0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Active Load Control for Airfoils using Microtabs

[+] Author and Article Information
D. T. Yen Nakafuji

New Technologies Engineering Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 808, L-644, Livermore, CA 94551e-mail: nakafuji2@llnl.gov

C. P. van Dam

Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616e-mail: cpvandam@ucdavis.edu

R. L. Smith, S. D. Collins

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616

J. Sol. Energy Eng 123(4), 282-289 (Jul 01, 2001) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1410110 History: Received December 01, 2000; Revised July 01, 2001
Copyright © 2001 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Translational microtab concept: a) Conventional versus translational microtab approach, b) predicted effect of microtab extension on lift
Grahic Jump Location
Process flow for dovetail design used in microtabs
Grahic Jump Location
Three-piece tab assembly consisting of a base, slider, and extender in a modular track assembly. Tab shown in 2-position ON (extended) and OFF (retracted) operation on airfoil pressure side.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of present experimental results and computed Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes results (INS2D) with previously published results for the baseline airfoil at Re=0.63×106 and transition fixed at xtrans/c=0.455
Grahic Jump Location
Computed streamlines based on Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (INS2D) solution for airfoil with tab (h/c=0.01) at α=0°,Re=1.0×106,xtrans/c=0.455
Grahic Jump Location
Computed surface pressure distributions data for baseline airfoil and airfoil with tabs (h/c=0.01) at the trailing edge and 5% from the trailing edge at α=0°,Re=1.0×106,xtrans/c=0.455
Grahic Jump Location
Test model as mounted in the UC Davis Wind Tunnel Facility
Grahic Jump Location
Wind tunnel testing process flow
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of present results and previously published results (Glasgow) for baseline airfoil at Re=0.63×106, boundary-layer trip at xtrans/c=0.455
Grahic Jump Location
Installation of a) fixed tab at 10% from the trailing edge and b) remotely activated microtabs at 5% from the trailing edge
Grahic Jump Location
a) Effect of tab height (tab at 5% from trailing edge) and b) effect of tab location (nominal tab height of 1%) on force coefficients for airfoil at α=0°,Re=1.0×106,xtrans/c=0.455
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of experimental and computed tab lift effectiveness at Re=1.0×106,xtrans/c=0.45. Tab at 5% from trailing edge with nominal tab height of 1%.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of experimental and computed a) pitching moment coefficient and b) drag polar at Re=1.0×106,xtrans/c=0.455. Tab at 5% from trailing edge with nominal tab height of 1%
Grahic Jump Location
Measured a) tab height effect (tab at 5% from trailing edge) and b) tab location effect (tab height of h/c=0.011) on lift coefficient at Re=1.0×106,xtrans/c=0.455
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of fixed (solid) tab effect and remotely activated tab (tab spacing s/h=0.5) effect of lift coefficient at Re=1.0×106,xtrans/c=0.455. Tabs at 5% from trailing edge with nominal tab height of 1%.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In