Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

1

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics


AIAA-2000-0291
AERODYNAMIC COMMISSIONING RESULTS FOR THE
KOREA AEROSPACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE LOW SPEED WIND TUNNEL
Stephen A. Arnette
1
, Chris B. Porter
2
, Scott Meredith
3
, Jeffrey M. Hoffman
4
, and Bongzoo Sung
5
ABSTRACT
The Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI) Low
Speed Wind Tunnel located in Taejon, Korea was
designed to be a world-class wind tunnel with excellent
aerodynamic flow quality. Aggressive flow quality
targets that meet or exceed the upper standard of
performance defined by major low speed wind tunnels
of the world were established as performance
requirements at project inception. Sverdrup Technology
initiated the facility design in 1995 and completed
facility commissioning in conjunction with KARI
personnel in 1998. The primary configuration for the
facility is a 12m
2
closed wall test section, which is
operated at atmospheric pressure and has a maximum
wind speed in excess of 115 m/s. The commissioning
results presented here cover the traditional flow quality
measures of velocity stability, axial static pressure
gradient, static and dynamic pressure uniformity, total
temperature uniformity, flow angularity, turbulence
intensity, and boundary layer measurements. The
commissioning program was comprehensive in scope,
and the level of interrogation was more extensive than
typical for low speed wind tunnel commissioning
efforts. The results validate the design of the facility
and highlight the success of the project. Considered in
conjunction with the various advanced features of the
facility, the flow quality results place the KARI LSWT
among the worlds premier low speed wind tunnels.
INTRODUCTION
The KARI Low Speed Wind Tunnel was developed for
the primary purpose of supporting aeronautical and
aerospace development programs at the Korea
Aerospace Research Institute. These test programs are
concerned primarily with fixed wing aircraft and
rotorcraft. However, the facility was also designed to
support other test objectives, including ground vehicle
research and development. As a result, several unique
features were included in the facility design.
Performance requirements were established to ensure
the facilitys test capability would rank among the elite
low speed wind tunnels of the world. The LSWT is
now in operation as a productive facility.
In support of its primary test mission, the basic
configuration for the KARI LSWT is a 12m
2
closed
wall test section that is 3m high by 4m wide by 10m
long. Multiple test objectives for the facility led to the
inclusion of multiple test sections in the design. The
alternate test sections, which were designed but not
supplied as part of the project, consist of a 27m
2
slotted
wall test section (4.5m high by 6.0m wide by 13.5m
long) and a 12m
2
open jet configuration (3.0m high by
4.0m high by 8.0m long). The slotted wall test section
design includes a solid ground plane, with the primary
test objective of ground vehicle development including
full-scale automotive testing.
A complete acoustic design of the wind tunnel was
executed as part of the project. The main fan is
designed to provide low aero-acoustic noise levels, and
its performance was confirmed with backleg acoustic
measurements during facility commissioning. The
open jet test section design includes provision for an
acoustically-treated plenum to provide an anechoic test
environment. The wind tunnel itself includes
provisions for future installation of acoustic treatment
at various strategic locations around the circuit. At
these locations, steel wall liners were installed at a
position inset from the outer pressure shell to reserve
space for acoustic treatment. Some of the corner vanes
were also designed to permit acoustic modification in
the future.
A rendering of the facility that shows the multiple test
sections as they would appear in the test hall is
presented in Figure 1. Interchangeable test sections
with such large size variations (12 m
2
to 27 m
2
) present
a significant design challenge. The length of the
removable sections must allow the various test sections
1
Vice President, Sverdrup Technology, Inc.,
Tullahoma, TN 37388. Member AIAA.
2
Program Manager, Sverdrup Technology, Inc.
3
Engineer, Advanced Technology Segment,
Sverdrup Technology, Inc., Member AIAA.
4
Engineer, Advanced Technology Segment,
Sverdrup Technology, Inc., Member AIAA.
5
Director, Low Speed Wind Tunnel, Korea
Aerospace Research Institute, Taejon, Korea,
Member AIAA.
Copyright 2000 by Sverdrup Technology, Inc.
Published by American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
to be well integrated into the fixed portion of the
circuitat both the upstream and downstream interface.
Integrating the largest test section into the downstream
diffuser drives the downstream extent of the removable
section, integrating it into the contraction drives the
upstream extent. Simultaneously, there is strong
motivation to minimize the overall length of the
movable section. Upstream, this is accomplished by
maximizing the length of fixed contraction, which
limits the freedom to optimize the contraction profile
for the various test sections. The aggressive flow
quality requirements established for the facility require
an optimized contraction for each test section. Another
obvious variable is the contraction ratio, but driving the
contraction ratio up in hopes of compensating for less
than optimal contraction profiles substantially increases
the capital cost of the facility. Similar concerns enter
on the downstream end, but they are less critical than
the contraction section.
Given these various influences, developing the proper
design required substantial iteration. CFD predictions
of test section flow quality were used to evaluate
candidate designs against performance targets. The
final result was a removable section length of
approximately 30m, a fixed contraction length of 5.5m,
and overall contraction lengths of 13.5m and 12.5m for
the 12m
2
and 27m
2
test sections respectively. For the
primary test section, the mass of the movable section is
110,000 kg. The sections are mounted on driven air
bearing systems to permit ingress and regress.
An external photograph of the completed facility is
presented in Figure 2. Plan and elevation views of the
fixed portion of the wind tunnel airline are presented in
Figure 3. Plan and elevation views of the airlines for
the interchangeable test section assemblies are
presented in Figure 4. The wind tunnel ducting is
rectangular everywhere except the fan and the transition
sections at the fan inlet and exit.
Designing to accommodate the interchangeable test
sections resulted in a longer test leg and backleg than
would have been employed for a single test section.
The result is conservative rates of diffusion throughout
the circuit, with no danger of diffusion-induced flow
separation. The fan is located just downstream of
Corner 2. It has a tip diameter of 7.0m with 12 blades
and 7 stators. The installed motor power is 4100 kW,
and the fan is designed for a maximum efficiency of
90% at the maximum wind speed condition for the
closed wall test section. Figure 5 presents an image of
the fan inlet.
Flow conditioning in the stilling chamber includes three
screens and a honeycomb in a screen-honeycomb-
screen-screen arrangement. The contraction ratio is 8.2
for the primary test section and 3.7 for the slotted wall
test section. To control air temperature, a cooling
tower system supplies cooling water to a plate fin and
tube heat exchanger located in the crossleg between
Corners 3 and 4. The design point of the system was to
maintain an air temperature of 43C for a wind speed of
88m/s and ambient conditions of 40C and 75%RH.
The test section includes a six-component, pyramidal
type external balance. The initial in situ balance
calibration results confirmed accuracies within
t0.025% of full-scale. The pitch range is -30 to 30 (or
0 to 60). The yaw range is -30 to 210. Models can
be installed with tri-strut, bi-strut, or uni-strut mounting
arrangements. For compatibility with the various test
sections, the entire balance assembly can be raised and
lowered such that the virtual center of the balance
remains near the model center of rotation. The design
of the slotted wall test section includes an automated
turntable that is integrated with the balance to permit
ground vehicle testing at yaw. The balance can be fully
lowered into a pit for test section ingress and regress.
The test section also includes the Probe Traversing
System (PTS) pictured in Figure 6. The system is
capable of traversing a variety of measurement probes
throughout the test section, and was employed during
the empty tunnel calibration. The system provides
three degrees of motion. The entire system traverses
axially along a track located in a lower corner of the
test section. Cross-sectional positioning is
accomplished through a combination of two roll
motions of the probe arms.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The initial commissioning program of the KARI LSWT
was comprehensive in scope, including a wide array of
empty tunnel flow quality measurements. In addition
to the results presented here, model tests were
conducted to confirm the performance of the integrated
facility. All of the results presented here were obtained
in the closed wall test section at a wind speed of 88 m/s.
Plan and elevation views of the removable test leg
assembly for the closed wall test section are presented
in Figures 7 and 8, respectively.
Maximum Wind Speed
A maximum wind speed of no less than 110m/s was
required for the closed wall test section. A velocity
calibration was conducted with a pitot-static probe
mounted in the center of the test section as shown in
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure 9. The static pressure from the probe (P
s,probe
)
was measured with an MKS absolute pressure
transducer rated at 1000 torr. The difference between
the pitot total pressure and the static pressure on the
probe (P
probe
) was measured with an MKS differential
transducer rated at 100 torr. The Mach number of the
flow was calculated as,
1
1
1
]
1

,
_

+ 1 1
P
P
5 M
7
2
probe s,
probe
(1)
The freestream velocity was calculated as,
( )
5
M
1
T ) (R 1.4
M U
2
0 air
+
(2)
where T
o
is the total temperature and R
air
is the gas
constant for air.
The velocity control system is based on measurement of
the static pressure differential across the contraction. In
establishing the wind tunnel velocity calibration, the
difference between the static pressure in the stilling
chamber and static pressure at the test section inlet was
measured simultaneously with the pitot-static probe
measurements in the test section. The nozzle static
pressure differential was measured with an MKS
differential transducer rated at 100 torr. The nozzle
differential pressure measurements were then calibrated
to the measured test section velocities.

As was established during the design, the 110m/s
design point for the closed wall test section is not the
maximum fan power operating point. Near maximum
fan power will be required to achieve the maximum
wind speeds established for the alternate test sections.
The velocity calibration measurements established a
maximum wind speed of 117 m/s for the closed wall
test section, exceeding the performance requirement by
a comfortable margin.
Wind Speed Stability
The velocity measurements used to confirm wind speed
stabilitiy were acquired with the same pitot-static
system described in the previous section. The tunnel
was placed in closed loop velocity control with a set
point of 88 m/s, and the tunnel air speed was measured
every 10 sec for a duration of 300 sec. The resulting
average speed was 88.00m/s with a 2
U
deviation of
0.11m/s about the mean.
Static and Dynamic Pressure Uniformity
The goal of these tests was to establish the axial static
pressure gradient (Cp/x), static pressure uniformity
(2
P
/q), and dynamic pressure uniformity (2
q
/q)
present in the test section. The axial pressure gradient
was determined from a linear least squares fit to the
measured axial distribution of static pressure.
The original plan was to mount the pitot-static probe
used for velocity calibration in the PTS and survey
planes at Stations 2.000 m, 0.000 m and 4.000 m (note
Station convention, negative values are upstream of
balance center). This pitot-static probe has a length of
1m. The PTS body reaches into the flow from one of
the lower corners of the test section, as shown in Figure
6. CFD solutions generated by both KARI and
Sverdrup for a 1m probe standoff showed that, for some
of the planned measurement grid locations, the flow
interference caused by the PTS body would be
significant relative to the targeted flow uniformity
levels. The affected grid locations were those located
nearest the base of the PTS. It should be noted that this
situation is driven by the aggressive flow uniformity
levels targeted for the empty test section during design,
and the large extent of the measurement grid. For
normal test operations, PTS interference will not
interfere with data quality.

The pitot-static probe was mounted on the fixed strut in
the center of the test section to investigate the PTS
interference. Static pressure was measured with the
fixed pitot-static probe for varying lengths of separation
to the downstream PTS body. The results showed that
a minimum distance of more than 2m was required to
hold the interference to levels that were acceptable
relative to the anticipated empty tunnel uniformity.
Since the maximum sting length for mounting the pitot-
static probe on the PTS was approximately 1m, it was
decided to use a rake of pitot-static probes that could be
manually located in the test section.
A vertical rake including seven 1/4-inch pitot-static
probes was fabricated to obtain the uniformity
measurements. The inter-probe spacing along the rake
was 364 mm. The rake spanned from the floor of the
test section to the ceiling and was held in place by
compressing the rake between the ceiling and floor.
Toe clamps at the downstream side of the floor and
ceiling contact plates were employed as a redundant
clamping mechanism. Finally, the entire assembly was
tied off with safety cables. A picture of the installed
rake is given in Figure 10. Pressure uniformity was
surveyed at Stations 1.700 m, 0.000m (balance center),
and 1.700 m. The upstream and downstream locations
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
were chosen to avoid placing the rake beneath the
windows in the test section ceiling. The spanwise
spacing of adjacent rake positions in each survey plane
was 378 mm, resulting in nine positions in the upstream
plane (Station -1.700 m). Because of the PTS rail in the
lower corner of the test section, only eight rake
positions were possible at Stations 0.000m and 1.700m.
This reduced the interrogation area below the normal
85% of the width and height.
The region of the test section over which the flow
quality requirements were to be met, referred to as the
test volume, was larger than that employed in most
facilities. The height of the region was the central 85%
of the 3.0m test section height, and the width was the
central 85% of the tunnel width. Respective of
degradation in the corners, triangular elements were
removed from the corners of the test volume. The total
area of the four triangles was 5% of the 12m
2
test
section area. This was important given the decision to
employ diverging corner fillets in the test section to
compensate for boundary layer growth and maintain
axial static pressure uniformity. Figure 11 shows the 63
point measurement grid employed for the uniformity
surveys overlaid on the outline of the test volume.
As highlighted in the results presented below, the cross-
sectional extent of the survey region has a first-order
impact on numerical flow quality results. Quantitative
comparisons of the flow quality in different wind
tunnels can be conducted only if results are available
for survey regions having similar dimensionless extent.
As a simple example, a survey over 60% of a test
section height and width covers 36% of the area, while
one that spans 85% of the height and width covers 72%
of the test section areaa factor of 2 difference. The
preferred approach to defining the test volume is to
define the tunnel cross-section that is relevant to the
intended test objectives. Test configurations such as
semi-span testing call for a large percentage of the
cross-section for the commissioning test volume.
The total pressure and static pressure of each probe in
the rake was plumbed to three electronically scanned
ZOC Scanivalve differential pressure transducers with a
1 psi range. The average of the three measurements
was recorded. The reference side of the transducers was
plumbed to a static pressure port in the nozzle exit
plane not used as part of the velocity control system.
The reference pressure was measured with a 1000 torr
MKS absolute pressure transducer. These pressure
measurements, along with tunnel parameters, were
sampled at 5 Hz and averaged over a period of 10s. The
1-psid transducers had quoted accuracies of 0.08% of
full scale (2-sigma), which is 0.0055 kPa. By
averaging the 3 channels, the uncertainty is reduced to
0.0032 kPa. For a speed of 88 m/s, the dynamic
pressure (q) would be 4.750 kPa at sea level pressure,
resulting in uncertainty estimates of 0.07% for static
and total pressure measurements referenced to dynamic
pressure (P/q and Pt/q). The uncertainty in the
dynamic pressure obtained from the measurements,
q/q, is slightly higher at 0.08 %.

Since simultaneous measurements were not possible at
all of the points in the survey plane, the probe total
pressure measurement (P
T
P
ref
) was corrected for
variations in tunnel total pressure conditions incurred in
moving from point to point sequentially. This was
accomplished by normalizing the measurements to the
standard pressure differential of the nozzle (P
nozz_std
=
P
sc
- P
ts
), which was set to 4.700 kPa for 88.0m/s. For
each point measurement, the total pressure was
corrected by an amount equal to the offset of the nozzle
pressure differential from this standard value. This
references all of the measurements to the same standard
tunnel conditions. The equation for the correction is,
( ) ( ) ( )
nozz _std nozz
meas
ref T ref T
P P P - P P P + (3)
where P
nozz_std
is the standard nozzle pressure
differential (4.700 kPa for 88.0 m/s), P
nozz
is the
measured nozzle differential, (P
T
-P
ref
)
meas
is the
measured total pressure, and (P
T
-P
ref
) is the total
pressure corrected for point-to-point variations in
tunnel conditions. Since the reference pressure is equal
to test section pressure, no correction was needed for
the probe static measurements to account for variations
in tunnel conditions.
In order to eliminate artificial degradation of the results
due to nonuniform probe characteristics, a probe-to-
probe calibration was performed with the rake at
Station 0.000m in the center position. The calibration
procedure called for each probe to be moved from its
test position to position 4 (the center position of the
rake at the center height of the test section), while
probe 4 was placed in the position of the probe which
had been moved. For example, to calibrate probe 1, it
was placed in position 4 and probe 4 was placed in
position 1. Then data was obtained with all seven
probes. All probe bias corrections were referenced to
probe 4, the center probe of the rake. The pressure
bias correction was calculated as,
( )
( ) ( )
2
P P P P
Bias_P
n n, 4,4 n 4, n,4
n

(4)
where n = probe number (1 to 7), P
n,4
is the measured
pressure differential for probe n in position 4 (P
n,4
-P
ref
),
P
4,n
is the measured pressure differential for probe 4 in
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
position n (P
4,n
-P
ref
), P
4,4
is the measured pressure
differential for probe 4 in position 4 (P
4,4
-P
ref
), and P
n,n
is the measured pressure differential for probe n in
position n (P
n,n
-P
ref
).
With these two corrections, the corrected total pressure
was obtained as,
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
n T nozz _std nozz meas ref T C ref T
Bias_P P P P - P P - P +
(5)
The corrected static pressure was calculated as
( ) ( ) ( )
n S probe_meas ref
n ,
S C ref S
Bias_P P P P P (6)
With the corrected static and total pressure known, the
probe Mach number was calculated as
( ) ( )
( )

,
_

,
_

+
+

1 1
P P P
P P P - P
5 M
7
2
ref C ref S
C ref S C ref T
(7)
and the dynamic pressure at the probe was calculated as
( ) [ ]
2
ref C ref S
M P P P 0.7 q + (8)
Contour plots of static pressure, dynamic pressure, total
pressure, and velocity uniformity obtained at the
balance center cross-section (Station 0.000m) are
presented in Figures 12 15, respectively. For the
pressure variables, the plotted quantities are the
deviation from the mean normalized by the dynamic
pressure, expressed as a percent, e.g. [(P-P
avg
)/q * 100],
where the mean was determined from the entire
ensemble of point measurements in the survey plane.
The velocity contours of Figure 15 have dimensional
units of (m/s).
Table 1 presents the statistical uniformity results for the
flow uniformity. The results show that the 2
variations of static pressure and dynamic pressure are
less than 0.26% and 0.27%, respectively, at the
downstream survey plane (Station 1.700m). A clear
trend of slightly increasing variation magnitudes with
increasing upstream distance is present in the results.
In examining the contour plots for the three planar
surveys, the measurements from the probe closest to the
floor exhibit the largest magnitude deviations.
The centerline axial static pressure gradient (C
p
/x)
was determined from the pressure and dynamic pressure
measurements at the three survey planes. A least
squares regression to the pressure coefficients obtained
at the center point of each survey plane results in
C
p
/x = 0.0006 /m.
Table 1. Statistical flow uniformity results.
Flow Variable
P
s
P
T
q
Survey
Location
2/q 2/q 2/q
Station 1.7m
(Upstream)
0.35% 0.15% 0.40%
Station 0.0m
(Center)
0.37% 0.13% 0.33%
Station 1.7m
Downstream
0.26% 0.10% 0.27%
Average For
All Planes
0.33% 0.14% 0.34%
Temperature Uniformity
Data were acquired with an RTD temperature sensor
mounted on the PTS. The 58 grid points where
temperatures were measured was similar in pattern and
extent to that illustrated in Figure 11. Measurements
were obtained for 10 seconds at a rate of 5 Hz, and the
recorded temperature at each point was the average of
the 50 samples. Again, the tests were conducted at a
wind speed of 88m/s. Surveys were obtained at Station
0.000m (balance center), Station 2.000m (2.0 m
upstream of balance center), and Station 3.800m
(downstream).
A slight drift of the air temperature occurred over the
long time duration of the planar temperature survey.
These temporal variations were removed from the data
to obtain the spatial temperature uniformity. A linear
relationship was assumed between air temperature
measured in the stilling chamber and air temperature at
the roving probe in adopting a correction of the form,
meas , T s/c avg , T c , T
T T(t) T T + (9)
where T
T,c
is the corrected local measurement of total
temperature, T
T,avg
is the average total temperature for
the test, T(t)
s/c
is the air temperature in the stilling
chamber, and T
T,meas
is the raw total temperature
measurement at the measurement point.
A contour plot of the temperature distribution for
Station 0.000m is presented in Figure 16. The 2
T
deviation for the survey planes is 0.22C, 0.20C, and
0.21C for Stations 2.000m, 0.000m, and 3.800m,
respectively.
Flow Angularity
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) was used for the flow
angularity measurements.
1
Obtaining flow angularity
measurements with traditional multi-port pressure
probes that are sufficiently accurate to quantify
performance at the low levels of flow angularity
targeted in modern wind tunnels is quite difficult.
2
Specifically, very precise probe alignment is required at
each measurement location, and frequent in situ probe
recalibration using pitch and yaw sweeps is required.
Regarding the latter, our commissioning experience
indicates that a probe calibration at each measurement
location is desirable. The net result of these concerns is
typically low test productivity.
As a result, PIV was used to acquire the flow angularity
measurements. This eliminates any probe interference
concerns (e.g. measurement locations near test section
walls have potential for significant flow angularity
interference, as shown by Meredith et al.
2
). PIV also
offers substantial potential for gains in test productivity.
Perhaps most attractive to the wind tunnel community
is the capability to measure time variations of flow
angularity with PIV, in addition to spatial variations.
This is not possible with pressure-based measurements
for typical arrangements due to the low frequency
response of the pressure measurement system.
Hoffman et al. provide a thorough explanation of the
PIV measurement procedures employed in the KARI
measurements, so details are not repeated here.
1
Figure
17 presents the measurement locations for one of the
survey planes. At each measurement location, PIV was
used to acquire independent measurements of pitch and
yaw flow angularity. For pitch measurements, the
illuminating laser sheets entered the test section through
windows in the ceiling and images were acquired
through sidewall windows. Measurements of
streamwise and vertical velocity were combined to
obtain pitch angularity. For the yaw measurements, the
horizontal laser sheet entered the test section through
sidewall windows and images were acquired through
the windows in the ceiling. Measurements of
streamwise and spanwise velocities were combined to
obtain yaw flow angularities. The size of the imaged
region was typically 100 mm by 100mm.
The uncertainty of the measurements was estimated to
be t 0.04. The dominant source of uncertainty was
establishing the zero yaw and zero pitch directions in
the images. Great care was taken in doing this, but a
single pixel of directional uncertainty in the images
(which bounds the potential error) corresponded to an
angularity error of up to 0.05. Ref. 2 presents a
thorough discussion of the measurement procedures and
challenges encountered in obtaining highly accurate
PIV measurements in large-scale wind tunnels.
The mean flow angularity results obtained at Stations
1.800m, 0.000m, and 1.800m are presented in Table 2.
At Stations 1.800m and 1.800m, flow angle
measurement were made at spanwise locations of
0.00m and t0.80m. For each spanwise location, pitch
and yaw measurements were acquired at three heights.
Limited outboard optical access in the ceiling at Station
0.000 (only one central window is available) precluded
the acquisition of inboard and outboard yaw
measurements (indicated N/A in table). The pitch
measurements at Station 0.000m were acquired at
spanwise locations of 0.000m and t0.45m.
The cumulative results give an average pitch flow
angularity of 0.04 and an average yaw flow angularity
of 0.06 for the surveyed volume. In terms of flow
angle variation throughout the volume, the cumulative
measurement results are 2

= 0.13 and 2

= 0.10.
Contour plots of the average measurements of pitch and
yaw flow angularity obtained at the center of the test
section (Station 0.000m at a height of 1.50m above the
floor) are presented in Figure 18.
Turbulence Intensity
Turbulence surveys were conducted to establish
turbulence intensity levels in the test section. The
measurements were acquired with a measurement grid
very similar to that presented in Figure 11.
Turbulence data were acquired with a hot wire
anemometer probe mounted on the PTS. The hot wire
anemometer system is a TSI model IFA 300; 2 and 5-
micron x-wire probes were used to simultaneously
measure two turbulence components. Components
u/U and v/U were measured at a PTS wrist roll angle
of 90, and u/U and w/U were measured at a roll
angle of 0. Hot wire data were acquired using no
high-pass filter, a 5 kHz low-pass filter, and a sampling
rate of 20kHz. Data records were acquired for 2s, and
the presented results are the average of 16 ensembles.
All turbulence measurements were acquired at a wind
speed of 88.0 m/s.
Given the low turbulence targets for the facility, there is
little margin for hot wire signal contamination by
sources such as acoustic fluctuations (e.g., turbulent
boundary layers and fan noise), electrical noise, or
mechanical vibrations. Researchers in low turbulence
wind tunnels have used various means to identify and
remove sources of contamination like these from
turbulence measurements. However, very little
7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Table 2. Flow angularity survey results.
Rear plane (Station 1.800m)
Mean (pitch) = 0.01 Std. dev. (pitch) = 0.07
Mean (yaw) = -0.08 Std. dev. (yaw) = 0.05
Far side Center Control room side
Pitch: -0.08 Pitch: 0.10 Pitch: 0.03
Top height
Yaw: -0.11 Yaw: -0.13 Yaw: -0.09
Pitch: -0.04 Pitch: 0.00 Pitch: 0.04
Middle height
Yaw: -0.02 Yaw: 0.00 Yaw: -0.09
Pitch: 0.06 Pitch: -0.10 Pitch: 0.05
Center height
Yaw: -0.14 Yaw: -0.03 Yaw: -0.10
Center plane (Station 0.000m)
Mean (pitch) = 0.08 Std. Dev. (pitch) = 0.06
Mean (yaw) = -0.02 Std. Dev. (yaw) = 0.06
Far side Center Control room side
Pitch: 0.12 Pitch: 0.11 Pitch: 0.01
Top height
Yaw: N/A Yaw: -0.08 Yaw: N/A
Pitch: 0.13 Pitch: 0.10 Pitch: 0.15
Middle height
Yaw: N/A Yaw: -0.02 Yaw: N/A
Pitch: 0.09 Pitch: 0.04 Pitch: -0.02
Center height
Yaw: N/A Yaw: 0.04 Yaw: N/A
Forward plane (Station 1.800m)
Mean (pitch) = 0.04 Std. Dev. (pitch) = 0.05
Mean (yaw) = -0.06 Std. Dev. (yaw) = 0.04
Far side Center Control room side
Pitch: 0.08 Pitch: -0.02 Pitch: -0.05
Top height
Yaw: -0.07 Yaw: -0.04 Yaw: 0.00
Pitch: 0.10 Pitch: 0.07 Pitch: 0.04
Middle height
Yaw: -0.03 Yaw: -0.06 Yaw: -0.08
Pitch: 0.05 Pitch: 0.06 Pitch: -0.02
Center height
Yaw: -0.03 Yaw: -0.10 Yaw: -0.14
Cumulative results
Pitch (mean) 0.04
o
Pitch (2 ) 0.13
o
Yaw (mean) -0.06
o
Yaw (2 ) 0.10
o
contamination was evident in the data, and no
corrections were applied.
The average turbulence intensities for the three survey
planes were u/U = 0.071%, v/U = 0.125%, and w/U =
0.127%, respectively. The v component denotes the
normal direction and w denotes the spanwise direction.
Figure 19 presents contour plots of the streamwise
turbulence results obtained at Station 0.000m for probe
roll angles of both 0 and 90. Figure 20 presents the
corresponding contour plots for the normal and
spanwise components.
Boundary Layer Measurements
Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulation was
used to predict the boundary layer thickness at Station
0.000m during the design phase. The predictions
served as the basis for the design of the corner fillets
used to control axial static pressure gradient in the test
section. The actual boundary layer thickness was
measured with a boundary layer rake during the
commissioning program. The profile measured at
Station 0.000m is presented in Figure 21. This
measured boundary layer thickness is in good
agreement with that predicted by CFD.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Table 3 presents a summary of the commissioning
results for the closed wall test section. For quantities
where multiple planar surveys were acquired, the
tabulated values are the average result for all surveys.
8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Table 3. Commissioning results summary.
Parameter Actual Performance
Maximum Wind Speed 117 m/s
Dimensions
(H x W x L)
3.0m x 4.0m x 10.0 m
Wind Speed Stability,
2
U
0.11 m/s
Static Pressure
Uniformity, 2
P
/q
0
0.34%
Dynamic Pressure
Uniformity, 2
q
/q
0
0.33%
Axial Static Pressure
Gradient, C
p
/x
0.0006 /m
Pitch Angle Uniformity
2

0.13
Yaw Angle Uniformity
2

0.10
Streamwise Turbulence
Intensity, u/U
0.07%
Normal Turbulence
Intensity, v/U
0.13%
Spanwise Turbulence
Intensity, w/U
0.13%
Total Temperature
Uniformity, 2
To
0.21C
CONCLUSION
The Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI) Low
Speed Wind Tunnel located in Taejon, Korea was
designed to be a world-class wind tunnel with excellent
aerodynamic flow quality. Sverdrup Technology
initiated the design of the facility in 1995 and facility
commissioning was completed in 1998. Aggressive
flow quality targets that meet or exceed the upper
standard of performance achieved in other major low
speed wind tunnels were established at project inception.
The success achieved in meeting these targets validate
the design of the facility and highlight the success of
the project. The primary configuration for the facility is
a 12m
2
closed wall test section, which is operated at
atmospheric pressure and has a maximum wind speed
in excess of 115 m/s. In addition to the closed wall test
section, interchangeable open jet and slotted wall test
sections were included in the facility design. The
design also includes several features which will permit
a major acoustic upgrade in the future. The
commissioning results presented here are for the closed
wall test section, and span the traditional measures of
aerodynamic flow quality. The commissioning program
was comprehensive in scope, and the level of
interrogation was more extensive than typical for low
speed wind tunnel commissioning efforts. Considered
in conjunction with the various advanced features of the
facility, the excellent flow quality places the KARI
LSWT among the worlds premier low speed wind
tunnels.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks
to Mr. Kwon, Mr. Cho, and Mr. Son of KARI for their
assistance with the commissioning experiments.
Thanks are also expressed to Tony Buchanan and Bill
Martindale of Sverdrup Technology for their help in
acquiring, reducing and analyzing the data.
Additionally, we would like to thank Dr. Engin Arik of
Dantec Measurement Technology for his on-site
assistance in acquiring the PIV measurements.
REFERENCES
1. Hoffman, J.M., Arnette, S.A., Porter, C.B., Sung,
B., and Arik, B.E., Application of Particle Image
Velocimetry in the Korea Aerospace Research
Institute Low Speed Wind Tunnel, AIAA-2000-
0411, AIAA 38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting.
2. Meredith, S., Martindale, W., Benetti-Longhini, L.,
Boylan, D., and Chaney, M., Aerodynamic
Commissioning Results for the Korea Air Force
Academy Subsonic Wind Tunnel, AIAA-2000-
0290, 38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting.