° at 583.1m/s

ID: 14059010 8
School of Engineering and Technology A4S BEng Aerodynamics Report

4.4.3 Pressure Coefficient values

It should be noted that the values in the table below representing the results for Numerical analysis are
derived from the colour codes and significant Coefficient of pressure value displayed in post processor
scalar scene of the CFD analysis (see figures 14-16)
(𝐶𝑃 ) at surface ‘c’
Incidence Experimental Theoretical Numerical
Angle, 𝜶 Analysis Analysis CFD
𝑝 − 𝑝∞ 2𝜀 analysis
𝐶𝑃 = 𝐶𝑝 =
1 𝑝 2 (𝐶 𝑃 values)
√𝑀∞ − 1
2 𝑝∞ (𝑝∞ − 1)
α=5∘ 0.1100 0.2332 0.2435
α=3∘ 0.1100 0.1866 0.2100
α=1∘ 0.0825 0.1399 0.1573
α=−1∘ 0.0236 0.0933 0.0717
α=−3∘ -0.0236 0.0466 -0.0121
α=−5∘ -0.0865 0.0000 -0.0245
Table 8: Results comparison data table

5 COMPARISON OF RESULTS
From the experiment carried out, flow visualised indicated presence of pressure gradient on both the
forward and rearward surfaces of the double-wedge airfoil due to the influence of the rapidly growing
boundary layer over the model surface. Previous investigations carried out at high Mach numbers
(Mach 4), (see Experiments with Biconvex Aerofoils in Low-Density, and Double-Wedge Supersonic
Flow by E. W. E. ROGERS and C. J. BERRY, Aerodynamics Division N.P.L. [10]) recorded pressure results
were 3 times the value of those predicted using theoretical analysis. The theoretical results calculated
using Ackeret’s theory for a lesser Mach 1.8 used in this report, have predicted with considerable
minimal errors for the pressure coefficient values. The only cause for concern between the results from
all three techniques is that the (𝐶𝑃 ) value obtained during the experiment for low incidence angles
3° 𝑎𝑛𝑑 5° (See table 10) are the same, this implies that there is uniformity of pressure at low incidence
angles whereas values obtained and CFD analysis results are dissimilar but not to a questionable extent.
Although, both experimental and numerical techniques show a separation gap over the peaks of the
airfoil surfaces (see figures 14-16) which is known as expansion fan.

The theoretical results obtained for the pressure coefficient at point “c” shows that Ackeret’s linearised
theory and the CFD methodology agree to an extent. This provides further evidence of the accuracy of
CFD in attaining quite accurate results when simulating flow problems even at high velocity
magnitudes. For positive angle of attack, the CFD simulation flow visuals alongside the experimental
observations compliment the theoretical calculations in table 5; the existence of expansion fan at the
top surface of the airfoil, with varying intensity to that at the bottom indicated lower pressure on top of
the airfoil to that at the bottom. It can then be seen from the table that values for top surface “a” and
“b” are lower than those for the bottom surfaces of the aerofoil “c” and “d”. Reasons for slightly
dissimilar results have pointed to the fact that the Mach number used in calculating Ackeret’s theory
was greater than the Mach number obtained using the free stream formula. The airflow through the
wind tunnel when calculated was less than 1.8 which was used for the theoretical calculations in Table
5.

ID: 14059010 9
School of Engineering and Technology A4S BEng Aerodynamics Report

REFERENCES
1. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12650-013-0172-3#page-1
2. http://www.okieboat.com/GMM/GMM%203%20and%202%20CHAPTER%203%20Principles
%20of%20Missile%20Flight%20and%20Jet%20Propulsion.pdf
3. Dr. CHAOYUE Ji, Lecture Note 3, Supersonic Flow. Available: http://www.studynet.ac.uk
4. ATI. (2014). University of Hertfordshire Supersonic Tunnel. Available:
http://www.ati.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/01/University-of-Hertfordshire-
Supersonic-Tunnel.pdf.
[Last accessed 11th April 2016]
5. John J. Bertin (1938). Aerodynamics for engineers. 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice hall. 384.
6. W. F. Hilton, Limitations of Use of Busemann's Second order Supersonic Aerofoil Theor.
Available: http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/2524.pdf [Last accessed 9th
April 2016]
7. ONLINE, C. (2016) Navier-Stokes equations -- CFD-Wiki, the free CFD reference. Available at:
http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Navier-Stokes_equations [Accessed: 11 April 2016].
8. John David Anderson, (1997). A history of Aerodynamics: And Its Impact on Flying Machines
Page 419. [Last accessed 9th April 2016]
9. C. Guedes Soares, R.A. Shenoi (2015). Analysis and Design of Marine Structures V. Washington
D.C.: CRC Press. Page 96.
10. http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/3635.pdf

ID: 14059010 10