Aerodynamics Lab-II

AE39001

Measurement of Lift, Drag and Pitching moment over

a delta wing
Prof Sandeep Saha

Indian Institute of technology

Khargpur

- Adapa venkata sai chaithanya

14AE30002
I.Goals
• To obtain lift, drag and pitching moment over a delta wing, at various
angles of attack.
II.Apparatus
• Slender delta wing
• Six-component strain gauge sting balance
• Wind tunnel
• Digital multi-meter
II.Theory
1. For a slender delta wing the theoretical lift coefficient is given by
Cl = πAR *sin (2α)/4 + CDPsin2α cos α – (1)
Cd = πAR sin2 (α)/2 + CDPsin3α
where AR=aspect ratio of the wing and α is the angle of attack and CDP=1.95
1 2
The lift is given by L= ρ v S Cl
2
2. Sting Balance: A 6 component strain gauge sting balance measures 2 normal
components of force, 2 side forces, 1 axial force and 1 axial moment, and hence
is capable of measuring all the forces and moments acting on a six degrees of
freedom system.
Wind tunnel: For the given experiment a suction type wind tunnel is used.
The delta wing is mounted in the test section of the wind tunnel.
III.Procedure
1. The delta wing model is mounted on the sting in the test section.
2. The voltage output of the two normal force components and 1 axial force
component of the sting balance are connected to a breadboard and are in turn
read by a muti-meter.
3. The read voltages are divided by the excitation voltage and converted to
appropriate force using a conversion Chart.
4. This is done for various angles of attack of the delta wing.
5. Lift and drag are calculated form the measured forces as shown in the
‘calculations’ section.
IV.Observations
 Distance between normal components = 65mm

 Excitation voltage=2.5 V

V . Calculations
L= (N1+N2) cos α – AF sin α

D=(N1+N2) sin α +AF cos α

M=(N1-N2)*.065
VI . Data

Table 1.1: experimental Lift drag and Pitching Moment v=17m/s

α L(N) D(N) M(N-m)

-8 -1.1255 -0.0858 -0.016461016

-6 -0.7929 -0.071 -0.002326293

-4 -0.4577 -0.0318 0.001732245

-2 -4.3142 0.17412 0.274811035

0 0.2695 0.10091 -0.004172126

2 0.6906 0.22108 -0.00421433

4 0.7379 0.32229 0.012689643

6 1.1661 0.46947 0.031246946

8 1.2329 0.59236 0.03232605

10 1.729 0.81827 0.042169774

12 2.2285 1.08067 0.063338912

14 2.4257 1.29396 0.088831995

16 2.6389 1.53772 0.099480576

20 7.4032 2.60757 -0.1320592

25 8.9916 4.03604 -0.176286032

33 10.669 6.35682 -0.200598445

35 10.467 7.07737 -0.192858016

 Table 1.2: Theoretical lift and drag v=17m/s

α Cl Cd L(N) D(N)

-8 -0.187 0.026252422 -0.8737 0.1228

-6 -0.141 0.014809074 -0.6591 0.06927

-4 -0.094 0.006595198 -0.4412 0.03085

-2 -0.047 0.00165081 -0.2211 0.00772

0 0 0 0 0

2 0.0473 0.00165081 0.22112 0.00772

4 0.0943 0.006595198 0.44117 0.03085

6 0.1409 0.014809074 0.65906 0.06927

8 0.1868 0.026252422 0.87375 0.1228

10 0.2318 0.040869492 1.08418 0.19117

12 0.2756 0.058589069 1.28932 0.27405

14 0.3182 0.079324826 1.48819 0.37105

16 0.3591 0.102975741 1.6798 0.48167

20 0.4356 0.158548503 2.03758 0.74162

25 0.5191 0.242077984 2.4283 1.13233

33 0.6191 0.402046518 2.89586 1.88059

35 0.6368 0.44590401 2.97875 2.08574

Table 2.1: experimental Lift drag and Pitching Moment v=19m/s

α L(N) D(N) M(N-m)

-8 -1.2731 -0.0661 -0.012340141

-6 -0.7415 -0.0789 -0.005426533

-4 -0.5548 -0.0324 0.001633507

-2 -4.76 0.18542 0.299345925

0 0.315 0.09771 -0.007689386

2 0.5451 0.1936 -0.004991626

4 0.6954 0.29403 0.004733331

6 1.0339 0.42342 0.016193986

8 1.3105 0.58101 0.033273469

10 1.8914 0.82635 0.043080586

12 1.6522 0.93093 0.11368161

14 3.378 1.50541 0.044903622

16 3.0791 1.6425 0.120975317

20 8.0174 2.81223 -0.14632592

25 9.4891 4.2551 -0.186591018

33 11.274 6.73233 -0.210694973

35 11.266 7.62854 -0.217056528

 Table 2.2: Theoretical lift and drag v=19m/s

α Cl Cd L(N) D(N)

-8 -0.187 0.026252422 -1.0914 0.15339

-6 -0.141 0.014809074 -0.8233 0.08653

-4 -0.094 0.006595198 -0.5511 0.03854

-2 -0.047 0.00165081 -0.2762 0.00965

0 0 0 0 0

2 0.0473 0.00165081 0.27621 0.00965

4 0.0943 0.006595198 0.55108 0.03854

6 0.1409 0.014809074 0.82326 0.08653

8 0.1868 0.026252422 1.09143 0.15339

10 0.2318 0.040869492 1.35428 0.2388

12 0.2756 0.058589069 1.61054 0.34233

14 0.3182 0.079324826 1.85894 0.46349

16 0.3591 0.102975741 2.0983 0.60168

20 0.4356 0.158548503 2.54522 0.92638

25 0.5191 0.242077984 3.03327 1.41444

33 0.6191 0.402046518 3.61732 2.34912

35 0.6368 0.44590401 3.72086 2.60537

Table 3.1: experimental Lift drag and Pitching Moment v=21m/s

α L(N) D(N) M(N-m)

-
-8 -1.2851 -0.0602 0.015133082
-
-6 -0.8615 -0.052 0.010831309

-4 -0.5371 -0.0201 0.005823834

-2 -5.0021 0.21023 0.316239019

-
0 0.2873 0.11157 0.010335998
-
2 0.6759 0.20741 0.003508315

4 0.7945 0.3177 0.010986789

6 1.1421 0.46052 0.020344043

8 0.9782 0.54221 0.062238259

10 2.5214 0.95908 0.022938989

12 1.4068 0.90058 0.143868171

14 3.8637 1.63711 0.029998613

16 3.1881 1.67783 0.116589242

-
20 8.4637 2.97087 0.146527264
-
25 10.241 4.5963 0.198555032
-
33 12.128 7.27841 0.229314925
-
35 11.945 8.08625 0.220202736
 Table 3.2: Theoretical lift and drag v=21m/s

α Cl Cd L(N) D(N)

-8 -0.187 0.026252422 -1.3333 0.18738

-6 -0.141 0.014809074 -1.0057 0.1057

-4 -0.094 0.006595198 -0.6732 0.04707

-2 -0.047 0.00165081 -0.3374 0.01178

0 0 0 0 0

2 0.0473 0.00165081 0.33742 0.01178

4 0.0943 0.006595198 0.6732 0.04707

6 0.1409 0.014809074 1.0057 0.1057

8 0.1868 0.026252422 1.3333 0.18738

10 0.2318 0.040869492 1.6544 0.29172

12 0.2756 0.058589069 1.96744 0.41819

14 0.3182 0.079324826 2.2709 0.5662

16 0.3591 0.102975741 2.56329 0.73501

20 0.4356 0.158548503 3.10925 1.13168

25 0.5191 0.242077984 3.70546 1.72789

33 0.6191 0.402046518 4.41895 2.8697

35 0.6368 0.44590401 4.54542 3.18274

Table 4.1: experimental Lift drag and Pitching Moment v=23m/s

α L(N) D(N) M(N-m)

-8 -1.3912 -0.0287 -0.017744917

-6 -0.6404 -0.0649 -0.027155565

-4 -0.9992 0.01609 0.033724163

-2 -5.3842 0.23175 0.353899083

0 0.3474 0.124 -0.008682565

2 0.6777 0.22063 -0.004768525

4 0.8676 0.32246 0.009836299

6 1.4334 0.48149 0.029174558

8 1.6553 0.64849 0.033544056

10 2.3223 0.90558 0.052688397

12 2.8913 1.20339 0.083759936

14 3.1332 1.44252 0.11888656

16 3.7003 1.80029 0.150784816

20 9.035 3.16748 -0.16077568

25 11.039 4.95217 -0.213617456

33 13.087 7.87743 -0.238890309

35 12.857 8.70189 -0.24445616

 Table 4.2: Theoretical lift and drag v=23m/s

α Cl Cd L(N) D(N)

-8 -0.187 0.026252422 -1.5994 0.22477

-6 -0.141 0.014809074 -1.2064 0.1268

-4 -0.094 0.006595198 -0.8075 0.05647

-2 -0.047 0.00165081 -0.4048 0.01413

0 0 0 0 0

2 0.0473 0.00165081 0.40475 0.01413

4 0.0943 0.006595198 0.80753 0.05647

6 0.1409 0.014809074 1.20638 0.1268

8 0.1868 0.026252422 1.59935 0.22477

10 0.2318 0.040869492 1.98453 0.34993

12 0.2756 0.058589069 2.36004 0.50164

14 0.3182 0.079324826 2.72405 0.67918

16 0.3591 0.102975741 3.07479 0.88168

20 0.4356 0.158548503 3.72969 1.3575

25 0.5191 0.242077984 4.44487 2.07268

33 0.6191 0.402046518 5.30073 3.44233

35 0.6368 0.44590401 5.45245 3.81784

VI . Plots
VII.Discussions
1. Different types of force measuring instruments are:
(i) Force balance: A one component force balance consists of a rod
mounted on a fulcrum. The model is attached to one end of the
 fulcrum and weights are suspended from the other end to balance
the aerodynamic force acting on the model.
(ii) Sting balance: It consists of a long shaft called sting on which the
model is mounted. The sting contains strain gauges which are
calibrated to measure the force components.
(iii) Load cell : A load cell is a transducer that is used to create an
electrical signal whose magnitude is directly proportional to the
force being measured.
(iv) Piezo-electric transducer: A piezo- electric transducer uses piezo-
electric effect to measurechanges in force by coverting them to an
electrical charge.
2. Principle and working of a 6 component sting balance:
A sting balance essentially consists of multiple strain gauges arranged in
appropriate manner inside or outside a sting. It works on the principle that
when a force acts on the sting balance, the resistance of the corresponding
strain gauges change proportionally. The six force and moment sensing
components of the balance consist of two normal force elements for
determination of normal force and pitching moment, two side force elements for
determination of side force and yawing moment, an axial force element and a
roll moment.
The primary structure consist of an inner rod, which fastens to the model
support sting, and a cylindrical outer case, which is inserted into and attaches
to the model.

3. Yes, there is a difference between experimental and theoretical lift and drag
coefficients. This could be due to uncertainty in measurements (as explained in
(5)) or lack of symmetry of the flow field over the upper and lower surfaces (as
explained in (4)).
4. For delta wing at zero degree angle of attack normal force should not be zero.
Some positive value of normal force at zero degree angle of attack, which could
be due to the following reasons
 The airfoil of the delta wing may not be symmetric with respect to the
upper and lower surfaces, which may cause flow to be asymmetric on
the upper and lower surface of the wing. Due to this asymmetry
normal force will be not be zero at zero degree angle of attack.
 Boundary layer thickness on the upper surface may not be same as
that of the lower one. This may cause asymmetry in flow.
5. In the present experiment some uncertainty in readings is observed. This is
because of the external noise (like wind tunnel sound). This external noise
introduces zero error in the reading of the signal conditioning amplifier, which
gets gets added cumulatively as the experiment is performed at different AOA.
We can reduce this error by doing the following steps.

 Stop the wind tunnel after taking all the readings for one speed.

 Make the signal conditioner voltage to be zero.

 Repeat the above steps for each speed.

By doing this the overall error which has been generated for one speed will not
be able to add to the error for another speed. So it will help us to minimize the
error.

Conclusions
Lift, drag and pitching moment of a delta wing were measured for different flow
velocities and angles of attack. A large deviation in experimental lift values
from their theoretical counterparts was observed for AOA >15 degrees which is
due to the additional vortex lift generated due to vortex formation over the
upper surface at higher AOA. Also, with increase in flow velocity, a slight
increase in corresponding values of lift and drag was observed.