An experimental method to calculate lift using static pressure ports on the wind tunnel walls and its associated limits has been explored in this article. While the wall-pressure measurement (WPM) technique for lift calculation has been implemented by other researchers, there is a lack of literature on the sensitivity of the WPM method to airfoil chord length, model thickness, surface roughness, and freestream conditions. Chord sensitivity studies showed that the airfoil chord to test section length ratio plays an important role in the accuracy of the measurements. Models need to be appropriately sized for optimum performance of the WPM method. Additionally, choosing the correct scaling ratio also ensures independence of lift measurements from freestream Reynolds number conditions. Finally, a combination of symmetric and cambered airfoils with thicknesses varying from 6% − 21% were tested and successfully validated against reference data for a freestream chord Reynolds number range of 100,000 to 550,000. The WPM method was found to be sensitive to varying surface flow conditions and airfoil thickness and has been shown to be a viable replacement to traditional lift measurement techniques using load balances or airfoils with surface pressure ports.
DudleyMR. Experimental techniques for three-axes load cells used at the National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex. NASA TM 86693, National Aeronautical and Space Administration, 1985.
2.
GonzálezMAEzquerroJMLapuertaV, et al.Components of a wind tunnel balance: Design and calibration. Wind Tunnels Exp Fluid Dyn Res2011; 1: 115–134.
3.
ColeGMMuellerTJ. Experimental measurements of the laminar separation bubble on an Eppler 387 airfoil at low Reynolds numbers. NASA CR 186263, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1990.
4.
AbbottIVon DoenhoffAStiversLJr. Summary of Airfoil data. NACA TR 824, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics1945.
5.
von DoenhoffAEAbbottFTJr. The langley two-dimensional low-turbulence pressure tunnel. NACA TN 1283, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics1947.
6.
RossIAltmanA. Wind tunnel blockage corrections: Review and application to savonius vertical-axis wind turbines. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodynamics2011; 99(5): 523–538.
7.
GarnerHCRogersEAcumWet al.Subsonic wind tunnel wall corrections. AGARD 657092, Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development (France), 1966.
8.
MokryM. Subsonic wall interference corrections for half-model tests using sparse wall pressure data. NRC 25132, National Research Council (Canada), 1985.
9.
MokryM. Subsonic wall interference corrections for finite length test sections using boundary pressure measurements. AGARD CP-335, Advisory Group For Aerospace Research and Development, 1982.
10.
AshillPRKeatingRFA. Calculation of tunnel wall interference from wall-pressure measurements. Aeronaut J1988; 92(911): 36–53.
11.
HackettJWilsdenDLilleyD. Estimation of tunnel blockage from wall pressure signatures: A review and data correlation. NASA CR 152241, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1979.
12.
HenselRW. Rectangular-wind-tunnel blocking corrections using the velocity-ratio method. NACA TN 2372, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics1951.
13.
AllmarasSR. On blockage corrections for two-dimensional wind tunnel tests using the wall-pressure signature method. NASA TR 86759, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1986.
14.
AlthausD. Measurement of lift and drag in the laminar wind tunnel. University of Stuttgart Report, 2003.
15.
AlthausD. Tunnel-wall corrections at the laminar wind tunnel. University of Stuttgart Report, 2003.
16.
Wolken-MöhlmannGKnebelPBarthS, et al.Dynamic lift measurements on a FX79W151A airfoil via pressure distribution on the wind tunnel walls. J Phys Conf Ser2007; 75(1): 012026.
17.
SchneemannJKnebelPMilanP, et al.Lift measurements in unsteady flow conditions. Eur Wind Energ Conf Exhibition2010; 1.
18.
LuhurMRPeinkeJSchneemannJ, et al.Stochastic modeling of lift and drag dynamics under turbulent wind inflow conditions. Wind Energy2015; 18(2): 317–337.
19.
JohnstonJGopalarathnamA. Investigation of a bio-inspired lift-enhancing effector on a 2D airfoil. Bioinspir Biomim2012; 7(3): 036003.
AndersonJDJr. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. Tata: McGraw-Hill Education2010.
22.
GopalarathnamABroughtonBAMcGranahanBD, et al. Design of low Reynolds number airfoils with trips. J aircraft2003; 40(4): 768–775.
23.
SeligMSMcGranahanBD. Wind tunnel aerodynamic tests of six airfoils for use on small wind turbines. J Solar Energ Eng2004; 126(4): 986–1001.
24.
JacobsENShermanA. Airfoil section characteristics as affected by variations of the Reynolds number. NASA TR 586, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1937.
25.
CritzosCCHeysonHHBoswinkleRWJr. Aerodynamic characteristics of NACA 0012 airfoil section at angles of attack from 0 deg to 180 deg. NASA TN 3361, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1955.
26.
Poisson-QuintonPde SieversA. Etude aerodynamique d’un élément de pale d’hélicoptère. AGARD 22, Advisory Group For Aerospace Research and Development Conference Proceedings1967.
27.
SeligMS. Summary of Low Speed Airfoil Data Vol. 3. Virginia Beach, Virginia: SoarTech Publications, 1997.
28.
BroerenAGiguerePGuglielmoJ, et al.Summary of Low-Speed Airfoil Data, Vol. 1. Virginia Beach, Virginia: SoarTech Publications, 1995.
29.
BoutilierMSHYarusevychS. Parametric study of separation and transition characteristics over an airfoil at low Reynolds numbers. Exp Fluids2012; 52(6): 1491–1506.
30.
TimmerWA. Two-dimensional low-Reynolds number wind tunnel results for airfoil NACA 0018. Wind Eng2008; 32(6): 525–537.
31.
SeligMLyonCGiguerePet al. Summary of Low-Speed Airfoil Data, Vol. 2. Virginia Beach, Virginia: SoarTech Publications, 1996.
32.
McGheeRJ. Experimental results for the Eppler 387 airfoil at low Reynolds numbers in the Langley low-turbulence pressure tunnel. NASA TM 4062, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1988.
33.
MuellerTJ. Low Reynolds number vehicles. AGARD 288, Advisory Group For Aerospace Research and Development (France), 1985.
34.
SheldahlREKlimasPC. Aerodynamic characteristics of seven symmetrical airfoil sections through 180-degree angle of attack for use in aerodynamic analysis of vertical axis wind turbines. SAND 80–2114, Sandia National Labs, 1981.
35.
CoderJGMaughmerMD. Comparisons of theoretical methods for predicting airfoil aerodynamic characteristics. J Aircraft2014; 51(1): 183–191.
36.
AllenHJVincentiW. Wall interference in a two-dimensional-flow wind tunnel, with consideration of the effect of compressibility. NACA TMR 782, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics1944.
37.
RameshKGopalarathnamAEdwardsJR, et al.An unsteady airfoil theory applied to pitching motions validated against experiment and computation. Theor Comput Fluid Dyn2013; 27(6): 843–864.
38.
RameshKGopalarathnamAGranlundK, et al.Discrete-vortex method with novel shedding criterion for unsteady aerofoil flows with intermittent leading-edge vortex shedding. J Fluid Mech2014; 751: 500–538.
39.
NarsipurSHosangadiPGopalarathnamA, et al.Variation of leading-edge suction during stall for unsteady aerofoil motions. J Fluid Mech2020; 900: A25.
