AD-A123 952 THE AERODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE OF SEVERAL FLOW CONTROL litDEVICES FOR INTERNAL.. (U) NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AMDSPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC W T ECKERT ET AL.
UNC7LASSFIED DEC A2 NASA-A-S816 NASA-TP-1972 F/0 20/4 ML
IEOMIIIIIEIElIhlm/lIIu*flflflfflflflIIIII l llI8
1L.2
I1.8
1.25 mu - _______
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNATIOA BUJREAU OF STANDARDS 19b3 A
NASATechnicalPaper1972
AVRADCOMTechnical The Aerodynamic PerformanceReport of Several Flow Control82-A-2
Devices for Internal1982 Flow Systems
William T. EckertAeromechanics LaboratoryA VRADCOM Research and Technology LaboratoriesAmes Research CenterMoffett Field, California
Brian M. WettlauferSverdrup Technology, Ames DivisionMoffett Field, California
Kenneth W. MortAmes Research CenterMoffett Field, California
NASANational Aeronautics aand Space Administration
Scientific and TechnicalInformati on Branch
SYMBOLS
A oa] area, m2 (ft2 ) a uncertainty in indicated value of parameter
Cp static pressure coefficient, (p.i - psref)Iq 1 17 fan aerodynamic efficiency, percent
c chord length measured along centerline of vane 0 deflection angle of turning vane panel, degstructure, cm (in.)
p static density of local flow, kg/m3 (slugs/ft 3 )
CV vane chord length measured between leading andand trailing edges, cm (in.) 0 overturn angle of flow exiting vane cascade, taken
approximately one cy length downstream ofg gap between straighteners, louver, or vane panels exit plane, deg
measured center-to-center along line of leadingedges, cm (in.)
Subscripts:R/D longitudinal position in test duct, fraction of
hydraulic diameter B condition due to blockage
P power required to overcome losses in wind tunnel d condition at wind tunnel or duct drive systemor duct system, W (hp)
f filletp pressure, N/m 2 (lb/ft2)
h hinge locationq dynamic pressure, N/rn 2 (lb/ft2 )i condition at local measurement station
: R n Reynolds number based on cvd net net value
r radius, cm (in.)ref reference
V local flow velocity, m/sec (ft/sec)s static condition
x chordwise distance from nose of vane, measuredalong c, cmr (in.) T total or stagnation condition
y vane thickness ordinate, measured perpendicular t tailto c, cm (in.)
tot totalz vane shape ordinate, measured perpendicular to c,
cm (in.) o condition at duct system reference station or testsection
geometric turning angle of vane cascade set, deg1 flow condition upstream of component
A change in condition from upstream to downstreamlocations 2 flow condition downstream of component
Ap T/qI total pressure loss coefficient based on upstreamdynamic pressure
iii
THE AERODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE OF SEVERAL FLOW CONTROL DEVICES
FOR INTERNAL FLOW SYSTEMS
William T. Eckert,* Brian M. Wettlaufert and Kenneth W. Mort
Ames Research Center
An experimental research and development program was undertaken to develop and document new flow-control devices foruse in the major modifications to the 40- by 80-Foot Wind Tunnel at Ames Research Center. These devices, which are appli-cable to other facilities as well, included grid-type and quasi-two-dimensional flow straighteners, louver panels for valving, andturning-vane cascades with net turning angles from 00 to 90. The tests were conducted at model scale over a Reynolds numberrange from 2X10 s to I 7X 10', based on chord. The results showed quantitatively the performance benefits of faired, low-blockage, smooth-surface straightener systems, and the advantages of curved turning-vanes with hinge-line gaps sealed and apreferred chord-to-gap ratio between 2.5 and 3.0 for 450 or 900 turns.
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION baffles, and other flat vanes and louvers were tested instraight-through (nonturning) flow configurations. Vanecascades were studied at flow-turning angles up to 90*.
Many internal flow systems, including most wind tunnels, The effect of such other parameters as chord-to-gap ratio andemploy turning-vane, louver, or flow-straightening cascade hinge-gap sealing were also evaluated. These tests were con-systems for flow control. These flow-control devices are used ducted over a range of Reynolds numbers (based on chord)because of their beneficial effect on system aerodynamic from 2X I0 s to 17X I0 s .performance. "System aerodynamic performance" includes(1) the related factors of power, energy, and pressure losses The results of this experimental program do not consti-and (2) the secondary effects of the devices on the quality tute a complete and final treatment of the aerodynamic per-of the flow in downstream components. "Flow quality" formance of all flow-control systems any more than didincludes flow uniformity, distributions, angularities, and previous work on the subject. These data should, however,turbulence. Many such flow-control devices have been contribute to the body of knowledge on the subject andstudied and documented. For example, Idel'chik (1966) provide additional information useful in optimizing internalprovides a major compilation of component losses that is a flow systems as dictated by complexity, cost, andsignificant contribution to the literature, performance.
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Mr. DanielBut the nuerf of, pssevar iatoninfi gute.Te r toNA J. Clasen and Mr. C. Gary Welling of Sverdrup Technology,
and thus performance, is nearly infinite. The recent NASA AesDvio (frrlAnldReac Ornito,effots o m~y he 4- b 80Foo Win Tunelat mes Ames Division (formerly Arnold Research Organization,effots o moifythe40- y 8-Foo Wid Tnnelat mes Inc.), for their valuable contributions to this study and for
Research Center (Mort et al., 1976, 1979) revealed the press- their anc ante ortion th dad au ton
ing need for additional vane, louver, and straightener perfor- their assistance in the operation of the model and acquisitionmance data for configurations unique to the modificationand thus not found in the literature. This report presentsthe results of an experimental program undertaken to fulfill FLOW CONTROL COMPONENTSthe need for these new performance data.
Although there are many kinds of flow-control devices,The primary purpose of these experimental studies was to this study considered only three: flow straighteners, louvers,
determine component pressure losses. However, for some and turning vanes. The following discussion explains theconfigurations, exit flow angles or chordwise loading distri- scope and meaning of these component classes as used in thisbutions or both were also measured. Flow-straightener report.systems, some designed to include acoustic treatment in the
*Aeromechanics Laboratory, U.S. Army Aviation R&D Com- Flow Straightenersmand, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California 94035.
tSverdrup Technology, Ames Division, Ames Research Center, Flow strahteners are designed to do just what their nameMoffett Field, California 94035. implies - sti.ghten the flow in a duct. They reduce or
~i
eliminate flow angularities and large-scale turbulence. They Form and Functionare located in a straight, constant-area duct and maystraighten flow in two planes, with an egg-crate geometry, or Vane-loading distributions, presented as pressure coeffi-only in one plane with spaced, "two-dimensional" panels. cients, can be used to calculate design structural loads forTheir inlet face is in a plane perpendicular to the mean enter- the system. Vane-turning angles can assist in determining theing flow. Significant parameters affecting the losses of flow- proper or optimum alignment of the vane cascade. The totalstraightener systems include flow blockage, cell geometry, pressure loss of duct components is of interest and concernand surface roughness. from power and energy standpoints because of its linear con-
tribution to the required operating power for a duct or wind-tunnel system (Eckert et al., 1976):
Louvers
As used in this report, louvers may serve some of the same = Ua7.,pA 0
functions as flow straighteners but are intended as open- 2 Pd 17dclosed valving devices. They are usually spaced so as to mini-midze the blockage they present in the open position. They Here, 2; Ap7 '/q0 is the sum of the total pressure losses of themay also be "racked," that is, have the plane of their leading several components of the duct system. Of these three aero-edges at some nonperpendicular angle to the entering flow, dynamic performance indicators - vane-loading distribution,Parameters influencing the losses of louvers include shape, turning angle, and total pressure loss - the pressure loss was,blockage (in these tests corresponding to and controlled by in this study, both the most important and the most difficultthe chord-to-gap ratio), and surface roughness. to measure.
Turning Vanes Theoretical Considerations
Turning vanes guide flow uniformly around bends, thus The total pressure loss for an individual component is theminimizing the corner losses. For the current study, these difference in the values of the average total pressuresbends were at angles up to 900. Most of the vane sys ms upstream and downstream of the component. Although totaltested were designed to allow a change in flow direction by pressure is generally easy to measure in discrete locations,repositioning a segment of each vane of the cascade. in some getting an accurate integrated measurement across an entirecases, one of the directions was straight -through, so that the duct cross section is extremely difficult. The difficulty arisesturning vanes in their 00 turning mode appeared much as from the necessity of taking careful measurements in alllouvers, but with closer spacing. In other cases, adjustable flow regions of the duct, including the boundary layer andflaps or tails were added to fixed, 900 turning vanes. In these corners. This task requires a great quantity of data, even tolatter cases some net turning angles were less than 900 - as approximate a true integrated average. And when, as inlow as 00 - with the flow turned 900 by the fixed vane and this application, the requirement is for a change in totalthen turned back again by the tails through an additional pressure between two cross sections, the difficulty isbend angle of up to 90. This compound type of turning compounded.vane is not recommended, for it has an unnecessarily highloss, but it was studied as a potentially low-cost modification However, the loss measurement can be made in anotherto existing systems for special purposes. and simpler way. For nonrotating flow the static pressure is
constant across a plane perpendicular to the flow direction.Thus, static pressure may be determined by only a single
COMPONENT AERODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE sample at a given cross section. Therefore, since the pressureloss can be related to static pressure measurements, theprocess of loss determination is relatively simple. For incom-
The aerodynamic performance of the flow straighteners, pressible flow the loss islouvers, and turning vanes was measured in terms of thepressure losses caused by the component, the chord-wise LpPT - -P 5 l -p + q 2 )pressure distributions (loads) on the vanes, and the overturn/underturn angles of the flow exiting the vane systems.
- 1 S2, q, -q 2
q, q,
2
and, applying continuity considerations where Instrumentationp A IV, = p 2A2 V2 and q = 1/2pV 2 ,
All performance data were taken as pressures, using a&PT PSI -Ps 2 Pi - P2 multiple-tube manometer; data were recorded photographi-
q, q, P2 cally. The pertinent measuring locations are shown in fig-ure 2. Static pressure taps distributed along the upper surface
Finally, for measurements taken far enough downstream of the duct, both upstream and downstream of the test corn-that all mixing has taken place, the density change across a ponent, measured the pressure losses. A traversing pitot-staticcomponent is small. Thus, direction probe (fig. 3) measured turning angles near the
center of the duct and at a point about I chord length down-APT _ Ps, - Ps. stream of the cascade exit plane.q, q I
Hence, measuring the static pressure drop across a corn- Calibration and Accuracyponent gives a reasonable approximation of the total pressureloss. The traversing survey probe (fig. 3) was calibrated in the
7- by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel (No. 1) at Ames ResearchCenter. The flow angularity parameters were calibrated as
MODEL TEST PROGRAM functions of indicated, nondimensional pressure differencesmeasured by the multiport direction probe. The probe wastested in upright and inverted orientations, and angles were
The experimental program was carried out on the basis of measured with an inclinometer; a pre-calibrated standardthe theoretical considerations discussed above. The studies probe was used as a reference.included measurements on 3 flow-straightener configura-tions, 2 louver systems, and 13 turning vane cascades (3 at All pressure readings used for the data presented herein0 turning angles). were accurate to about ±0.5 mm (-+0.02 in.) of vertical water
column height. All pressure port locations were known towithin about ±2.5 mm (±0.1 in.). The duct geometry
Apparatus dimensions were accurate to about -*1.5 mm (±0.06 in.) and0.50 . Vane settings were accurate within ±0.250. The uncer-
The duct system used in this test program is shown in tainty in pressure loss coefficient, determined by the methodfigure 1. Dimensions and geometry of the basic apparatus of Kline and McClintock (1953), is shown in figure 4.(i.e., without the flow-control component test subject) aregiven in table 1. The entire duct system was located and The combined effect of calibration, installation, andoperated in an extremely large but fully-enclosed test measurement errors in the exit flow-turning angle was ±00.
chamber.
The test apparatus was a simple, nonreturn duct powered Test Procedureby a fixed-pitch, variable-speed fan located at its exit. Theduct cross section was rectangular except for the fan shroud Test components were installed between the upstreamand its upstream transition. Both the duct inlet upstream of inlet and downstream settling ducts. The drive speed of thethe test subject and the fan inlet were protected by honey- drive fan was set and held constant while the data werecomb flow straighteners to maximize the quality (uniform- taken. The fan speed was then changed to a new setting (i.e.,ity) of the flow entering these two components. The relative a new component Reynolds number) and data were takenposition of the inlet duct and settling duct, that is, their spac- again. When this process was complete, the test componenting and the angle between their longitudinal centerlines, was exchanged for another and the test procedure wasdepended on the size and configuration of the component repeated.being tested. The detailed geometries of the several config-urations tested are shown in the figures along with the pres- These studies considered only steady-state performanceentation of the data they produced. characteristics of the components. No attempt was made to
determine the effects of gusts or oscillatory flows.
3
Data Reduction Procedure A less detailed summary of the experimental results iscompiled in table 3 for nonturning devices, in table 4 for 450
The total pressure losses of the component were assumed turning-vane cascades, and in table 5 for 900 turning devices.equal to the measured static pressure losses, consistent withthe above discussion (Theoretical Considerations). These Some analysis of results can be achieved by consideringlosses were determined by taking the differences or offsets in the basic data figures. Some effects are better shown on sum-the upstream and downstream pressure distributions, as was mary figures. Table 6 is a plotting index for the summarydone by Miller (197 1). Figure 5 shows how the upstream and analyses, which are presented in figures 17 through 2 1.downstream distributions were extrapolated to the locationof the longitudinal centerline of the subject component. The experimental results for flow straighteners include theThese extrapolations were based on the measured slope of effects of blockage and chord-to-gap ratio, surface condition,the pressure distribution in the empty duct, which is also and fairing contour.shown in figure 5. By this process, the losses of the duct wereremoved from the result, leaving only the losses of the Considering figures 6-8, it is clear that pressure loss variesstraightener, louver, or vane component. with Reynolds number and with blockage (and with chord-
to-gap ratio, since blockage and chord-to-gap ratio were
For some test subjects the inlet and exit duct areas were coupled through the number of vanes used in a fixed duct
not equal. In those cases, static pressure measurements indi- size). The effect of chord-to-gap ratio is shown in figure 17,cated a misleading pressure difference caused by the compo- and there is a clear indication that the greater the blockage
nent. Therefore, to keep all reported losses on the same basis, (and the chord-to-gap ratio), the stronger a function ofthat is, nondimensionalized by q, (the dynamic pressure Reynolds number is the pressure loss. The vane surface hadupstream of the component), the indicated pressure differ- a significant effect on the loss results; both figures 7 and 8ences were adjusted to compensate for the area change: show that the uniform roughness of the fine-mesh screen
2[ caused higher losses than the perforated but smooth surfacesP - Ps ' 2 of greater or lesser porosity inserts. Figures 7 and 8 also
show, comparing data for similar conditions, as in figure 17,q t q that the faired airfoil contour of figure 8 generated a lower
The overtum/underturn angles of flow-exiting turning- loss than the simpler contour of figure 7.vane systems were measured by the survey probe at severallateral locations in the central region of the duct. The The louver configurations of figures 9 and 10 show similarseveral measurements were then averaged, kinds of unsurprising results, except, perhaps, that the pres-
sure loss of the nonsymmetrical tail of figure 10 may be a
slightly stronger function of Reynolds number than is theRESULTS AND DISCUSSION loss of the symmetrical tail of figure 9.
The results for turning vanes are more complex than those
Detailed results of the experimental program and sketches for nonturning devices. Of particular interest are the effectsof the II component styles are presented in figures 6 of the following on pressure losses: basic vane contour, totalthrough 16. A configuration plotting index is provided in turning angle and tail deflection angle, chord-to-gap ratio,table 2. Generally, the flow-control devices are presented in and hinge-gap seals.order of increasing turning angle, with flow straighteners,louvers, and 00 turning-angle vanes appearing first. Flow- Some inferences can be drawn on the effects of basic con-straightener performance is shown in figures 6 through 8; tour by comparing figures 11 (m) and IS for 900 turns andlouver data are given in figures 9 and 10; and turning-vane figures 11(Q) and 14(d) for 450 bends. For 900 turns thecharacteristics are presented in figures 11 through 16. gradual bend of the multiple-circular-arc airfoil of figure 15
produces much lower losses than the abrupt flow direction
Plotted component loss results are presented as functions changes of the two-segment vane of figures 1 (e) and I I(m).of Reynolds number. Overturn angles for turning-vane However, for 458 turns, if done correctly (i.e., gradually) aconfigurations are tabulated as mean values. (Although the series of flat panels (fig. 11(d)) can give a lower loss than aangularity results are not as consistent and accurate as the contoured vane such as that shown in figure 14(b); that is,pressure losses, they are included in the interests of pro- the loss shown in figure 11(Q) is lower than that shown inviding approximate information where no such information figure 14(d).has been generally available in the literature.)
Figure 18(a) combines relevant data from figures 11, 15,
and 16 to show the effect of total turning angle on the
4
pressure loss. The circular symbols in figure 18 designate the effectiveness with increasing chord-to-gap ratio. An overturnresults for thin, hinged-panel vanes covering the range from angle of 00 was achieved at a chord-to-gap ratio between0° to 900; the loss increases approximately parabolically with 2.5 and 3.0.turning angle. The square symbols designate similar datapoints for the multiple-circular-arc vanes, with tails providingtotal turning from 900 to 1800. For both the thin-vane and CONCLUSIONSmultiple-circular-arc-vane types the variation in turning anglewas achieved by tail deflection, and figure 18(b) shows rea-sonable correlation of loss with tail-deflection angle, regard- There are as many performance results for flow-controlless of the very different bend angles of the upstream pieces devices as there are devices. The documentation and tabula-of the two vane types. tion of pressure loss, pressure distribution, and flow angular-
ity information from this experimental study will contributeA clear pattern of pressure loss variation with chord-to- to the general body of knowledge of the subject and should
gap ratio for 450 turns is shown in figure 19(a) and for prove valuable in future wind-tunnel developmental projects.90 turns in figure 19(b). Both curves are quasi-parabolic For lowest losses the components should be developed withwith minimum losses shown between chord-to-gap ratios of the following features in mind: (I) flow-straightening2.5 to 3.0. devices should be as aerodynamically contoured with as low
a blockage as is practical for the particular application;The effects of sealing the hinge-gaps between movable (2) surface openings, if necessary, say for acoustic treatment,
vane panels can be seen in figures 1 l(g) and 1 l(i) for thin, should be accomplished with smooth, perforated plates;450 vanes, and in figure 16(d) for the more complex (3) turning vanes should be gently curved, not made up ofmultiple-turn, over-90 system. Figure 18 shows, by the dif- flat panels, and should be spaced at a chord-to-gap ratio ofference between the open and solid symbols, that sealing about 3; and (4) any hinge gaps should be sealed.hinge-gaps can significantly flatten the pressure-loss-versus-turning-angle curves. Other configurations and arrangements will work, of
course, but will be less energy-efficient. Should cost effi-The final performance indicator considered in this study ciency dictate "the simpler approach" to component design,
was the flow overturn angle, measuring the vane's flow- this compilation can help assess the attendant operationalturning efficiency. Figures 20 and 21 show flow overturn and technical penalties.angles for two types of vanes. Figure 20, for multiple-circular-arc vanes with tail deflections at 900, shows greaterunderturn for greater tail deflection, that is, decreasing tail Ames Research Centereffectiveness. Figure 21, for thin vanes at 450 and 900 over National Aeronautics and Space Administrationa range of chord-to-gap ratio, shows increasing turning and
Aeromechanics LaboratoryAVRADCOM Research and Technology Laboratories
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. 94035,September 21, 1982
5~ I
REFERENCES
Eckert, William T.; Mort, Kenneth W.; and Jope, Jean: Aero- Miller, Donald S.: Internal Flow: A Guide to Losses in Pipedynamic Design Guidelines and Computer Program for and Duct Systems. British Hydromechanics ResearchEstimation of Subsonic Wind Tunnel Performance. NASA Association, Cranfleld, England, 1971.TN D-8243, 1976.
Mort, Kenneth W.; Kelly, Mark W.; and Hickey, David H.:Ide'chik, 1. E.: Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance. Coeffi. The Rationale and Design Features for the 40- by 80-/
cients of Local Resistance and of Friction. AEC.TR-6630, 80- by 120-Foot Wind Tunnel. Paper 9, AGARD Con-The Israel Program for Scientific Translations Ltd., 1966. ference Proceedings 174 on Windtunnel Design and(Available from Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Testing Techniques, AGARD CP-l 74, Mar. 1976.Technical Information, U.S. Department of Commerce.)
Mort, Kenneth W.; Soderman, Paul T.; and Eckert,Kline, S. J.; and McClintock, F. A.: The Description of William T.: Improving Large-Scale Testing Capability by
Uncertainties in Single Sample Experiments. Mech. Eng., Modifying the 40- by 80-Foot Wind Tunnel. J. Aircraft,vol. 75, no. 1, Jan. 1953, pp. 3-8. vol. 16, no. 8, Aug. 1979, pp. 571-575.
6
----------------------
TABLE 1.- DUCT GEOMETRY
Duct segment Dimension, cm (in.)
Inlet honeycombCell size 1.3 (0.5)Length 25.4 (10)
Entrance ductHeight 91.4 (36)Width 91.4 (36)Length
Minimum 91.4 (36)Maximum 152.4 (60)
Settling ductHeight 91.4 (36)Width
Minimum 91.4 (36)Maximum 129.8 (51)
LengthMinimum 182.9 (72)Maximum 304.8 (120)
Transition ductHoneycomb
Cell size 1.3 (0.5)Length 25.4 (10)
Shape transition
Inlet 91 A X 91.4 (36 X 36)Length 91.4 (36)Exit diameter 121.9 (48)
Fan diameter 121.9 (48)
7
,, I , .. . . . .. . . .. .. - ~ . -
TABLE 2.- INDEX TO BASIC CONFIGURATION PERFORMANCE FIGURES
Component Flow deflection
Turning angle, Vane Co-plotteddeg construction configuration
Figure Type Description variationsnumber Total Net Number of Number of
segments hinges
6 Flow straightener Egg-crate grid 0 0 1 0
7 Flow straightener Flat-sided with 0 0 1 0 Surface roughness,acoustic surface c/g
8 Flow straightener Streamlined, with 0 0 1 0 Surface roughness,acoustic surface c/g
9 Louver or valve Symmetrical tail 0 0 1 0
10 Louver or valve Nonsymmetrical tail 0 0 1 0
11 Turning vane Thin, flat-sided 0-90 0-90 1-3 0-2 Chordwise hinge(tmax/c = 0.021 location,to 0.035) Hinge-gap seal,
Chord-to-gap ratio,Lower surface fillet
12 Turning vane Short, thick 0.45 0,45 1-3 0-2 Lower surface fillet(tmax/C = 0.076)
13 Turning vane Long. thick 0,45 0,45 1-3 0-2 Lower surface fillet(tmax/c 0.044
14 Turning vane Thick, flexible 0.45 0,45 1,2 0. 1
nose contour
15 Turning vane Multiple-circular-arc 90 90 1 0
16 Turning vane Multiple-circular-arc 90-180 90-0 2 1 Hinge-gap sealwith tail
8
TABLE 3.- SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR NONTURNING DEVICES
Figure Chord-to-Sketch ubr Blockage gap ratio, Surface AP7/q3 (Rn)
Cv/g
6 61.5 18.5 Smooth 3.31 (5X10 5 )
(grid) _____ _______
7 11.11 1.7 Screen .072 (106)
16.67 2.1 Screen .115 (106)
27.78 3.3 Screen .292 (106)(2D) 27.78 3.3 40% porous .265 (106)
27.78 3.3 70% porous .275 (106)
8 11.11 1.7 Screen .060(106)16.67 2.1 Screen .098 (106)
27.78 3.3 Screen .251 (106)(2D) 27.78 3.3 40% porous .218 (106)
27.78 3.3 70% porous .224 (106 )
9 4.17 .71 Smooth .015 (5XI0s)
10 4.17 .71 Smooth .012 (5XlO)
I I (a,f) 9.72 4.5 Smooth .091 (5X 10)
12(a,c) 16.67 2.2 Smooth .027 (5X 105)
' - 13(a,c) 16.67 3.7 Smooth .055 (5X 11)1)
14(a,c) 16.67 2.3 Smooth .044 (5X 10s )
9
TABLE 4.- SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR 458 TURNING DEVICESChord-to-
Figure Hinge 0,Sketch Blockage gap ratio, ChIc 47 q, (Rn)number cy/g gap deg
I l(bg) 6.94 2.6 0.4 Sealed 0.25 (5X l0s) 2.16.94 2.6 .4 Open .50 (5X 10) 2.4
11.81 4.4 .4 Open .45 (5X 10s) -.2
I l(cj) 2.78 1.2 .5 Sealed .07 (SX lOs) -2.35.56 2.2 .5 Sealed .06 (5X lOs) -.69.03 3.3 .5 Sealed .07 (5X 10s ) .3
11.81 4.4 .5 Open .13 (5X10 s ) 1.011.81 4.4 .5 Open .46 (5X Is) 1.2
1l (ck) 5.56 2.2 .5 Sealed .06 (5X 10) -.39.03 3.3 w/22.5* Sealed .07 (5X 10s) .5
fillet
5.56 2.2 .5 Sealed .05 (5X 10s) 09.03 3.3 w/340 Sealed .07 (SX 101) .4
fillet
Il(d,Q) 11.81 4.5 0.33 and Sealed .11 (5X 10) -1.8. _ .67
12(bd) 16.67 2.1 .4 Sealed .40(5X10 s ) 2.0
l2(b,d) 16.67 2.1 .4 Sealed .40 (5X 10 s ) 3.7
w/22.50
fillet
/ 13(bd) 16.67 3.7 .17 Sealed .33 (106) .6/
13(b,d) 16.67 3.7 .17 Sealed .37 (106) 1.1w/22.50
fillet
/
14(b,d) 16.67 2.2 .27 Sealed .18 (SX 10') 3.5
10
TABLE S.- SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR 90 TURNING DEVICES
FigureChord-to-Sketch number Blockage gap ratio, chic ~ ge Ppq p~ dq.
/15(b) 27.66 2.0 - None 12 (5X 101)
16(b) 27.66 4.0 0.48 Open 1lS(5X 1O5 ) 0.8
TABLE 6.- INDEX TO SUMMARY PERFORMANCE FIGURESFigue Efecs sownComponent type Reference figuresnumber Primary Secondary
17 c/g for AP , Contour for Ap7-/q, Flow straightener 7(b), 8(b)18(a) t3 for Ap~/q1 Hinge-gap seal for Ap7/q, Thin and thick vanes 1 I1(f), (i), (in),
15(b), 16(b), (d),
____(0 ()g
18(b) Ot for Ap7.,
19 c/g for 4 ,Thin vanes I11(c), (e), (i), (in)
20 0, for overturn Multiple-circular-arc I 6(b),(d),(),(g)angle vanes
21 c/g for overturn Thin vanes I1I(i), (in)angle
(a) Overhead view.
' I
(b) Inlet quadrant view.
Figure 1.- Test duct and apparatus in 450 turning configuration.
13
25.4 25.4(10) (10)
1 4152.4 182.9-304.8 91.4 91.4ri:9 -'1(72-120) (36) (36)-
91.4 .1C (36) " " "i
TEST
I1NLET OMONENHONEYCOMBFLOW DOWNSTREAM TRANSITION DRIVE-
STRAIGHTENER SETTLING DUCT FANDUCT DUCT
UPSTREAM FLOW-TURNING HONEYCOMBENTRANCE SURVEY PROBE FLOW
DUCT SRIHEESTATIC PRESSURE STRAIGHTENER
TAPS
Figure 2.- Duct geometry and pressure-measuring locations.
I
12.38i a
(4-88 i.
STATIC PRESSURERING (SPORTS)
O0.95 am~(0.38 in.)
TOTAL /- -- -
PRESSUREPORT TURNING-ANGLE
PRESSURE PORTS
Figure 3.- Flow-turning survey probe.
14
- -- -
a0.I0-2
a..
02 3 4 5APT/q,
-j
.0
z
.0 -
PRESSURE LOSS COEFFICIENT, 'aPT/ql
Figure 4.- Uncertainty in pressure-loss results.
TESTCOMPONENT
UPSTREAMDOWNSTREAMENTRANCE DUCT SETTLING DUCT
C As0q GRADIENT IN STRAIGHT,p ~ ~ ~ EMPTY DUCT
V/D
Fiue5.- Schematic of loss-determination technique,
3.18 [ 46.99 (18.5)
(1.25) 2413 (9.5)
END VIEW OF SINGLE VANE (TYPICAL)
" -640(.00)
8.26 (125)
ALL DUALDIMENSIONS
IN cm (in.)
FRONT VIEW OF PORTION OFSTRAIGHTENER GRID
(a) Geometry details.
3.5
3.4
< 3.3 0
3.2
0 2 4 6 8 10Rn X 10 - 5
CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE, COMPONENT VANESYMBOL GAP RATIO, AB/A1 , % AREA RATIO, SURFACE
Cv/g A2/A 1
0 18.5 61.5 1.0 SMOOTH
(b) Aerodynamic performance.
Figure 6.- Eggcrate-type flow-straightener grid.
16
50.80 (20.00)
_ 30.48 (12.00)-4u 15.24 (6.00)-a
LEADING-EDGESTACKING LINE
"'ACOUSTIC" SURFACE SIMULATION
0.48 WIRE SIZE0.48 0.028
] 0.g32 0 0 0.900 0 .w
(0.13) () (0.19)
0.24 ~ 10.10 (0.09) 0.05(0.04) (0.02) 14 X 18 MESH
70% 40% 60%POROUS POROUS POROUS
SKIN SKIN SCREEN
(a) Geometry details.
Figure 7.- Flow straighteners with flat, "acoustic" sides.
17
.30
.28
.26
.24
112
.10
RnX i0-5
VANESYMBOLCHORD-TO-GAP BLOCKAGE, COMPONENT SURFACESYMOL RATIO, cv/g AB/A 1 , % AREA RATIO, POROSITY,
o 1. 11.11 1.0 60
3.3 2.78%170
(b,) Aerodynamic performance.
Figure 7.- Concluded.
18
60.80 (20.00)
30.48 (12.00) -7 -T 15.24 (6.00)(8.0)/ TANGENTI:-,-20.32 (8-00)- -- POINT
2.54 I 43.51r(1.00) l 5
', \ IALL DUALLEADING-EDGE DIMENSIONSSTACKING LINE IN cm (in.)
"ACOUSTIC" SURFACE INSERTS
WIRE SIZE: 0.028
0.48 (0.011)0o. 019), 0.48
0.32 0 0.24 (0.19)(0.13) (0.09) ,
.10 _0.05-(0.04) (0.02) 14 X 18 MESH
70% 40% 60%
POROUS POROUS POROUS
SKIN SKIN SCREEN
(a) Geometry details.
Figure 8.- Flow straighteners with faired, "acoustic" sides.
19
.26
.24
.22
.20
S.12 -
.10 -
.08 -
.06-
.04
6 8 10 12 14 16 18Rn X 10
-5
VANECHORD-TO-GAP BLOCKAGE, COMPONENT SURFACE
SYMBOL RATIO, cv/O AB/A1, % AREA RATIO, POROSITY,A2/A1 %
o 1.7 11.11 1.0 60o 2.1 16.67
3.3 27.78A 40/1 'r70
(b) Aerodynamic performance.
Figure 8.- Concluded.
20
23.50 (9.25)
-- F12.70 (5.00
1.27 450(0.50) LEADING-EDGE
STACKING LINE
ALL DUAL DIMENSIONS IN cm (in.)
(a) Geometry details.
.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Rn X 10-5
CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE, COMPONENT
SYMBOL GAP RATIO, AB/Al, % AREA RATIO,
cv/g A2/A1
0 0.71 4.17 1.0
(b) Aerodynamic performance.
Figure 9.- Louvers with symmetrical tails.
21
23.50 (9.25)
(0.50) LEADING-EDGESTACKING LINE
ALL DUAL DIMENSIONS IN cm (in.)
(a) Geometry details.
.04
~.02
I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10
Rn X 10- 5
SYMBOL CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE, COMPONENTGAP RATIO, AB/A 1 , % AREA RATIO,
Cv/g A2/A1
0 0.71 4.17 1.0
(b) Aerodynamic performance.
Figure 10.- Louvers with nonsymmetrical tails.
22
0.64(0.25) i(. ) 30.80 (12.13)
FK 7LEADING EDGE STACKING LINE 3.81 1.5) r
(a) Turning geometry, 0.
24.43(9.62)
(b) Single-hinge, 46'450 turning \V HINGE SEALABLE GAPgeometry with 6// POINT 0.64(0.25)
ch-c = 0.4. LEADING-EDGESTACKING LINE
24.36 SEALABLE(9.5 9 GAP
\. . 0.079 (0.031)
(c) Single-hinge, 450 HINGE POINT450 turninggeometry with REMOVABLE LOWER
ch/c = 0.5. SURFACE FILLET
LEADING-EDGE. ' STACKING LINE
(d) Double-hinge,45' turninggeoniet ry.
HIG CC/C0=302&i\ .7// \POINTS\ Ych/c=0.33 ,1.1
LEADING-EDGE
STACKING LINE
(e) Single-hinge. INO0 turning
geometry.
LEADING-EDGE. HINGE POINTSTACKING LINE Ch/c = 0.5
ALL DUAL DIMENSIONS IN cm (in.) \\
Figure I I.- Variations of thin, flat-sided turning vanes.
23
.10
<1108
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Rn X 10- 5
CHORD- COMPONENTTO-GAP BLOCKAGE, AREA HINGE
SYMBOL RATIO, A/A 1, RATIO, GAPCv/g -% A21A I
o 4.5 9.72 1.0 NONE
(f) Aerodynamic performance at 00 turning angle (geometry per fig. I 1(a)).
.6
.5
..4
.3
.2
L1L I I - I0 2 4 6 8 10
Rn × 10- 5
CHORD- COMPONENTTO-GAP BLOCKAGE AREA HINGE FILLET OVERTURN
SYMBOL RATIO, AB/A 1 , RATIO, GAP ANGLE, ANGLE,cv/g % A2 /A 1 Of, deg 0, deg
o 2.6 6.94 1.0 SEALED NONE 2.1
0 OPEN 2.44.4 11.81 + -0.2
(g) Aerodynamic pertormance at 45 turning angle (geometry per fig. I I(b)).
24 Figure I I.- Continud.
.2
PRESSURE TAP LOCATIONS
0
z/c
2 +Z-. 2 t
-. 4
-2.4PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS
-1.6 LOWER SURFACE
-. 8
Cp
.8 Rn = 7.47 X 105
1.6 I i i 10 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
x/c
CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE, COMPONENT HINGE FILLETGAP RATIO, AB/A1, % AREA RATIO, GAP ANGLE,
Cv/g A2 /A1 Of, deg
4.4 11.81 1.0 OPEN NONE
(h) Pressure distributions at 450 turning angle (geometry per fig. I I(b)).
Figure 1.- Continued.
25
.6
.5
.4I-0*
.2
I I I I II
0 2 4 6 8 10 12Rn X 10- 5
CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE, COMPONENT HINGE FILLET OVERTURNSYMBOL GAP RATIO, AB/A, % AREA RATIO, GAP ANGLE, ANGLE,
Cv/g A2/A1 Of, deg 0, deg
o 1.2 2.78 1.0 SEALED NONE -2.3
o 2.2 5.56 -0.6
3.3 9.03 0.3A 4.4 11.81 1,1.0
OPEN 1.2
(i) Aerodynamic performance at 450 turning angle (geometry per fig. I 1(c)).
Figure I I.- Continued.
26
.2
Z/c L.U+
-2
-24-PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS
-1.6
0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0Xlc
CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE, COMPONENT HINGE FILLETGAP RATIO, AB/Al, % AREA RATIO, GAP ANGLE,
cv/g A2/Aj Of, deg
4.4 11.81 1.0 OPEN NONE
0)Pressure distributions at 450 turning angle (geometry per fig. I11(c)).
Figure I11.- Continued.
27K
.10
.08
.04
.02
0 2 4 6 8 10
Rn X 10- 5
CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE, COMPONENT HINGE FILLET OVERTURNSYMBOL GAP RATIO, AB/A 1 , % AREA RATIO, GAP ANGLE, ANGLE,
c'/g A2 /A1 Of, deg 0, deg
0 2.2 5.56 1.0 SEALED 22.5 -0.3J 3.3 9.03 1 0.5
2.2 5.56 34 0.0A 3.3 9.03 + 0.4
(k) Aerodynamic performance at 450 turning angle with lower surface fillet (geometry per fig. 11 (c)).
.12[ -
I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10Rn X 10- 5
SYMBOL CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE, COMPONENT HINGE FILLET OVERTURNGAP RATIO, AB/A I , % AREA RATIO, GAP ANGLE, ANGLE,
Cv/q A21A 1 Of, doeg 0, doeg
0 4.5 11.81 1.0 SEALED RADIUS -1.8
(Q) Aerodynamic performance at 450 turning angle (geometry per fig, 1 l(d)).
Figure 11 .- Continued.
28
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
11.4
0
1.2
1.0 -0
.8
0 2 4 6 8 10RnX 10-5
SYMBOL CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE, COMPONENT HINGE FILLET OVERTURNGAP RATIO, AB/Aj, % AREA RATIO, GAP ANGLE, ANGLE,
_____ cv/g A2/Aj Of, deg ~,dog
0 2.3 11.11 1.0 OPEN NONE -6.20 3.0 14.58 III0.2
C>4.7 1 22.22 $6.2
(in) Aerodynamic pertformance at WQ turning angle (geometry per fig. 11I(c)).
Figure I I.- Concluded.
29
67 .0 ( -9.65) I
1_4 - 47)
HINGE POINT(chic = 0.4)
LEADING-EDGE (a) Turning geometry. 0.
STACKING LINE
(9.09)1.91
(0.75) r
REMOVABLE25 LOWER SURFACEFIL LET
1h) Turning geometry. 45'.
xlc. y/c,(c = 24.51 cm) (c = 24.51 cm)
0 00.013 0.0130.025 0.0180.050 0,0240.075 0.0280.100 0.0310.150 0.0350.200 0.0380.300 0.0390.400 0.038
ALL DUAL DIMENSIONS IN cm (in.)
.04
~.02L-I II I
0 2 4 6 8 10Rn X 10 5
SYMBOL CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE, COMPONENT HINGEGAP RATIO, AB/A, % AREA RATIO, GAPCv/9 A2/A1
0 2.2 16.67 1.0 NONE
(c) Aerodynamic performance at 00 turning angle (geometry per fig. 12(a)).
Figure 12.- Variations of short, thick turning vanes (tmax/c = 0.076).
30
.5
.4
.3
0 z
.2-
0 2 4 6 8 10
R, X 10-5
CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE, COMPONENT HINGE FILLET OVERTURNSYMBOL GAP RATIO, A/A 1 , % AREA RATIO GAP ANGLE, ANGLE,
Cv/g A2/A 1 Of. dog . deg
0 2.1 16.67 1.0 SEALED NONE 200 1 1 11 1 22.5 3.7
(d) Aerodynamic performance at 450 turning angle (geometry per fig. 12(b)).
Figure 12.- Concluded.
\ ,41.79S6.50\ (16.45)
31.95(12.58)
HINGE POINT(Ch/C = 0.235) (a) Turning geotnetr. W
.
LEADING-EDGESTACKING LINE 40.62
45" REMOVABLE LOWER\/f 22.5' SURFACE FILLET
(h) Turning geontry. 45'
(c =41.79 cm) (c 41.79 cm)
0 0
0.007 0.0080.015 0."010
0.029 0.0140.044 0.0170.059 0.'018
0.088 0.0210.118 0.0220.177 0.0230.235 0.022
ALL DUAL DIMENSIONS IN cm (in.)
Figure 13.- Variations of long, thick turning vanes (tmax/c = 0.044).
31
.06 I-I
.04
0 2 4 6 8 10
Rn X 10- 5
CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE, COMPONENT HINGESYMBOL GAP RATIO, AB/A 1 , % AREA RATIO, GAP
cvlg A2/A1
o 3.7 16.67 1.0 NONE
(c) Aerodynamic performance at 00 turning angle (geometry per fig. 13(a)).
.40
.38 0
0~0
.34
.32
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Rn X 10- 5
CHORD- COMPONENTTO-GAP BLOCKAGE, AREA HINGE FILLET OVERTURN
SYMBOL RATIO, AB/AI, RATIO, GAP ANGLE, ANGLE,
Cv/g % A2A 1 Of, deg 0, deg
o 3.6 16.67 1.0 SEALED NONE 0.6o 22.5 1.1
(d) Aerodynamic performance at 450 turning angle (geometry per fig. 13(b)).
32 Figure 13.- Concluded.
25.72 (10.13)
0.6 HINGE POINT 1.91(0.25) Ch/c = 0.35 (0.75)
LEADING-EDGESTACKING LINE (a) Turning geometry, 00.
67.50\
(b) Turning geometry, 450.
.06
1.04
U
0 2 4 6 8 10nX 1-
SYBO CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE, ICOMPONENT HINGESYBO ~ c~gGAP RATIO, AB/Aj, % AREA RATIO, GAP
0___ 2.3 1 16.67 j 1.0 NONE
(c) Aerodynamic performance at 0* turning angle (geometry per fig. 14(a)).
Figure 14.- Variations of thick, flexible-nose turning vanes.
33
.24
.22
~.20 0
.18
.16
0 2 4 6 8 10xn Xi1- 5
SYMBOL CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE COMPONENT HINGE FILLET OVERTURNGAP RATIO, ABj/Aj, % AREA RATIO, GAP ANGLE, ANGLE,
_______ cvIg ______ A2/Aj 0 f, deg q0, dog
0 2.2 1 16.67 1 1.0 ISEALED1 NONE 3.5 _
(d) Aerodynamic performance at 450 turning angle (geometry per fig. 14(b)).
Figure 14.- Concluded.
34
LEADING-EDGESTACKING LINE
0.4 tMAX 2.24 (0.88)
.141
(6.00)
.. 23
S0~
SYMBOL CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE COMPONENTGAP RATIO, AB/Aj, % AREA RATIO,
C"Ig A2/AI
0 2.0 ] 27.6 1.0
(b) Aerodynamic performance.
Figur IS.- 900 multlple-&lculararc turning vanes.
35
0.4 LEADING-EDGEr STACKING LINE
SEALABLE
NET 2 TURNIN AN LEAP-
(1.7) 0. o et deta.16
(- .14(400
0.23
SYMOL A RTUIO, A 1 RARTO A NGLE, ANGLE,0*+
NET TURNIN ANGLE dugt *, 900-
0L 4.0L 27.66 ION 1.0 OPE NONEn0.
(b) Aerodynam)ceromnefry deailsnt90 0
36 Figure ~~16.-90mtpecrcarrtrnnvaewthmabeti.
.2PRESSURE TAP LOCATIONS
0
Z/c
Cp 0
LOWER SURFACE.8
Rn 9.58 X 105
0 2 4 6.8 1.0Xlc
CHORD-TO. BLOCKAGE, COMPONENT HINGE FILLETGAP RATIO, AB/Al, % AREA RATIO, GAP ANGLE,
cvfg _______ A2'Al Of
4.0 27.6 1.0 OPEN INON.
(c) Pressure distributions for Oto = One 9e, e 00.
Figure 16.- Continued.
37
- -- -
.42
.40
,.2
.24
.22
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Rn X 10- 5
SYMBOL CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE COMPONENT HINGE FILLET OVERTURNGAP RATIO, AB/Al,% AREA RATIO, GAP ANGLE, ANGLE,
Cv/g A2/A1 Of, deg 0, deg
o 4.3 27.66 1.42 SEALED NONE 0.6
o _ _ OPEN _ 0.1
(d) Aerodynamic performance for 3tot 127.50, Onet = 52.50, Ot = 37.50.
Figure 16.- Continued.
38
.2 PRESSURE TAP LOCATIONS
0
Z/c
-1.6 PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS
-.8
C p 0 k
LOWER SURFACE
.8
1.60 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
X/c
SYMBOL CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE COMPONENT HINGE FILLETGAP RATIO, AB/Al, % AREA RATIO, GAP ANGLE,
________ cy/g _ ______ A 2 /A 1 Of, deg
0 4.3 27.66 1.42 SEALED NONE
oi i_____ ____ _____ OPEN
(e) Pressure distributions for Ptnt = 127.50, Onet =52.50, Oi = 37.50.
Figure 16.- Continued.
39
.30
,.28
.26
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
RnX 1
CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE COMPONENT HINGE FILLET OVERTURNSYMBOL GAP RATIO, AB/Al, % AREA RATIO, GAP ANGLE, ANGLE,
_______ cv/g _ _____ A2/Aj Of, deg 0, deg
0 4.4 1 27.66 1 1.41 1SEALEDI NONE 1 -0.9 1
(f) Aerodynamic performance for ptot =134.50, Onet =45.50, O = 44.50.
1.9
1.8
1.7
1. 6L
0 2 4 6 8 1011x 10-5
SYMBOL CHORD-TO- BLOCKAGE, COMPONENT HINGE FILLET OVERTURNSYBL GAP RATIO, AB/Al, % AREA RATIO, GAP ANGLE, ANGLE,______ cv/g ______ A2 /A 1 ____ Of, dog 0, dog
0 4.0 27.66 1.22 OPEN NONE -8.0
(g) Aerodynamic periormance tor (tot = 180, (Snet = 00, Ot 900.
40 Figure 16.- Concluded.
.3
.2
0
'U
0
0 2 3 4CHORD-TO-GAP RATIO, c,/g
SYMBOL SURFACE RE.FGSYMBOL GEOMETRY RE.FG
o FLAT 71o3 FAIRED 8
Figure 17.- Effect of vane spacing on pressure loss for flow straighteners with screen surface simulationat'Rn - 106.
*1.6
0-j1.2
LU
.8
4
0 p0 2040 60 80100 120140 160 180TOTAL GEOMETRIC TURNING ANGLE, 0, dog
VANE TYPE REF. FIG.
THIN,ch/c = 0.5o GAP OPEN 11 (i), (in)
* GAPSEALED 11(,()MULT.-CIRC.-ARC
* NO TAIL 15 (b)Or TAIL GAP OPEN 16 (b), (d)It TAIL GAP SEALED 16 (d), (f), (g)
(a) Total turning angle.
Figure 18.- Effect of turning angle on pressure loss for two types of vanes at R. 5X 10o' and chord-to-gap ratio > 4.
41
2.0
~1.6
0 1.2
iU
'10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90TAIL DEFLECTION, Ot, deg
SYMBOL VANE TYPE REF. FIG.
THIN,ch/c = 0.5oGAP OPEN 11 (i), (in)
*GAP SEALED 11 (f), (i)
MULT.-CIRC.-ARCoGAP OPEN 16 (b), (d)*GAP SEALED 16 (d), (f), (g)
(b) Tail deflection angle.
Figure 18.- Concluded.
42
.16
1=
0 4-i
O8
0=
I-0
a I I I p
0 1 2 3 4 5CHORD-TO-GAP RATIO, cv/g
(a) Thin vanes (figs. 1 l(c) and 1 l(i)) at13 = 450 with hinge-gap sealed.
2.0 -
-1 1.8
o1.6--J
cc 1.4 -
w 1.2
_< 1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
CHORD-TO-GAP RATIO, cv/g
(b) Thin vanes (figs. 1 l(e) and 11(m)) at 1 = 90 with hinge gap open.
Figure 19.- Effect of chord-to-gap ratio on vane total-prenwure losa.
43
2
0
-2
Cr.
iz
-8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90TAIL DEFLECTION, Ot, deg
HINGE GAP REF. FIG.
O OPEN16 (b), (d), (g)I* SEALED 16 (d), (f) IFigure 20.- Flow overturn angle for multiple-clrcular-arc vanes with deflected tails.
44
LUI
8
6
4
ILl-J
zz
LU
0 -
ILl
Pt -4
-6
-8
0 1 2 3 4 5CHORD-TO-GAP RATIO, cv/g
TURNING ANGLE, REF. FIG.deg_______
0 45, GAP OPEN 11(0)0 45, GAP SEALED 11(0)O3 90, GAP OPEN 11 (M)
Figure 2 1.- Flow overturn angle for thin vanes at various spacings.
45
1 Report No NASA TP-1972 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
AVRADCOM TR 82-A-2 - p" )? 3 q A):) _',4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
THE AERODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE OF SEVERAL FLOW December 1982
CONTROL DEVICES FOR INTERNAL FLOW SYSTEMS 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(sl 8. Performing Organization Report No.
William T. Eckert,* Brian M. Wettlaufert and A-8816Kenneth W. Mortt 10. Work Unit No.
9 Performing Organization Name and Address*AVRADCOM Research and Technology Laboratories, Ames Research T-939Center, Moffett Field, Calif. 94035; tSverdrup Technology, Ames Division, 11. Contract or Grant No.
Moffett Field, Calif. 94035; $Ames ,Research Center, Moffett Field,Calif. 94035 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address National Aeronautics and Space Technical PaperAdministration, Washington, D.C. 20546 and U.S. Army Aviation 14. Sponsoring Agency CodeResearch and Development Command, St. Louis, MO 93166 50542-81-00-00
15. Supplementary Notes
Point of contact: Bill Eckert, Ames Research Center, Mail Stop 215-2, Moffett Field, Calif. 94035(415)965-6087 or FTS 448-6087
16 Abstract
An experimental research and development program was undertaken to develop and document new flow-control devices for use in the major modifications to the 40- by 80-Foot Wind Tunnel at Ames Research
Center. These devices, which are applicable to other facilities as well, included grid-type and quasi-two-dimensipnal flow straighteners, louver panels for valving, and turning-vane cascades with net turning angles
from 0o 90 41he tests were conducted at model scale over a Reynolds number range from,2X l0' t61 i, based on chord. The results showed quantitatively the performance benefits of faired, low-blockage,smooth-surface straightener systems, and the advantages of curved turning-vanes with hinge-line gaps sealedand a preferred chord-to-gap ratio between 2.5 and 3.0 for 45,r^ 9o trns.
A/
17. Key Words (Suggested by Author(s)) 18. Distribution Statement
Throttles, Pressure losses, Flow control, Valves,
Efficiency, Vanes, Flow straighteners, Louvers,Baffles Subject Category 09
19 Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Clastif. (of this pae) 21. No. of Pages 2.Prc
Unclassified Unclassified I 48 A03
'For safe by the National Teohricvl Information Service. Springfield, Virginia 22161
NIASA-Langley, 1982
V
