0
Research Papers

A New Stall-Onset Criterion for Low Speed Dynamic-Stall

[+] Author and Article Information
W. Sheng

Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UKwsheng@aero.gla.ac.uk

R. A. McD. Galbraith

Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UKroddy@aero.gla.ac.uk

F. N. Coton

Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UKfrank@aero.gla.ac.uk

J. Sol. Energy Eng 128(4), 461-471 (Nov 21, 2005) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2346703 History: Received August 10, 2005; Revised November 21, 2005

The Beddoes/Leishman dynamic-stall model has become one of the most popular for the provision of unsteady aerofoil data embedded in much larger codes. The underlying modeling philosophy was that it should be based on the best understanding, or description, of the associated physical phenomena. Even though the model was guided by the flow physics, it requires significant empirical inputs in the form of measured coefficients and constants. Beddoes provided these for a Mach number range of 0.3–0.8. This paper considers one such input for a Mach number of 0.12, where, from the Glasgow data, it is shown that the current stall-onset criterion, and subsequent adjustments, yield problematic results. A new stall criterion is proposed and developed in the best traditions of the model. It is shown to be very capable of reconstructing the Glasgow’s data for stall onset both the ramp-up and oscillatory tests.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Events of dynamic stall process (adopted from Carr (6))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

The Beddoes stall criteria for aerofoil NACA0012 (reproduced from Leishman (2))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Evans-Mort correlation (as adopted by Niven (22))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Normal force lagging for a ramp-up test

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Effects of Tp and Tb lagging

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Normal force predictions for ramp-up test (Evans-Mort criterion), r=0.011 (NACA0012): Parameters: Beddoes model: CN1=1.57, Tp=1.5; Niven ’s modification: Tb=3.95

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Comparison of Mort-Evans criterion: Beddoes model: CN1=1.57, Tp=1.5; Niven modification: Tb=3.95; new modification: CN1=1.75, Tp=1.5, Tb=2.2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Dynamic stall onset for NACA23012B aerofoil (reproduced from Niven (22))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Definitions of dynamic stall-onset: (a)CN deviation, (b)Cm break (ΔCm=0.05), (c)Cd deviation, (d)Cc maximum, (e)Cp deviation, (f)Cp collapse at LE

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Onset of dynamic stall by different definitions (NACA 0012)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Profiles of aerofoils tested (in GUVA10 the dot line is the profile of NACA0018)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Incidences of dynamic stall-onset: (a) NACA 23012, (b) NACA 23012B, (c) NACA 0012, (d) NACA 0018, (e) AHAVAW, (f) GUVA10

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Comparison of the two criteria: (a) Evans-Mort correlation with Tp and Tb lagging, (b) New stall criterion (this paper)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Predictions of dynamic-stall onset (solid line), compared to Glasgow data (black triangles)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Reconstructions of normal force for a ramp-up test of r=0.011 (NACA0012): Parameters: Beddoes model: CN1=1.57, Tp=1.5; Niven modification: Tb=3.93; present criterion: αds0=18.73°, Tα=3.90

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Reconstructions of normal force for an oscillating test for NACA0012 (α=15°+10°sinωt, κ=0.075), parameters: Same as in Fig. 1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Reconstructions of normal force for an oscillating test for NACA0012 (α=15°+10°sinωt, κ=0.124), parameters: Same as in Fig. 1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

NACA23012B high ramp rate prediction (r=0.0423): (a) Time history of incidence; (b) Ramp-up normal force prediction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

NACA23012B high ramp rate prediction (r=0.0489): (a) Time history of incidence; (b) Ramp-up normal force prediction

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