_ jJ

//'j- .- ......
/
,i

NASA Technical Memorandum 107581

NACA0012 BENCHMARK MODEL EXPERIMENTAL FLUTTER

RESULTS WITH UNSTEADY PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS

Jos_ A. Rivera, Jr., Bryan E. Dansberry, Robert M. Bennett,

Michael H. Durham, and Walter A. Silva

March 1992

mA.%
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

Langley P,o$oarch Center

Hampton, Virginia 23665

N92-22507
(NASA-TM-]07_,_I) NA£AO012 F_ENCHMARK MOCEL
EXPFRIMENTAL FLUITER RESULTS WITH UNSTEAOY
PRESSURE _ISIRI _,UTIONS (NASA) 13 pCSCL 01A

o_loz
 NACA 0012 BENCHMARK MODiI:L EXI_ERIMENTAL FLUTTER RESULTS WITH
UNSTEADY PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS

Jos_ A. Rivera, Jr., Bryan E. Dansberry, Robert M. Bennett,

Michael H. Durham, and Walter A. Silva

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23665-5225

initiated by the Structural Dynamics Division at

NASA Langley Research Center to provide such
The Structural Dynamics Division at NASA experimental data and to aid in understanding the flow
Langley Research Center has started a wind tunnel phenomena associated with unusual aeroelastic
activity referred to as the Benchmark Models phenomena.
Program. The primary objective of the program is to The Benchmark Models Program (BMP) has
acquire measured dynamic instability and identified several aerodynamic configurations to be
corresponding pressure data that will be useful for tested in the NASA Langley Transonic Dynamics
developing and evaluating aeroelastic type CFD codes Tunnel (TDT). Some configurations are models for
currently in use or under development. The program testing on a flexible mount system, referred to as the
is a multi-year activity that will involve testing of Pitch and Plunge Apparatus (PAPA). The NACA
several different models to investigate various 0012 airfoil rectangular wing is the first of these
aeroelastic phenomena. This paper describes results BMP PAPA mounted models. To date, two
obtained from a second wind tunnel test of the fast comprehensive wind tunnel tests have been conducted
model in the Benchmark Models Program. This fLrst for this model. During the first wind-tunnel test,
model consisted of a rigid semispan wing having a flutter boundaries were defined and wing surface
rectangular planform and a NACA 0012 airfoil shape pressure measurements were obtained for a partial set
which was mounted on a flexible two degree-of- of pressure transducers at the 60-percent span station.
freedom mount system. Experimental flutter Preliminary results from this test are presented in
boundaries and corresponding unsteady pressure reference 2. These results were used primarily as a
distribution data acquired over two model chords guide for defining the scope of the second test. The
located at the 60 and 95-percent span stations are second wind-tunnel test of this model was conducted
presented. to determine the flutter boundaries while
simultaneously taking surface pressure measurements
at most flutter conditions. For the second test,
additional pressure transducers were installed on the
wing to give more wing surface pressure
The development of unsteady aeroelastic measurements at both the 60-percent and 95-percent
computational fluid dynamic (CFD) codes requires span stations. These flutter boundaries and the wing
experimental data to validate computed results and/or surface pressure data measured for the conventional
for use as a guide for modification of analyses flutter boundary are presented in reference 3 in tabular
methods. The Benchmark Models Program 1 was format. Reference 3 also contains an extensive set of
wing surface pressure measurements obtained with the operating at Mach numbers up to 1.2 and at
model support system rigidized. stagnation pressures from near vacuum to
This paper focuses on the flutter and pressure data atmospheric. The tunnel is equipped with four quick-
available from reference 3 to highlight Mach number opening bypass valves which can be used to rapidly
effects on the flutter boundary and to correlate the reduce test-section dynamic pressure and Mach
measured pressure distributions with the conventional number when an instability occurs. Although either
flutter boundary at transonic Math numbers. The air or a heavy gas can be used as a test medium, only
conventional flutter boundary, a plunge instability air was used for the present tests.
region near M=0.90, and the stall flutter boundary at
M=0.78 are presented. In addition unsteady wing Model
surface pressure measurements acquired during The model is a semispan rigid wing mounted on a
conventional flutter are presented in coefficient form flexible mount system referred to as the Pitch and
and discussed. Plunge Apparatus (PAPA).5, 6 A photograph of the
model mounted in the TDT test section is shown in
_lamr.m_m.m.g figure 1. A planform view of the model is shown in
figure 2. The model has a NACA 0012 airfoil section
a Speed of sound, ft/sec and a rectangular planform with a span of 32 inches
Cp Mean pressure coefficient during flutter and a chord of 16 inches. The mount system is
C Wing streamwise local chord length, 16-inches attached to a turntable which provides for angle-of-
f Frequency, Hz attack variation. Transition strips made up of No. 30
f2 Wind-off pitch frequency, 5.20 Hz carborundum grit were applied to the model
ft" Flutter frequency, Hz approximately one inch back from the leading edge
ff/f2 Flutter frequency ratio (approximately 6-percent chord) on both the upper and
g Strucuwal damping lower surfaces.
k Reduced frequency, k=(c/2)co/V The model was designed to allow installation of
! Wing spanwise length,32 inches 80 in-situ pressure transducers for measurement of
L.E. Leading edgu unsteady wing surface pressures. These pressure
m Calculated moving mass of wing/PAPA transducers were referenced to wind-tunnel static
mechanism, 5.966 slugs pressure. Forty of the transducers are located at the
M Free-stream Mach number 60-percent span station, and forty at the 95-percent
Phase Phase angle referenced to pitch span station. The span locations for these pressure
displacement, degrees measurements are indicated in figure 2. The physical
q Free-stream dynamic pressure, psf locations of orifices and corresponding pressure
Rn Reynolds number based on chord length transducers on the airfoil cross section are available in
T.E. Trailing edge reference 3 and illustrated in figure 3.
V Free-stream velocity, t/see Details of the model construction can be seen in

VI Flutter speed index, VI=V/(c/2)_r_ the photographs of figure 4. The lower photograph
x Distance from wing leading edge, inches shows that the model was fabricated in three sections.
x/c Fraction of local chord Each section was machined from solid aluminum
z Vertical (plunge) displacement, inches stock. The sections were bolted together after the
Ot Wing angle of attack (also alpha), degrees pressure transducers, reference pressure tubes, and
0 Pitch displacement, degrees wiring were installed. In the upper left photograph is
_t Mass ratio, _t= mhtpl(c2/4) an expanded view of a portion of the mid section
P Density, slugs/ft 3 which shows holes drilled in the edge of the section.
(0 Circular freqtmncy, rad/sec These holes were used for insertion of the pressure
transducers. Two pressure transducers are shown next
to the model. One of the pressure transducers is
Aaimr.at_ shown mounted in a brass tube. The brass tube is
used to protect the transducer when it is inserted and
_[iad...T.aaara removed from the model. The associated orifice holes
The wind-tunnel tests were conducted in the for the pressure transducers are located about one inch
Langley Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT). 4 The from the inboard edge of the mid section and tip
TDT is a continuous flow, single return wind tunnel section. When the pressure transducers and sleeves
with a 16-foot square test section (with cropped are inserted, the measurement face of the pressure
comers) having slots in all four walls. It is capable of transducer is within 0.2 inch of the orifice location on
 the wing surface where the pressure measurement is wing model and end plate are the only parts of the
being made. Exceptions are the trailing edge pressure apparatus that are exposed to the flow in the test
transducers which are approximately 0.7 inch from section. The splitter plate serves to separate flow
the orifice location. over the model from flow around the mount system
There are four accelerometers in the model, one fairing which is located between the splitter plate and
near each comer, used to assist in identifying model the test section wall.
dynamic characteristics during testing. These A top view sketch which shows how the wing
accelerometers are mounted in pockets, one of which model, the PAPA apparatus, the splitter plate and
is shown in the photograph in the upper right of other components fit together is presented as figure 7.
figure 4. The model is attached to a short pedestal or spacer
which protrudes through the opening in the splitter
alal._.gz.cm plate, all of which attaches to the moving plate. The
The model mounting system is composed of two moving plate has provisions for the addition of
basic parts. They include a flexible support and a ballast weights (indicated in figure 7) to adjust the
large splitter plate. The model is mounted outboard of mount system structural dynamic characteristics. The
the splitter plate. opening in the splitter plate is covered by a thin
The flexible support, which allows pitch and circular end plate attached to the root section of the
plunge motion of the model, is located behind the model to prevent flow through the splitter plate. The
splitter plate. A description of the flexible mount circular end plate has a diameter equal to the model
system, referred to as the PAPA (Pitch and Plunge chord length. The circular plate can be seen in the
Apparatus),5,6 is presented in figures 5, 6, and 7. photograph of figure 6. The gap between the end plate
Figure 5 is a photograph which shows a moving and the splitter plate was less than one-tenth of an
plate supported out from the tunnel wall by a system inch, but sufficient so that the end plate did not rub
of four rods and a centerline flat plate drag strut all against the splitter plate.
with fixed-fixed end conditions. At the tunnel wall
the rods and drag strut are attached to a mounting Structural Dynamic Characteristics
plate attached to a turntable so that the model angle of
attack can be varied. The first two wind-off natural modes of vibration
The rods and flat plate drag strut provide linearly for the NACA 0012 model/PAPA mount system
constrained motion so that the model can oscillate assembly are the wing-model rigid-body plunge and
sinusoidally in pitch and plunge. The oscillations are rigid-body pitch modes respectively. Inertia coupling
functions of the stiffness of the rods, the mass between these two modes was eliminated by
properties of the moving apparatus, and the positioning ballast weights on the PAPA system
aerodynamic forces on the model. The structural moving plate so that the system center of gravity was
properties of this simple mount system can be well on the PAPA elastic axis (centerline). Therefore the
defined mathematically and can be easily measured for rigid-body plunge mode consists only of vertical
flutter calculations. This makes the PAPA mount translation of the wing model and the rigid-body pitch
system a valuable tool for obtaining experimental mode consists only of rotation of the wing model
model flutter data for correlation with analysis about the mid-chord. The measured frequencies,
because disagreement between theory and experiment damping and stiffnesses for these two modes are
can be primarily attributed to aerodynamics. The presented in table 1. Modal displacements for
PAPA is instrumented with two strain gage bridges corresponding, unit-generalized-masses are presented
oriented to measure bending and torsional moments in table 2.
from which wing model instantaneous plunge
position and pitch angle can be obtained. These are Data Acauisition and Reduction
located on the flat plate drag strut near the mounting
plate. Wing model and mount system transducer time
The PAPA splitter plate, shown in figure 6, is history data were acquired at the conventional flutter
suspended out from the test-section wall by struts boundary test conditions with the TDT data
which are about 40 inches long. The splitter plate is acquisition system. The data were acquired
12 feet long and 10 feet high. The centerline of the simultaneously (not multiplexed) for all transducers at
model and the PAPA support system is 7 feet a rate of 100 samples per second for 40 seconds and
rearward from the leading edge of the splitter plate. recorded in digital form on disk.
The PAPA mount system rods and drag strut are For each differential pressure transducer (the
enclosed in a fairing behind the splitter plate. The pressure transducers were referenced to wind-tunnel
static pressure) the mean pressure was calculated P_hlM&._iL_l]_tilg_ A plunge instability region is
using all 4000 samples of data. This mean pressure shown also in figure 8. This plunge instability is
value was divided by the dynamic pressure (q) at the represented by the circular symbols and the cross
flutter condition to form a mean pressure coefficient hatched area which covers a narrow transonic Mmch

Cp. number range from about M=0.88 to 0.95. As

A discrete Fourier analysis, at the flutter implied, the flutter motion consisted of primarily the
frequency, was used to determine the magnitude and plunge mode. A tabulation of the test conditions for
phase of the oscillating pressure distribution during the test points identifying the plunge instability
flutter. The magnitudes of the pressure distribution region are presented in table 4. At dynamic pressures
were normalized by the magnitude of the oscillating below 140 psf, testing was able to proceed through
pitch angle, and the phase angles are relative to the the instability region so that both the lower Mach
pitch motion. A phase angle is positive when a number side of the instability boundary and the upper
pressure transducer oscillatory signal leads the wing Mach number side of the instability boundary could
pitch motion. be defined. At dynamic pressures at or above 140 psf,
For the conventional flutter boundary testing was terminated because the model motions
measurements, the turntable pitch angle was set at were so large that only the low Much number side of
zero degrees and determined by a servo accelerometer. the instability boundary could be identified. Flow
The bending and torsion strain gage bridges on the visualization using tufts indicated strong shock-
PAPA support system were calibrated to obtain induced separation for this Math number range. An
plunge position and pitch angle of the wing model instability having similar characteristics was reported
relative to the turntable. At the flutter conditions the in reference 7 for a transport type wing.
plunge and pitch motion of the wing model, and the
flutter frequency, were determined from these strain _YLlalL_lJgUfJ._- Additional flutter results are
gage bridge measurements. presented in figure 9 for a Mach number of 0.78
which demonstrates the effects of angle-of-attack on
Results and Discussion the dynamic pressure at which flutter was
encountered. The results show that the dynamic
Instability Boundaries pressure increases by a small amount as angle-of-
Conventional flutter, plunge instability, and stall attack is increased from zero up to about 4 degrees.
flutter boundaries were defined during testing. These At angles-of-attack above 4 degrees there is a rapid
boundaries are similar to those encountered during the drop in the dynamic pressure at which flutter was
first test as described in reference 2. As mentioned encountered. This rapid decrease in the boundary
previously, results presented herein are from the above 4 degrees is associated with wing stall
second test only. conditions during a portion of the pitch oscillation
cycle.
Conventional flutter.- The flutter boundary for
zero degrees angle of attack, is shown in figure 8 as Pressure measurements at the conventional
flutter dynamic pressure versus Mach number. The flaUtr._lalaada_
conventional flutter data is represented by the square Wing surface pressures were measured during most
symbols. The model is stable below the boundary and of the flutter points shown previously. At this time,
is unstable above the boundary. An unusual trend of only the pressure data for the conventional flutter
an increase in flutter dynamic pressure with Mach boundary have been processed and made available in
number is shown. This is probably a result of the tabular form in reference 3. These measured pressure
elastic axis of the wing/mount system being located data for selected Mach numbers including the
at the wing mid-chord. There is a small transonic dip transonic range are presented and discussed herein.
near M=0.77 followed by a sharp upward turn of the
boundary near M=0.80. The flutter boundary is well Mean pressure measurements.- Plots showing the
defined with a large number of flutter points and mean values of the pressure coefficient (Cp) for the
relatively small scatter. A tabulation of the test upper surface as a function of chord position x/c for
conditions and flutter parameters for each test point the 60-percent and 95-percent span stations are
on the conventional flutter boundary are presented in presented in figure 10 for M= 0.30, 0.67, 0.71, 0.77,
table 3. Also included in table 3 are the magnitude 0.80, 0.82. Each line connects the Cp values at one
and phase of the pitch and plunge displacement during Mach number and is representative of the mean
flutter, 0 and z respectively. pressure distribution during flutter. For ease of
interpretation, data for M= 0.30, 0.67, 0.71, 0.77 are
presented
at the top of the figure. These data were discrete Fourier analysis at the flutter frequency. Cp
acquired during flutter at conditions defining the Magnitude versus x/c plots are presented in figure 11
subsonic portion of the boundary and the transonic for M= 0.30, 0.67, 0.71, 0.77, 0.80, 0.82. For ease
dip (indicated in figure 8). The data for M= 0.77, of interpretation, data for M= 0.30, 0.67, 0.71, 0.77
0.80, 0.82 are presented at the bottom. These were are presented at the top of the figure and the data for
acquired at conditions defining the sharp upward turn M= 0.77, 0.80, 0.82 are presented at the bottom. The
of the boundary. The data for M=0.77 is presented in data for M=0.77 are presented in both locations to
both locations to serve as a reference during serve as a reference during comparisons. Data are
comparisons. No lower surface Cp values are presented on the left for the 60-percent span station
presented because the airfoil is symmetric and the and on the right for the 95-percent span station. The
mean angle of attack was essentially zero. lower surface Cp Magnitude and phase values are not
The transition strip was located on the wing at presented. The upper and lower surface measurements
approximately the 6-percent chord. The pressures were in very good agreement and indicated the same
between 5-percent and 10-percent chord in the area of trends as they should for zero angle-of-attack.
the transition strip appear to be irregular. This may At Mach=0.77 and the higher Mach numbers, the
be a local effect of the grit but requires further study. pressures immediately downstream of the transition
There are also some point to point variations in the strip (near 6-percent chord) are anomalous on both
measured pressures at the higher Mach numbers that chords. The effect appears to be localized and due to
also warrant further study. the transition strip but requires further study.
At the top of figure 10 the effects on Cp mean as At the top of figure 11 the effects on Cp
Mach number increases from 0.30 to 0.77 are shown. Magnitude as Mach number increases from 0.30 to
From M---0.30 to 0.67 the effects are small (recalling 0.77 are shown. At Mach numbers between M=0.30
figure 8, Mach 0.30 and 0.67 correspond to the and 0.71 the unsteady pressure coefficient magnitude
subsonic portion of the flutter boundary). The largest for both the 60-percent and 95-percent span surface
value of Cp increases a small amount with Mach measurements are typical subsonic distributions with
number at both span stations, and the position on the a peak dynamic loading near the wing leading edge
chord (x/c) where the largest value occurs moves aft followed by a decrease at locations further aft. The
from about 10-percent to 15-percent chord at the 60- data appear smooth with little scatter. As Mach
percent span. No significant movement from x/c=.10 number increases to M=0.77 and above, the results
is noted at the 95-percent span. As Mach number show two peaks in the pressure data. The first peak,
increases from M=0.67 to 0.77 the effects on the located near the 6-percent chord, appears to be a result
pressures are more noticeable. At Mach=0.77 the of the transition strip on the wing model. At
largest value of Cp aft of the transition strip has Mach=0.77, the second peak loading is near the shock
increased to -0.7 at the 60-percent span and the x/c wave location at the 25-percent chord as would be
location has moved aft to 20-percent chord. The drop expected. As Mach number increases to M=0.82
in Cp aft of x/c=0.20, (when compared to the lower (bottom of figure 11), the location on the chord at
Mach numbers) indicates the presence of a shock. At which this peak loading occurs moves aft to 45-
the 95-percent span the largest Cp aft of the transition percent chord at the 60-percent span station, and to
strip has increased to -0.5 and the location has moved 30-percent chord at the 95-percent span station.
to 15-percent chord (x/c--0.15). Recalling figure 8, these Mach numbers (M=0.77 to
At the bottom of figure 10 the effects on Cp mean 0.82) correspond to points on the boundary defining
as Mach number increases from 0.77 to 0.82 are the sharp upward turn in flutter dynamic pressure.
shown. Recalling figure 8, between M=0.77 and 0.82 Figure 12 shows phase of Cp relative to pitch
the flutter boundary turns upward and rises rapidly. At displacement of the wing model during flutter. Data
these Mach numbers the mean values of pressure are presented on the left for the 60-percent span
coefficient (shown at the bottom of figure 10) indicate station and on the right for the 95-percent span
that the shock strengthens and moves aft to near the station. At subsonic Mach numbers a phase shift
40-percent chord at the 60-percent span. At the 95- occurs near the trailing edge (x/c=0.80). As Mach
percent span a weak shock appears near the 20-percent number increases to M=0.77 the position on the
chord at M=0.80 and 0.82. chord of this phase shift progresses forward gradually
to about x/c=0.65. As Mach number increases to
Unsteady pressure measurements.- The magnitude M=0.80 the phase shift occurs at the most forward
of the unsteady pressure coefficients (Cp Magnitude) location near x/c--0.40, then reverses and moves aft to
and the phase relative to the pitch displacement of the about x/c=0.50 at M=0.82.
wing model, during flutter, were obtained from a
 Concludin_ Remarks strengthens and moves aft to approximately the
45-percent chord.
The Benchmark Models Program (BMP) has been C. At M=0.80 and M=0.82 the pressure
initialed with the primary objective of obtaining data measurements at the 95-percent span indicate a
for aeroelastic CFD code development, evaluation, weak shock at approximately the 20-percent
and validation. The fast BMP model consisted of a chord. The peak dynamic loading due to this
rigid semispan wing having a rectangular planform shock moves aft from approximately the 20-
and a NACA 0012 airfoil shape. This model was percent chord to approximately the 30-percent
mounted on a flexible two degree-of-freedom mount chord as Mach number increases from M=0.80 to
system. Tests on the fast BMP model have been M=0.82.
conducted in the NASA Langley Transonic Dynamics
Tunnel to investigate instability boundaries while Current activities include further evaluation of the
simultaneously taking surface pressure measurements surface pressure measurements. Early release of these
at most instability conditions. Several different types experimental results is intended to help in the
of dynamic instability were investigated. They development and validation of aeroelastic CFD codes.
included conventional flutter, a plunge instability, and
stall flutter. This paper focuses on the flutter and
pressure data available from these test results. The
conventional flutter boundary, the plunge instability 1. Bennett, Robert M.; Eckstrom, Clinton V.; Rivera, Jos_
region, and the stall flutter boundary at Mach=0.78 A., Jr.; Dansberry, Bryan E.; Farmer, Moses G.; and
are presented. In addition, Mach number effects on the Durham, Michael H.: The Benchmark Aeroelastic Models
conventional flutter boundary are correlated with the Program - Description and Highlights of Initial Results.
measured pressure distributions at the flutter Presented at the AGARD Structures and Materials Panel
condition. The results are summarized as follows: Specialists' Meeting on TRANSONIC UNSTEADY
AERODYNAMICS AND AEROELASTICITY. San
1. The conventional flutter boundary is Diego, California. October 9-11, 1991. Paper No. 25,
characterized by an unusual trend of an increase in also available as NASA TM-104180, 1991.
flutter dynamic pressure with Mach number. There is 2. Rivera, Jos6 A., Jr.; Dansberry, Bryan E.; Farmer,
a small transonic dip near Mach--0.77 with a sharp Moses G.; Eckstrom, Clinton V.; Seidel, David A.; and
upward turn of the boundary near Mach=0.80. Bennett, Robert M.: Experimental Flutter Boundaries
with Unsteady Pressure Distributions for the NACA
2. A plunge instability region was observed over a 0012 Benchmark Model. AIAA Paper No. 91-1010,
narrow Mach number range from about M=0.88 to 1991. Also NASA TM-104072, 1991.
M--0.95. The wing flutter motion was observed to be 3. Rivera, Jos6 A., Jr.; Dansberry, Bryan E.; Durham,
primarily that of the plunge mode. Michael H.; Bennett, Robert M.; and Silva, Walter A.:
Pressure Measurements on a Rectangular Wing with a
3. The stall flutter boundary at M=0.78 exhibits a NACA 0012 Airfoil during Conventional Flutter. NASA
small increase in flutter dynamic pressure as angle-of- TM 104211, 1992.
attack is increased up to about 4 degrees. At angles- 4. Reed, Wilmer H.: Aeroelasticity Matters: Some
of-auack above 4 degrees there is a rapid drop in the Reflections of Two Decades of Testing in the NASA
dynamic pressure at which flutter is encountered. Langley Transonic Dynamics Tunnel. NASA TM-
83210, 1981.
4. The unsteady surface pressure measurements at 5. Farmer, Moses G.: A Two-Degree-of-Freedom Flutter
the 60-percent and 95-percent span stations obtained Mount System with Low Damping for Testing Rigid
at the conventional flutter boundary indicate the Wings at Different Angles of Attack. NASA TM-83302,
following: 1982.
a. At Mach numbers between M--0.30 and M=0.71 6. Farmer, Moses G.: Model Mount System for Testing
the unsteady surface pressure measurements show Flutter. U.S. Patent Number 4,475,385, Oct. 9, 1984.
typical subsonic distributions with peak dynamic 7. Eckstrom, Clinton V.; Seidel, David A.; and Sandford,
loading near the wing leading edge followed by a Maynard C.: Unsteady Pressure and Structural Response
decrease at locations further aft. Measurements on an Elastic Supercrifical Wing. Journal
b. Between M=0.71 and M=0.77 the measured of Aircraft, Vol. 27, No. 6, June 1990.
pressures at the 60-percent span indicate the
formation of a shock near the 25-percent chord.
As Mach number increases to M=0.82 this shock
 Table1.Measured
frequency,
damping,
andstiffness.

Frequency Structural Measured

Mode (Hz) Damping, g Stiffness

Plunge 3.36 0.0024 2659 Ibs/ft

Pitch 5.20 0.0024 2897 ft-lbs/rad

Table 2. Modal di_lacements and generalized mass.

Modal Displacement Generalized

Mode leading edge trailing edge Mass / Inertia

Plunge +0.4094 ft +0.4094 It 1.0 slug

Pitch +0.4047 ft -0.4047 ft 1.0 slug-ft 2

Table 3. Experimental results for the conventional flutter boundary.

z 0
Mach q a V p Rn P Vl ff ff/f2 k Mag Phase Mag Phase
(Ib/ft 2) (ff/sec) (ft/sec) (slugs/ft 3) xl0 4 (Hz) (in) (deg) (deg) (deg)
*0.30 131.7 1127.2 338.2 0.002303 2.736 696 0.563 4.56 0.877 0.0565 0.27 -175.5 1.63 0.
0.39 137.2 1132.3 441.6 0.001407 2.168 1139 0.574 4.51 0.867 0.0428 0.35 -176.2 1.93 0.
0.45 137.7 1129.5 508.3 0.001066 1.897 1503 0.575 4.47 0.860 0.0368 0.23 -176.7 1.22 O.
0.51 141.9 1121.6 572.0 0000867 1.755 1848 0.564 4.43 0.852 0.0324 0.32 -177.0 1.49 0.
0.61 144.6 1108.8 676.4 0.000632 1.540 2535 0.590 4.34 0.835 0.0269 0.25 -177.3 1.01 0.
* 0.67 146.5 1096.0 734.3 0.000543 1.463 2951 0.593 4.28 0.823 0.0244 0.34 -177.1 1.22 0.
* 0.71 146.9 1106.6 785.7 0.000476 1.316 3366 0.594 4.25 0.817 0.0227 0,26 -177.2 0.89 O.
* 0.77 144.2 1097.1 844.8 0.000404 1.251 3966 0.589 4,13 0.794 0.0205 0.36 -177.1 0.99 O.
* 0.80 147.2 1109.1 887.3 0.000374 1.196 4284 0.595 4.09 0.787 0.0193 0.25 -177.4 0.60 O.
* 0.82 159.9 1111,6 911.5 0.000385 1.259 4162 0.620 4,07 0,783 0.0187 0.21 -176.5 0.42 0.

* Mach numbers at which measured pressures are discussed in this report.

Tabulated pressures are available for all the above Mach numbers in reference 3.

Table 4. Experimental results for the plunge instability region.

Mach q a V p Rn t-[ V[
(Ib/ft 2) (ft/sec) (fttsec) (stugs/ft 3) xl0 -6

0.88 142.2 1091.5 960.5 0000308 1.093 5202 0.584

0.88 108.4 1090.0 959.2 0.000236 0.838 6789 0.511
0.89 69.9 1076.3 957.9 0.000152 0.550 10541 0.409
0.90 59.8 1068.3 961.5 0.000129 0,474 12421 0.379
0.93 76.6 1076.1 1000.8 0.000153 0.578 10473 0 429
0.93 88.9 1079.4 1003.8 0.000176 0.664 9104 0.462
0.95 122.4 1089.5 1035.0 0.000229 0.878 6997 0.543
 ORIGINAL PAG-E
BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGt_APH

Flew

L. 32.0 kn_
N._qm

1.0 inch
"T-
mw
! eo%m i
prNaure wilicke :

Roe( '_°" i/

[] i =''_'n
Wem odlk:k_ all

Figure 1. NACA 0012 airfoil model mounted in TDT. Figure 2. Wing model planform.

transducer
location location
Figure 3. Orifice and pressure transducer locations at 60-percent and 95-percent span stations.

Figure 4. Model details.

 ill

Splitter
plate

ORIGINAL P A c_A_.
B_CK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPH

Mounting plate

Fairing

Support

Flat plate
drag strut .......

Figure 5. PAPA flexible mount. Figure 6. PAPA splitter plate.

Wind tunnel wall

F
Splitter plate strut

Remotely controlled turntable

Ballast weights _'_ Pedestal

Strain gage bridges

Wing model

0
Rods and drag strut
Circular end-plate

Moving plate

Splitter plate strut

I Splitter plate

Figure 7. Top view sketch of the PAPA assembly (fairing over rods is not shown).
 Conventional
20O 2OO
unstawle _utter boundary

150 -- 150

Unstable _ _ Stall flutter

Dynamic
pressure, 100 - Dynamic 100
psf pressure,
psf -_____i_ Classical flutter
Transonic dip _0
50 - 5O
Plunge J

Instability
I I I [ I I I I I I
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1 2 3 4 5

Mach number Angle of attack, deg

Figure 8. Conventional flutter boundary and transonic Figure 9. Stall flutter dynamic pressure versus
plunge instability region (alpha=0.0 degrees). angle-of-attack for 54=0.78.

Mach
---0,--, 0.30
600 Span 950 Span
- -D- - 0.67
-1.0 -1.0
-,-d,-,- 0.71

-0.5 -0.5 _ 0.77

O.O 0.0
Cp Mean

1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5 1
1.5 1.5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 O.O 012' 014 ' 016 ' 0'.0 ' 1'.0

Cp Mean
40
•0.5

0.0
.,o]
-0.5

0.0
.. -
-1
0.5

1,0 1.0
0.5 l
1.5 1.5 •
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0:2 0:4 0:6 0'.8 ' I'.0

x/c x/c

Figure 10. Upper surface mean pressure coefficient distribution during conventional flutter for several Mach numbers.

10
 95% Span
60% Span 0.28 Mach

o28
] 1 -.__ 03o
0.24 1 0.24

0.20 k 0.20 _ I -,-,_-,-

- '-!21- - 0.71
0.67

M_n,,u,eo.,.N_. _, o.,, "

(,,e.) oo.]__ oo.
0.00 " " 0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 1.0

Cp
o.,,o-,.1!
'
0.20

0"16k!_.
o.,4o.,..,
""

n_ ! _:
0.20 _;:

0.16 _
-_--o.0o

-.g-,, 0.82
Magnitude 0.12 0.12

0.04 0.04
o.o. ;,_ i 0.00 ,_ .-,
0.00 0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

x/c x/c

Figure l l. Magnitude of unsteady pressure coefficient distribution during conventional flutter for several Mach numbers.

Mach
60% Span 95% Span
---C>--- 0.30
-200- -200- - -C]- - 0.67

- .-'1_,-.- 0.71
-150 - O, n -150 -

-100 -
0.80

-50-

50
0.0 012 014 016 018 1'.0 oo o12 0:4 o16 0:8 lo
x/c x/c

Figure 12. Phase of unsteady pressure coefficient distribution during conventional flutter for several Mach numbers.

11
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE o_8 _o o704-018a
i . i ii i ,

Pubh( rPO(_rTl_q t_Jrden tot lh_ _ (jH_(tlofl of infoffY_,ltlon _ o_l;m,llod tn ._vPraqe t hl_ur p_r tP,ponse, m(l_udil_g the time for rPvlewm_ instructions. ,.earchinq e_tmcj clara source_.

,jathermc_ ,Jnd m,_l_t,tllt'llnCj thP Cl_)t_ needed, and ct._mp)t_|ln¢l .Jl'_d r_*VlC_Wln_| _hP coIh'¢lhOn ot ir_formalhOn Send cOiYiment_, recjdlrdmq _his burdPn estimate or any other aspect of this

oll_'_)n ',f mlr)rm_t*on, mciudm 9 _u_)_j_tion_ for rt.duLmq Ifu_ _urdPn h) Washm_]h)n tte_dquar(er_ _ervlcl_$, Directorate for hl_oft_at_lOIrl OI3_ratlO_lS and Re,pOrts. 1_ _5 Jef_E=f$o_

I)_ !_,jh¢_ay_ Su_(e 1204. AMine}ton, VA _)_02-4 ]02..ind to lh_ = O1_. e ot Man._qernPnt ._nd ffud_}Pt, P._petwOrk Redudlon Prql_,d (0104-0188), WashingtOn, DC 2050].

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank}' 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATE'S COVEI_ED '
March 1992 Technical Memorandum

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDING NUMBERS

NACAO012 BENCHMARK MODEL EXPERIMENTAl. FLUTTER RESULTS 505-63-50

WITH UNSTEADY PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS

_6. AUTHOR(S)

J. A. Rivera, Jr., B. E. Dansberry, R. M. Bennett,

M. H. Durham and W. A. Silva

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23665-5225

g. 'SPONSORING'/M()NITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
National Aeronautics and Space A(|m_n[stration
Washington, DC 20546-0001 NASA TM-I07581

,J i

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

This paper will be presented at the AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC 33rd Structures,

Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Dallas, Texas, April 13-15, 1992.

12a. OISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 02

131'ABSTRACTiMaximum200word$) ....

The Structural Dynamics Division at NASA Langley Research Center has started a
wind tunnel activity referred to as the Benchmark Models Program. The primary
objective of the program is to acquire measured dynamic instability and corres-
ponding pressure data that will be useful for developing nnd evaluating
aeroelastic type CFD codes currently in use or under development. The program is
a multi-year activity that will involve testing of several different models to
investigate various aeroelastic phenomena. This paper describes results obtained
from a second wind tunnel test of the first model in the Benchmark Models Program.
This first model consisted of a rigid semispan wing having a rectangular planform
and a NACA 0012 airfoil shape which was mounted on a flexible two degree-of-
freedom mount system. Experimental flutter boundaries and corresponding unsteady
pressure distribution data acquired over two model chords located at the 60 and
95-percent span stations are presented.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Flutter 12
Pressure Distributions 16. PRICE CODE

A03
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATI()N 18. SECURI'TY CLASSIFICATION ' 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited
i i i

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev 2_89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18