Rochester Institute of Technology

RIT Scholar Works

Theses Thesis/Dissertation Collections

12-1-2003

Aerodynamic force and moment balance design,

fabrication, and testing for use in low Reynolds flow
applications
Corey Abe

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses

Recommended Citation
Abe, Corey, "Aerodynamic force and moment balance design, fabrication, and testing for use in low Reynolds flow applications"
(2003). Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology. Accessed from

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Thesis/Dissertation Collections at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact ritscholarworks@rit.edu.
Aerodynamic Force and Moment Balance Design,
Fabrication, and Testing for use in
Low Reynolds Flow Applications
by

Corey T. Abe

A Thesis Submitted In
Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the

MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Approved by:

Dr. Kevin Kochersberger

Department of Mechanical Engineering (Thesis Advisor)

Dr. Jeffrey Kozak

Department of Mechanical Engineering (Committee Member)

Dr. Amitabha Ghosh

Department of Mechanical Engineering (Committee Member)

Dr. Edward C. Hensel

Department of Mechanical Engineering (Department Head)

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
ROCHESTER INSTITUTUE OF TECHNOLOGY

DECEMBER 2003
Disclosure Statement

Permission Granted

Thesis Title: "Aerodynamic Force and Moment Balance Design, Fabrication, and Testing

for use in Low Reynolds Flow Applications"

I, Corey T. Abe hereby grant permission to the Wallace Library of the Rochester Institute

of Technology to reproduce my thesis in whole or in part. Any reproduction will not be

for commercial use or profit.

Date:~
Corey T. Abe
 Aerodynamic Force and Moment Balance Design,
Fabrication, and Testing for use in
Low Reynolds Flow Applications

ABSTRACT:

The aerodynamic performance of airfoils operating at Reynolds numbers below

105
has been of interest due to its variety of applications in areas such as unmanned

remotely piloted vehicles, small-scale machinery, and more recently, Micro Air Vehicles

(MAV's). Design and testing of airfoils to meet these applications is challenging due to

the lack of experimental data in low Reynolds flow, compared to airfoils tested at higher

Reynolds numbers. Two mechanical balance devices are designed and evaluated to

provide a quick and simple method to test small airfoil aerodynamic loads. Each device

measures two degrees of freedom; a force balance measures lift and drag forces and a

moment balance measures pitch and roll moments.

Coefficients of lift and drag vs. angle of attack and coefficients of pitch and roll

vs. angle of attack or sideslip angle data are obtained from the fabricated devices and

compared to literature results. A statistical evaluation is performed on various aspect

ratio flat plate and cambered airfoils to test repeatability. Testing procedures are

documented and an overall analysis of testing methods and device designs are discussed.

u
Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES IV

LIST OF TABLES V

LIST OF SYMBOLS VI

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 RIT Wind Tunnel Facility 2

1.2 Statement of the Problem 3

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6

CHAPTER 3 DESIGN 10

3.1 Requirements 10
3.2 Concepts 12
3.3 Balance Design 13
3.3.1 Reference System 13
3.3.2 Lift and Drag Balance 75
3.3.3 Pitch and Roll Moment Balance 24
3.4 Test Airfoil Design and Specifications 31

CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENT METHODS AND DESIGN 33

4.1 Design of Experiment 33

4.2 Experiment Analysis 35
4.2.1 Lift and Drag Experiment 35
4.2.2 Pitch and Roll Moment Experiment 37
4.3 Computational Analysis 43
4.3.1 LinAir 43
4.3.2 Roll Moment Analysis 44
4.4 Statistical Analysis 46
4.5 Uncertainty Analysis 48

CHAPTERS RESULTS 52

5.1 Lift Results 52

5.2 Drag Results 55
5.3 Pitch Moment Results 58
5.4 Roll Moment Results 60
5.5 Uncertainty in Measurements 63

CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY 65

CHAPTER 7 FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS 68

APPENDIX A: LIFT/DRAG BALANCE CAD DRAWINGS 71

APPENDIX B: PITCH/ROLL MOMENT BALANCE CAD DRAWINGS 77

APPENDIX C: EXPERIMENT PROCEDURES DOCUMENT 84

APPENDIX D: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 88

APPENDIX E: EXCEL DATA CHARTS 92

REFERENCE 97

ill
List of figures

Figure 1-1: RIT's Wind Tunnel Test Section 3

Figure 1-2: Diagram of RIT's Closed Circuit Wind Tunnel 5
Figure 2-1: Experimental apparatus used to measure three-dimensional hydrodynamic
forces. (Sunada et. al. [5]) 6
Figure 2-2: Schematic of Balance used in experimental research [3] 8
Figure 3-1: Wind-Axis Reference Frame 14
Figure 3-2: Body-Axis Reference Frame 15
Figure 3-3: Assembly Diagram of Lift and Drag Balance 16
Figure 3-4: Balance Configuration to Measure Lift Force 17
Figure 3-5: Balance Configuration to Measure Drag Force 17
Figure 3-6: Moment Analysis Diagram -Lift Configuration 22
Figure 3-7: Moment Analysis Diagram for Drag Balance Configuration 23
Figure 3-8: Assembly Diagram of the Pitch and Roll Moment Balance 24
Figure 3-9: Assembly Diagram of the Test Platform for the Pitch and Roll Moment
Balance 25
Figure 3-10: Fabricated Welding rod Test platform 26
Figure 3-11: Pitching Moment Balance Configuration 28
Figure 3-12: Rolling Moment Balance Configuration 28
Figure 3-13: Pitch Moment Analysis Diagram 29
Figure 3-14: Roll Moment Analysis Diagram 30
Figure 4-1: Diagram of Experiment Elements 34
Figure 4-2: Lift Configuration 36
Figure 4-3: Drag Configuration 36
Figure 4-4: Pitch Moment Configuration 38
Figure 4-5: Roll Moment Configuration 38
Figure 4-6: Flat Plate Moment Calibration Plot (Zero velocity and no airfoil) 40
Figure 4-7: Flat Plate Pitching Moment Data 40
Figure 4-8: Pitch Experiment Test Platform Setup 42
Figure 4-9: LinAir Vortex Panel Method Airfoil 44
Figure 4-10: Dihedral and Roll Moment Coefficient 45
Figure 5-1: Experimental Values of Lift Force and Coefficient 53
Figure 5-2: Comparison of Experimental Lift Data to Published Data 55
Figure 5-3: Experimental Drag Data 56
Figure 5-4: Comparison of Experimental Drag Data to Published Data 57
Figure 5-5: Experiment Pitching Moment Data 58
Figure 5-6: Pitching Moment Experimental and Published Values 60
Figure 5-7: Experimental Data; Rolling Moment 61
Figure 5-9: Roll Moment Coefficient Comparison to Analytical Models 62
Figure 7-1 : Balance design with added mass 68

iv
List of Tables

Table 4.1: Uncertainty of measurement variables 50

Table 4.2: Summary of predicted uncertainty obtained from experimental methods 51
Table 5.1: Comparison of Uncertainty Analysis Techniques 63
Table 6.1: Summary of Lift and Drag Force Results 66
Table 6.2: Summary of Pitch and Roll Moment Results 67
Table E.l: Lift Data Spreadsheet 92
Table E.2: Drag Data Spreadsheet 93
Table E.3: PitchingMoment Spreadsheet (1 of 2) 94
Table E.4: Pitching Moment Spreadsheet (2 of 2) 95
Table E.5: Rolling Moment Spreadsheet 96
List of Symbols

AR Full-span aspect ratio

CD Drag coefficient (3D)

Cl Lift Coefficient (3D)
Cm/4 Pitching moment coefficient about the quarter chord
cr Rolling moment coefficient
Re Root-chord Reynolds number

Uo Free stream velocity

ao 2D lift-curve slope

b Wingspan

c Root-chord length

t Wing thickness
a Angle of attack

P Sideslip angle
r Dihedral angle

S Reference wing area

Q Dynamic pressure

p Density

H Dynamic viscosity

df degrees of freedom

center of gravity
eg

subscript b Body axis frame

subscript w Wind axis frame

subscript min Minimum value

subscript max Maximum value

subscript ss sideslip

Vl
Chapter 1 Introduction

105
The performance of airfoils operating at Reynolds numbers below has been of

interest due to its variety of applications in areas such as sailplanes, small-scale

machinery, and unmanned remotely piloted vehicles. The demand for very small, multi

functional aircraft has come to the forefront of academic and military research. These

small aircraft called micro-air vehicles (MAV's) are of interest due to potential

applications in electronic surveillance, communications, and real-time data relay [1].

With the advances in miniaturizing electronics, these small aircraft can carry video and

advanced flight control devices. With this in mind, a general overview of MAV's is

outlined to provide some direction in the functionality and design of aerodynamic load

balances.

Current designs of MAV's typically have wingspans of 6-8 inches (15-20cm) and

weigh approximately 200 grams [2]. The endurance of such vehicles ranges from 20 to

30 minutes and operate at speeds of about 30 mph (18.5km/hr). At these values,

Reynolds numbers range from 20,000 to 200,000 [3]. The dependence on aerodynamic

performance on the Reynolds number has been well documented in works by Jacobs and

106

Sherman [4], and aerodynamic performance at Reynolds numbers greater than are

also readily available.

Conversely, little research has been done to investigate the aerodynamic

properties of airfoils at relatively low Reynolds numbers, compared to traditional

106

Reynolds numbers greater than in magnitude. More specifically, there is a lack of

such data for Reynolds numbers ranging from Re (10 < Re < 104). It is believed that

wings and model airplanes exhibit unique characteristics at these low Reynolds numbers

not observed in experiments of large airfoils and high Reynolds flow. More recently,

works by Sunada, Sakaguchi, and Kawachi presented the study of aerodynamic

characteristics of selected airfoils measured at Reynolds numbers of 4000 [5] and has

been used as a good starting point for further studies into aerodynamic characteristics

under low Reynolds flows.

1. 1 RIT Wind Tunnel Facility

Rochester Institute of Technology's Wind Tunnel facility is located in the "Power

Wing"
of the Mechanical Engineering department. The wind tunnel is a low speed,

closed circuit system powered by a 60 hp motor. A student-designed chiller unit provides

a stable temperature in the test section of +/- 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit. The modular test

(4' 2'
section has been redesigned, providing a test section of x x 2') in dimensions and is

accessible from all four side-panels (see Figure 1-1). By adjusting the fan blade pitch

setting, a maximum allowable speed of 180 ft/sec (123 mph) and minimum sustained

speed of approximately 20 ft/sec (13.6 mph) in the test section is achievable [6].
 Figure 1-1: RIT's Wind Tunnel Test Section

In addition, a three-dimensional computerized traversing system offers motorized

position of probes within the test section. Data acquisition systems include a six

component spring balance which can measure a maximum of 50 lbf lift load, 75 in-lbf of

pitching moment, and 25 in-lbf of rolling moment. The wind tunnel facility is also able

to accommodate a variety of pitot-static tubes, pressure transducers, hot film

anemometers, and a bubble generator for flow visualization applications. See Figure 1-2

for a schematic diagram of the RIT wind tunnel facility.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The ability of the RIT wind tunnel facility to measure aerodynamic forces on

small-scale airfoils and model aircraft is limited. The desired forces and moments of

interest are of several magnitudes less that that of what the current wind tunnel

instrumentation can measure. As previously mentioned, the current tunnel balance is

capable of measuring forces in order of magnitude of 1 lbf, whereas forces on small-scale

 10"4
airfoils at low Reynolds number are in the order of lbf. Similar scale insufficiency

occurs for moment measurements. At such low force and moment ranges errors in load

cell and strain amplifiers have a greater effect on data analysis of small airfoils [7]. This

dilemma illustrates the issues addressed in the prototype balance designs included in this

research.

The primary objective of this research is two fold. The first objective involves the

design and fabrication of two mechanical load balances. Two prototype balances, one

designed to measure aerodynamic forces of lift and drag, and another designed to

measure aerodynamic moments of pitch and roll, are included in this research. In total,

the mechanical balances have the potential to resolve four degrees-of-freedom within

acceptable ranges of uncertainty.

The second objective of this research is to experimentally evaluate the fabricated

devices and compare experimental data to published values and documented sources.

Several flat plate and cambered airfoils have been incorporated in the wind tunnel

experiments to meet this goal. In addition, repeatability is a major concern in the

functionality of the device. Though statistical analysis and validation process in testing

balance performance, prototype models are proven to be successful. The end goal is to

eventually scale up the devices in order to accommodate a broader range of MAV

applications.
Figure 1-2: Diagram of RIT's Closed Circuit Wind Tunnel

(Courtesy of Drew Walter)

Chapter 2 Literature Review

Low Reynolds Number Aerodynamics

A wide range of research has been done on the performance of airfoil at Reynolds

104 105
numbers equal to or greater than 105. For example, wing characteristics at < Re <

have been studied by Schmitz [8]. Recent research projects such as the development of

small insect like flying machines and MAV's have presented opportunity to better

understand aerodynamic behavior of centimeter sized airfoils operating at very low

103 105
Reynolds numbers, approximately < Re < [9].

Sunada et al. conducted systematic studies on aerodynamic characteristics of

selected airfoils measured at Re =

4 x 10 [5]. Measurements by Sunada et al. were

collected by water tunnel experiments in which a test airfoil is submerged underwater.

The collected data measured the hydrodynamic characteristics of the wings along with

three-dimensional effects due to a finite model. Several flat plate, cambered, and NACA

profile airfoils were tested (see Figure 2-1 for test apparatus).

Side vievt
LaadeeJI
O'cu-arcyln'iter

A', -. 50 c -
40

Figure 2-1: Experimental apparatus used to measure three-dimensional hydrodynamic forces.

(Sunada et al. [5])
 Several conclusions were drawn by the work of Sunada et. al. [5]. It was found

103
that airfoils at Re =
4 x with low thickness ratios, a leading edge, and about a
sharp

5% camber with a maximum camber position at mid-chord yielded high stall angle of

attack and high lift to drag ratios. Furthermore it was found that airfoil performance at

103
Reynolds numbers in the order of is strongly affected by flow separation and leading

edge vortices. Through flow visualization techniques leading edge vortices were

observed at an angle of attack of 6 degrees on tested airfoils [7]. The airfoil of particular

interest is the flat plate airfoil of aspect ratio 6.75 and 5% thickness. Sunada et. al.

103
published values of lift and drag at Re -

4 x from water tunnel experiments of the

described airfoil and is used to evaluate experimental results contained in this research.

Another systematic investigation by Laitone E. V. examines airfoil aerodynamic

loads with the use of a two-component beam balance rather than a typical strain gauge

balance system [10]. Lift and drag data is measured on small models in the range of Re ~

104. Laitone's research focuses on the effect of aspect ratio on wing planform and

annular airfoils. An interesting observation encountered from his research is the increase

in the 3-D lift curve slope measured from experimental data compared to the analytical

values obtained from Glauert's calculation methods for rectangular planform wings. An

apparent increase in induced drag and stall region of higher aspect ratio wings at

approximately 12 to 14 degrees angle of attack was also observed.

Experimental work by Alain Pelletier and Thomas J. Mueller focuses on

measuring lift, drag, and pitching moment about the quarter chord on series of thin flat

and chambered plates at Reynolds numbers between 60,000 and 200,000 [3]. Results
presented were obtained with a three-component platform force balance, which measures

lift, drag, and pitching moment about the vertical axis simultaneously (see Figure 2-2).

This external balance transmits lift and drag forces through a sting which is connected to

a moment sensor. The lift and drag platform are fitted with foil strain gauges while a

moment sensor is rigidly mounted to an adjustable angle of attack mechanism on the top

platform. The designed balance is an external device, which is positioned on top of the

test section of a low speed wind tunnel. Refer to section 3.2 for a discussion on external

vs. internal balance designs.

Figure 2-2: Schematic of Balance used in experimental research [3]

 The focus of their study was to investigate the aerodynamic behavior on low

aspect ratio wings down to Reynolds numbers of 20,000. In particular, flat plate and

chambered airfoil profiles with an AR 1 approximately 8 inches

=
.5 and root chord were

tested at Reynolds number of 60,000. Results from these tests are used for comparison to

results contained in the present research. Through research on low aspect ratio flat plates,

Mueller found that there is a thin region of separated flow near the trailing edge at low

angles of attack. Flow reattachment was not observed in flow visualization experiments.

These flow observations may be a characteristic of low Reynolds flow not observed in

conventional flow regimes.

Chapter 3 Design

The purpose of collecting load measurements on scaled models is to gather data

on forces and moments, which can be utilized to approximate the performance of a full-

scale vehicle or device. These forces and moments can be measured by four methods

[11]. This includes measuring stress distributions by means of pressure measuring

devices or thin coatings, measuring the effect that the model causes on the air stream by

runnel wall pressure analyses, and by measuring the model's motion caused by

aerodynamic loads and computing the forces from equations of motion. The last and

most frequently used method of measuring model loads is by directly measuring the force

and moments which act on the complete model though the use of one or more balances.

This last method has been chosen as a means to collect experimental airfoil data of low

Reynolds flow research.

3.1 Requirements

There are many factors that must be accounted for in the design of a wind tunnel

balance. For example, small difference in forces must be accurately resolved throughout

the range of operation from maximum to minimum airspeed. In addition, forces and

moments can vary widely due to airspeeds and airfoil geometry.

The reason for designing and building a mechanical balance is to have a simple

mechanical device capable of measuring aerodynamic force and moments on small

airfoils. These airfoils range from cross-sections of approximately 2cm x 2cm to 9cm x

10
9cm (see section 3.4). For this reason, a simple small pendulum device is chosen as the

best design option.

Three objectives are considered in the design phase of a mechanical wind tunnel

balance: (1) the ability to resolve very small force and moments within an acceptable

range of accuracy, (2) the ability to accommodate small airfoils and test objects

(approximately 6 cm x 9 cm) and easily incorporated with the RIT wind tunnel facility,

and (3) device fabrication.

The first major concern of balance design is the challenge of accurately measuring

10"5 10"1
lift and drag forces in the order of magnitude of to lbf, pitching moments in the

10"1 10"4 10"2

range of 10 to in-lbf, and rolling moments in the range of to in-lbf.

Measuring these small force and moment values is highly dependent on the geometry of

the airfoils and the low wind tunnel velocities achieved during the experiment

(approximately 27 ft/sec or 18 mph).

The ease of incorporating such a device within a 2ft x 2ft test section area was

important for testing multiple airfoils without the need of setting up and extensively

calibrating each device. Lastly, the device is required to be easily machined and

reproducible. The reason for this is to provide a means to reproduce the device cost

on a larger scale. Though testing and validation of the small scale balance
effectively

device it is expected that a larger scale device will provide similar results with the

addition of accommodating larger test specimens.

11
3.2 Concepts

There are many techniques of

producing balance devices for wind tunnel

applications. Such devices are classified into two main categories, internal and external

balances. Internal balances typically have force and moment elements and incorporate a

cantilever beam or column arrangement. The two most commonly used transducer types

for this application are strain gages and piezoelectric elements. Depending on the model

geometry and test area, these elements can be arranged in differential or summing circuits

to measure forces and moments [11].

Another design option is an external balance in which four classified designs are

wire, platform, yoke, and pyramidal. A wire balance is one of the earliest designs used in

aeronautics testing. Spring scales are used to obtain balance output. The model is

usually mounted inverted to prevent unloading of the wires. The problem with this type

of balance is the large tare drag associated with the wires. Also, due to the deflection of

the springs the model attitude changed depending on the observed loads. Platform, Yoke,

and Pyramidal balance designs offer a better alternative to the issues associated with wire

balance designs. Three or four columns support the platform balance. This design

the balance is not at the

naturally orthogonal, however the resolving
provides center of

center of the tunnel and additional data processing must be computed. In addition, forces

are calculated as the sum of components acting on each column. The yoke balance

the center near the center of the

design solves this problem by having moment resolving

tunnel, however there is typically larger

deflection compared to the platform balance

configuration.

12
 The pyramidal balance measures moments about the resolving center and is able to

separate and read forces and moments

directly vs. summing up components. Alignment

of this design is by far most challenging of the designs. These designs are usually

employed in large-scale wind tunnel facilities. However, through this background

research of basic balance concepts, the following design options have been chosen for the

prototype balances designed and tested in this thesis.

3.3 Balance Design

As discussed in the previous section there are many design option available in

building a mechanical balance. The following section details two prototype designs of a

knife and fulcrum system with each device measuring two degrees of freedom, lift/drag

and pitch/roll moment respectively. These designs incorporate the ideas of a yoke

balance design along with the concept of a beam balance system to meet design

requirements.

3.3.1 Reference System

As this experimental investigation aims to study the validity of force and moment

measurements of fabricated devices, it is important to assign a standard reference frame

to the tunnel, balance, and airfoil system. To accomplish this, a fixed reference sign

convention is assigned to the tunnel test section with origin aligned with the balance

13
apparatus (see Figure 3-1). This reference frame corresponds to the standard definition of

a wind-axis system in which the x-axis points towards the oncoming free stream velocity.

z Tunnel
Test
Section

Freestream
-

Velocity
_-_!-

Figure 3-1: Wind-Axis Reference Frame

In addition to the wind-axis system, the industry standard sign convention for a

body-axis reference frame defines the airfoil coordinate system (see Figure 3-2). With

these two references lift, drag, pitching moment and rolling moment is measured. For

example, the x-axis for tunnel wind-axis reference and body-axis reference are always

aligned for both force and moment testing at level conditions (balance at the null/level

position and zero degrees pitch and sideslip angle).

14
 DRAG

9&$iWtt memsfAs. by defrtlion,

mm RIGHT ROLL, NOSE UP
KICK, and NOSE RIGHT YAW
tftfCHMG
MOMnT CAUTlON-i are

AND HATS;

MOMENT
AND RATI
LP

Figure 3-2: Body- Axis Reference Frame

3.3.2 Lift and Drag Balance

The lift and drag balance design is based off the principles of a simple knife

pendulum system (see Figure 3-3). The idea behind the design is that lift and drag forces

may be statically measured by performing a moment analysis about the knife-edge pivot

axis. By translating the swivel platform through 90 degrees, these forces can be

measured through a sweep in angle of attack. Refer to Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 for

balance setups.

15
 Airfoil Vein Counter Mass

Tare Mass

Protractor

Base Plate

Figure 3-3: Assembly Diagram of Lift and Drag Balance

Three devices are used simultaneously to obtain a force measurement from the

balance. First a protractor indicates the angle of attack of the test airfoil. By rotating the

airfoil vein with a key, the angle of attack can be adjusted to an accuracy of 0.5

"inch"

degrees. The second component is a graduated scale in units. The scale is

accurate to 1/64 of an inch. The last measuring device is a bubble level used to indicate

the balance or null position. The primary components aside from the bolts and veins

were machined from 6061 aluminum through various lathe and milling processes. Refer

to Appendix A: for balance detail drawings.

16
 r
Pivot Axis '^Hp

_.

1
0

-) -

Vein translates
Freestream Vein translates
into and out of Freestream
Velocity left to right
the paper Velocity

Figure 3-4: Balance Configuration to Measure Figure 3-5: Balance Configuration to Measure
Lift Force Drag Force

Note: Coordinate systems based on wind-axis reference frame. See section 3.3.1.

In order to size the components of the balance and assign a desired value of

accuracy, several assumptions were required. First, the lever arms and veins of the

system were treated as simple beams with a uniform load distribution. The reason for

this assumption is due to the simplification of the system and the ability to treat the center

of mass of components as point masses. This assumption simplifies the moment

contribution effects from multiple components. Furthermore the error associated with

this assumption is negligible due to the fact that data is always collected when the

"tared"

balance is in the null or level position. The term refers to the balance being level

17
from a visual observation of a bubble level indicator. As long as the balance is tared, the

effect of mass distribution is negligible.

The second assumption made to size the balance is the size of the test airfoils. As

previously mentioned, the smallest airfoil tested measures 0.394 x 2.657 inches (1 x 6.75)

cm. However, to determine the effective range and precision of the balance a minimum

test airfoil reference surface area of 1 sq. inch is assumed. Next, a precision on the

coefficient of lift and drag is assumed. A value of 0.001 was chosen as a target

precision design goal. This value is greater than one drag count ( 0.0001) and is taken

to be a reasonable assumption due to the nature of wind tunnel application. Lastly, the

minimum sustainable velocity of the RIT wind tunnel was assumed to be 27 ft/sec (8.23

m/sec). The coefficient of drag is

D
QS

Equation 3.1

If CDmin =
0.001, Smin =
1 sq. inch, and Uaomin =
27 ft/sec then, the drag balance must be

designed to resolve approximately 6.0E-06 lbf or have an accuracy of 3.0E-06 lbf.

An upper limit of CDmax =

1 was assumed, with Smax =
8 sq. inches, and Uoomax -
50 ft/sec

then the balance must have a precision of approximately 1 .6E-01 lbf. Thus the balance

has design requirements to measure loads from 3.0E-06 lbf to 8.0E-02 lbf, a ratio of

Similarly, the same process is iterated for lift forces. The

approximately 27,000:1.

coefficient of lift is

18
 QS

Equation 3.2

If CLmin =
0.001, Smin =
1 sq. inch, Ua>min =
27 ft/sec, then the balance design is required to

resolve 6.0-06 lbf or have an accuracy of 3.0E-06 lbf. Also, if CLmax =

1.5, Smax =
8

sq. inch, Uoomax =

50 ft/sec, then the balance design is required to resolve 2.5E-01 lbf or

have an accuracy of 1.25E-01 lbf. Thus the balance is required to measure loads from

3.0E-06 lbf to 1.25E-01 lbf, a ratio of approximately 42,000:1. These values of lift and

drag forces are theoretical limits of the intended balance design based on target precision

values.

In order to meet the requirements set by the above process, a sliding mass is used

to achieve the desired accuracy and range of force measurements. For example, if a drag

force is required to be measured to 2.4E-05 lbf, then a sliding mass of 3 grams will

produce a resolution in force of approximately 1.6-05 lbf. These values are desired levels

ft/sec2
of accuracy and assume a standard gravitational field value of 32.2 and a

minimum scale resolution of 1/64 inches. Refer to Figure 3-6 for a pictorial view of lever

arm length description used in the moment summation analysis to obtain the range in

force values. Depending on the size of the sliding mass, an appropriate maximum and

minimum force range is obtained and may be chosen to meet test requirements.

19
 A static moment summation about the the lift force
pivot axis yields or drag

acting on the test subject's center of

gravity (see Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7). Therefore

the lifting force can be calculated by

F,LF1
l fl
+FL
m m
-F-L
2 F2
-R
tare Lttare
t^Lift
L_ift
Equation 3.3

By taring the system, i.e. the sum of moments from Fl, Fm, F2, and Ftare equal zero, then

a simplified version of Equation 3.3 is

F I
c _
rmJj___
r,Lift
M
T

Equation 3.4

The benefit of this approach is that the force values can be directly obtained by the

position of the sliding mass on the scale indicator at level position.

A similar analysis may be performed for the drag configuration (see Figure 3-7). The

only addition is the contribution to vain drag induced by the free stream velocity. Vein

drag is not a factor in lift moment summations because the freestream flow is parallel to

the pivot axis. The drag moment is calculated by

p _
FjLpj+f-pL-jj f2LF2 F3LF3 ftareL^g
rDrag t

^Drag
Equation 3.5

20
Again, taring the system and accounting for the addition of vein drag, a simplified

version of Equation 3.5 is reduced to

*m^m
p _

Drag j
^Drag
Equation 3.6

Drag forces are also directly obtained by the position of the sliding mass on the graduated

scale at balance level position.

21
 Lf2 -tare

Lfi

*i ?

F L
F, tare
*i ?
ir if V .r

O F2

Free stream velocity is into

the plane of the paper.

-Lift

LFi =
lever arm distance to eg (long)
Lf2 =
lever distance to eg (short)
arm

Lnft =
lever arm distance to eg of airfoil Airfoil
Lm -

lever arm distance to sliding mass

Ltare =
lever arm distance to tare mass

Fi =
point mass force of lever arm (long)
F2 =
point mass force of lever arm (short)
FLift
Fm Sliding mass force
=

Ftare =
tare mass force
Fiift
=
lift force

Figure 3-6: Moment Analysis Diagram -Lift Configuration

22
 Lf2 -tare

J_.F1

? *t ?

i m _L/m

F, tare
*t ?
^r \r ]'
"_
S> ii ik

o F2

Lf3
Free stream velocity is
parallel to the plane of the

paper.

Ldj'rag

Lfi =
lever arm distance to eg (long)
Lf2 =
lever arm distance to eg (short)
Lorag
=
lever arm distance to eg of airfoil
Lm lever arm
=
distance to sliding mass
Ltare lever arm distance to tare mass
=

Lf3 lever arm distance to eg of vein

=

Fi point mass force of lever arm (long)

=

F2 point mass force of lever arm (short)

=

Fm Sliding mass force

= Drag

Ftare tare mass force

=

FDrag
=
lift force
F3 =

drag force of vein

Figure 3-7: Moment Analysis Diagram for Drag Balance Configuration

23
3.3.3 Pitch and Roll Moment Balance

The pitch and roll moment balance is also based on the principles of a simple

knife-pendulum system (see Figure 3-8). By performing a static moment analysis of the

device at level position about the knife-edge axis, pitching and rolling moments of a test

airfoil is measured. The swivel platform is capable of rotating 90 degrees with a pitch

angle range of 0 to 12 degrees. Both pitching and rolling moment may be measured

through varying angles of attack or sideslip angles.

Figure 3-8: Assembly Diagram of the Pitch and Roll Moment Balance

74
 The test platform is fabricated from welding rod arranged in a y-shape and is

designed to accommodate a maximum size airfoil of 2.362 x 3.543 inches (6x9 cm). In

order to ensure that moments are summed about the airfoil quarter chord point the test

platform is raised to the same pivot point as the test platform links. This helps to
simplify

calculations in taking moments about the quarter chord of an airfoil. In this case, the

platform links are stainless steel snap swivels (see Figure 3-9and Figure 3-10 ). In order

to adjust the pitch angle of a given airfoil, one of the three veins is adjusted by increasing

or decreasing its length. An adjustable turnbuckle and threaded rod is capable of

increasing or decreasing the pitch angle to a resolution of approximately 0.3 degrees per

revolution. The turnbuckle has a 4-40 thread and can provide a range of angle deflection

from 0 to 12 degrees (see Figure 4-8).

Platform Linksi
Airfoil Mounting Vein

Y-bar Test Platform

the Test Platform for the Pitch and Roll Moment Balance
Figure 3-9: Assembly Diagram of

25
 Figure 3-10: Fabricated Welding rod Test platform

Three devices are used simultaneously to obtain a force measurement from the

balance. First a protractor indicates the sideslip angle of the test airfoil. By translating the

swivel plate, the sideslip angle may be adjusted to an accuracy of 0.5 degrees (see

"inch"
Figure 3-11 and Figure 3-12). The second device used is a graduated scale in

units and indicates the lever arm distance of the sliding mass. The scale is accurate to

1/64 of an inch. The last measuring device is a bubble level used to indicate the balance

null or level position. The primary components aside from the bolts and veins were

machined from 6061 aluminum and Plexiglas. Refer to Appendix B: for balance detail

drawings.

In order to size the components a similar process in sizing the lift and drag

balance is implemented. The assumptions made are: 1) lever arms and veins of the

26
system may be treated as point masses at their respective eg, 2) the minimum geometry of

a testable airfoil is approximately 2 sq. inch in reference planform area, 3) the precision

of the coefficients of pitch and roll moments are desired to be accurate to 0.001, and 4)

the minimum sustainable velocity of the RIT wind tunnel was assumed to be 27 ft/sec

(8.23 m/sec) with a maximum velocity of 50 ft/sec (15.24 m/sec). All measurements are

taken at the balance null or level position. The coefficient of pitching moment about the

quarter chord is

M
C m"4 -

QSc

Equation 3.7

If Cmmin =
0.001, Smin =
2 sq. inch, and Uoomin =
27 ft/sec from the above assumptions then,

the moment balance must be designed to resolve approximately 2.0E-06 ft-lbf or have

an of 1.0E-06 ft-lbf. An upper limit of Cmmax =

1 was assumed with Smax =
9
accuracy

sq. inch, and LUnax =

50 ft/sec. For these values, the balance must be able to resolve

3.8E-02 ft-lbf or be accurate to 1.96E-02 ft-lbf. Thus the balance has

approximately

theoretical design requirements to measure loads from 1 .OE-06 ft-lbf to 1 .9E-02

ft-lbf, a

ratio of 19,000:1. Depending on the size of the sliding mass, an

approximately

appropriate maximum and minimum moment range is obtained and can be chosen to

meet test requirements. These values are desired levels of accuracy and assume a

field value of 32.2 ft/sec and a minimum scale resolution of 1/64

standard gravitational

inches.

27
 The same analysis is iterated for the roll moment configuration seen in Figure

3-12. The coefficient of rolling moment is

R
C =

QSb

Equation 3.8

A minimum reference surface area of 2 sq. in, minimum free stream velocity of 27 ft/sec,

and Crmin =
0.001 was assumed. Upper limit values are a maximum reference surface

area of 9 sq. inches, maximum free stream velocity of 50 ft/sec, and Cmiax =
0.15. These

values yield a theoretical design load range from 1.0E-06 ft-lbf to 4.3E-03 ft-lbf or a ratio

of approximately 4300: 1 .

Veins iran-haia in ih<

/firiicol clir^clion

Alrfcil I'M otk.

Lfjrfc.il pi :! [vint

Veins U'.irtslijls -----^

Jp ond dciri
Fr$sire-im v_J:iijr

iFrgceiream yc-tocEy |

Figure 3-12: Rolling Moment Balance

Figure 3-11: Pitching Moment Balance Configuration
Configuration

Note: Coordinate systems based on fixed tunnel reference frame. See section 3.3.1.

28
 Due to the system design, the moment balance is self-centering meaning that it

wants to find its level position. This is because the center of gravity is much lower than

the knife-edge pivot axis. Because data is collected at the level position, moments can be

easily summed and pitch or roll moments are directly measured and corrected due to tare

effects.

Fm Sliding mass force

=

x
=
distance to sliding mass

from pivot
M =
Pitching moment about

airfoil quarter chord

O =
pivot point

UQ

Figure 3-13: Pitch Moment Analysis Diagram

29
 Fm =
Sliding mass force
x
=
distance to sliding mass from
pivot

R =

Rolling moment about airfoil

quarter chord

O =
pivot point

Ua> is into the

paper

Figure 3-14: Roll Moment Analysis Diagram

With the balance in the level position, pitching or rolling moments can be directly

measured and are found to be the product of the sliding mass and its position relative to

the knife edge pivot axis:

M or R =
xFm

Equation 3.9

30
3.4 Test Airfoil Design and Specifications

There are several airfoil profiles used to test the functionality of the prototype

balance devices. To begin, all airfoil profiles were cut from aluminum sheet metal to

their appropriate geometries. Readily available sheet aluminum of various gauges is used

to produce the desired airfoil profiles. The following tables summarize the airfoils used

in this research:

Airfoil (1): Flat Plate la Airfoil (3): 4% Cambered Airfoil

c = 1cm c = 6cm
=
0.0328ft
-

0.1969ft
b = 6.75cm b = 9cm
= 0.2215ft = 0.2953ft
0.0073ft2 0.0581ft2

S = S =

AR = 6.75 AR = 1.5
thickness = 5% thickness = 1%

chamber = 0% camber =
4%

10
Airfoil (2): Flat Plate lb Airfoil (4): Dihedral Airfoil
c = 6cm c = 1cm
= 0.1969ft = 0.0328ft
b = 9cm b = 6.75cm
= 0.2953ft = 0.2215ft
0.0581ft2
0.0073ft2

S = S =

AR = 1.5 AR = 6.75

thickness = 1% thickness = 5%

camber = 0% camber = 0%
10
r =

31
 Airfoil (1) is used in lift and drag balance testing. The geometry matches that of

published works by reference 5. Airfoil (2) is used to calibrate the pitch moment balance.

By collecting data at various angles of attack a theoretical tare moment as a function of

angle of attack is approximated and used as a correction factor for cambered flat plate

data (refer to section 4.2.2). Airfoil (3) is based on geometry data from published works

from reference 21. Lastly, Airfoil (4) is used to test the rolling moment balance

performance. This geometry was chosen due to the ease of approximating the rolling

moment coefficient by analytical calculations and model simulations through a code

called "LinAir". All airfoil profiles are modeled as flat plates with blunt leading and

trailing edges.

32
Chapter 4 Experiment Methods and Design

4. 1 Design of Experiment

The problem addressed in this research is to evaluate the performance of two

prototype balance devices described in Chapter 3. In order to qualify the devices, a

systematic data collection approach and statistical evaluations are involved. The

evaluation process includes an assessment of data uncertainty and analysis of

repeatability in the data acquisition process. A comparison of experimental data to

published values and analytical results is also included as part of the qualification process.

A detailed experiment structure that outlines experiment parameters is the starting

point of experiment planning. Figure 4-1 shows a block diagram representation of the

wind tunnel experiment used as a foundation for the experiment described in this section

[12]. The input vector represents variables such as model angles of pitch and yaw. More

specifically, the angle of attack varies between 0 to 30 degrees in increments of 3 degrees

for both lift and drag experiments. The pitch angle varies between 0 and 12 degrees. And

lastly, the sideslip angle is variable from 0 to 90 degrees. The desired precision of

coefficients of lift and drag is 0.001 while the desired precision of the coefficients of

pitch and roll moment is 0.01 Refer to

. section 3.3 for more details.

33
 Figure 4-1: Diagram of Experiment Elements

The model size, model materials, and balance mass components are examples of

controllable variables of this experiment. As previously mentioned, the design

requirement goal is to have a device easy to incorporate with the RIT wind tunnel and

easy to manufacture. The direct output values obtained by balance devices are length,

measured from a graduated scale. From length measurement and static equilibrium

equations described in chapter 3, output values of forces in the case of the lift/drag

balance and moments, in the case of the pitch/roll balance may be computed. Examples

of components of the uncontrollable factors are the tunnel turbulence level of free stream

velocity, tunnel air temperature and humidity, model deformation effects and human

errors associated in measurement observations. The tunnel operation limits were also

considered a factor of uncontrollable elements in experimental design even though

minimum and maximum ranges were assumed in the prototype design. With the

34
aforementioned variables accounted for, the following experiment methods were

developed.

4.2 Experiment Analysis

Three basic principles in the design of experiments as identified by Montgomery

focused on test planning [13]. These key principles are (1) Replication which refers to

the requirement for much iteration, (2) Randomization which refers producing repeated

iterations from independent random variables, and (3) Blocking which is in effect the

opposite of randomization and used to isolate a particular effect such as power on/power

off experiments. With these principles in mind the following section defines calculation

methods and procedures of the data acquisition process.

4.2.1 Lift and Drag Experiment

To assess the performance of the lift/drag balance, published data and

experiments by Sunada et. al. was chosen as a benchmark for comparison [5]. First, flow

parameters were calculated to meet the wind and water tunnel test parameters
similarity

in the published papers. Also, similar profile airfoils were fabricated with matching

aspect ratio, thickness ratio, and 2D profiles (refer to section 3.4). The experiment device

in Figure 4-2 Figure 4-3 below.

setup for lift/drag testing is shown and

35
 Figure 4-2: Lift Configuration Figure 4-3: Drag Configuration

Ambient conditions were recorded prior to the start of data collection. The

ambient pressure recorded for each case of testing was the value observed at the local

airport. A temperature transducer positioned in the flow of the wind tunnel is used to

check ambient temperatures. Due to the low speeds involved during testing, (Mach

number ~
0.03) static values were assumed to be approximately equal to the total value.

From these values the density of air may be calculated from the ideal gas law and

dynamic viscosity is calculated from Sutherlands correlation. A Type 223 Baratron

general purpose differential pressure transducer is used to measure the total dynamic

pressure of the free stream velocity to an accuracy of approximately 5.3%. From this, a

value of velocity is obtained. For lift testing, the test airfoil and balance apparatus setup

is shown in Figure 4-2. The free stream velocity vector is parallel to the wind system x-

36
axis. The tunnel velocity is increased to match the published data's experiment value of

approximately Re
=
5500. With the balance tared, lift data is collected verses angle of

attack at increments of 3 degrees from 0 to 30 degrees. Each run colleted 10 data points

and a total of 20 runs were taken at angle of attacks of 0, 15, and 30 degrees for statistical

analysis. Data was collected over a period of two to three days in which the devices as

assembled and disassembled for each test period. Refer to Appendix C: for detailed

outline of experiment procedures.

A similar process for data collection was performed for the drag tests with a setup

as shown in Figure 4-3. Again data was collected at varying angles of attack from 0 to 30

degrees in increments of 3 degrees. Twenty runs were collected at angles of attack of 0,

15, and 30 degrees. The variation in drag testing vs. lift testing is the additional inclusion

of the vein drag. To assess the tare drag from the vein, ten runs were measured without a

test airfoil and an appropriate drag value is computed at a Reynolds number of 5500.

This tare value was applied to the moment analysis described in section 3.3.2 and used to

correct the raw drag data. Refer to Appendix C: for a detailed outline of experiment

procedures.

4.2.2 Pitch and Roll Moment Experiment

To analyze the performance of the pitch/roll moment balance published data from

Thomas J. Mueller and analytical models were chosen

experiments by Alain Pelletier and

benchmark for comparison. In the works published by these authors, flat and
as a

cambered plate airfoil profiles with low aspect ratios were tested at Reynolds numbers

37
between 60,000 to 140,000 [3]. Setting up flow similarity parameters involved collecting

ambient conditions data and setting up test parameters similar to the process used in

lift/drag experiment. Again, similar profile airfoils were fabricated with matching aspect

ratio, thickness ratio, and two-dimensional profiles. The experiment device setup for

pitch/roll moment testing is shown in Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5 below respectively. The

free stream velocity of the wind tunnel is parallel to the wind axis x-axis.

Figure 4-4: Pitch Moment Configuration Figure 4-5: Roll Moment Configuration

Ambient conditions were recorded prior to the start of data collection. The

local weather reports and assumed to be

ambient pressure was obtained by airport

A temperature transducer is used to

approximately equal to tunnel ambient
conditions.

38
check tunnel free stream velocity temperatures before, during, and after test runs. Due to

the low speeds at testing static values were assumed to be approximately equal to the

total value. To calibrate the pitch moment balance, a flat plate (airfoil(2) refer to section

3.4) is used. With the tunnel off condition, a calibration plot of moment vs. pitch angle is

used to approximate the moment at balance level position. These values provide a

reference point for data collection at tunnel on condition. In other words, the difference

between moment values calculated at pitch angles with the tunnel on and tunnel off,

yields the raw moment data of the test airfoil. At zero degrees angle of attack, the

pitching moment of a flat plate should be zero. Therefore the calibration of the balance

using a flat plate also revealed a bias tare moment of the device whose value is used as a

data correction factor (see Figure 4-6). Values for approximating the moments and data

correction factor are obtained using methods described in section 4.3.

39
 Flat Plate Moment Calibration -
Zero Velocity
(Value indicates the moment at level positon)

0.06

r--~.._
0.05

c-

~-
^
#
___

0.04

y =
-0.0023X + 0.055 ^

R2
= 0.9843
0)
~__
| 0.03
i
E J
O)

a oo2
b_

1
1
1
I
4 6 8

Angle of Attack, AoA (degrees)

? trial 1 trial 2 trial 3 x trial 4 x trial 5 average + theoretical Linear (average)

Figure 4-6: Flat Plate Moment Calibration Plot (Zero velocity and no airfoil)

Flat Plate Pitching Moment Analysis

(Re =
40,000)

0.0100

0.0000 11 1 ' 1

(1 2 6 8 10 12
.
fl

-0.0100
e
> I

-0.0200

-0.0300 i?

-0.0400

*>
-0.0500

J
-0.0600

Angle of Attack, AoA (degrees)

Flat plate-no correction Linair Results . Flat plate-

data correction

Figure 4-7: Flat Plate Pitching Moment Data

40
 The pitch balance zero angle bias error is found to be 0.015 in-lbf. This value was

obtained from the flat plate pitching moment analysis. It is well known that the pitching

moment about the quarter chord of a flat plate is zero. Knowing this theoretical value

and comparing the difference from experimental values, the above stated difference in

moment was computed and used to correct pitching moment data. Figure 4-7 compares

the experimental pitching moment data corrected for zero angle bias error and LinAir

results. It is promising to see that the balance bias correction factor improves the

correlation between analytical LinAir model and experimental results. However there is

great disagreement at six degrees angle of attack. This may be due to leading edge

vortices and flow separation observed in literature works by Sunada et. al., not modeled

in LinAir. This result is further discussed in Chapter 5.

With the calibration data in hand, the same procedure for a 4% cambered airfoil

(airfoil (3)) is iterated. This data provides a reference moment for data collection at

tunnel on condition for airfoil(3). The input variable for pitch moment testing is pitch

angle and is adjusted by lengthening or shorting a balance vein by the use of a swivel link

(see Figure 4-8). The measured output value is the distance of the sliding mass from the

pivot axis of the knife edge. With these measurements twenty runs at pitch angles of 0, 6,

and 1 1 degrees were recorded. Refer to Appendix C: for procedure outline.

41
 Figure 4-8: Pitch Experiment Test Platform Setup

A simple 10 degree dihedral flat plate, (airfoil (4)) is tested for roll moment

analysis. A single input variable, sideslip angle, is used to obtain an output moment from

the balance device with a zero degree angle of attack. Again, the distance of the sliding

mass from the pivot axis of the knife edge is recorded for various angles and a

corresponding moment calculated. The sideslip angle is adjusted by rotating the swivel

plate through a desired angle deflection. From this information, a moment value is

computed and corrected for balance tare due to drag effects. Data is collected for sideslip

angles of 0, 6, and 9 degrees at an angle of attack of 0 degrees. Refer to Appendix C: for

experiment procedure outline.

42
 The task of assessing the reliability in roll moment data is most challenging.

Published works on low Reynolds flow and roll moment of small airfoils is not yet

readily available. Therefore to test the reliability, analytical approaches outlined in

section 4.3 were implemented. The first method of analysis is a simplified linear

calculation of roll stability. LinAir is also used to provide an approximation to the roll

coefficient. These two methods will be discussed and compared to experimental values.

4.3 Computational Analysis

4.3.1 LinAir

"LinAir"
A software code called is used to model and analytically obtain moment

coefficients as a function of input pitch and sideslip angles of flat plat airfoil geometries.

LinAir is a vortex lattice program for computing the aerodynamic characteristics of

multi-element lifting surfaces. The program can be used to determine the appropriate

wing twist for a new design, the expected performance of a given wing geometry, the

proper angles of incidence for tail or canard surfaces, or the stability characteristics of a

new configuration [14]. For the purpose of this research, LinAir is used to provide

analytical models for the general behavior of moment coefficients of flat plate airfoils.

LinAir solves the Prandtl-Glauert equation, a linear partial differential equation

describing inviscid, irrotational, subsonic flow. The flow is assumed to be (1) inviscid,

(2) fully attached; no separation, (3) low angles of deflection, and (4) thin plate airfoil

geometry. Figure 4-2 is a sample output graphic from LinAir.

43
 Reference Values
Sref: 0XJSB1 v
bref: 0.2953
Xref: Oj0492 Panne I
Yref: OXXXK)
a-ef: 0.0000
Netem: 2
Control
alpha: OjOOOOO
Point
beta: OjOCOOO
pht-fc 0OCO00
fjhat 0.00000
rhat 0.00000
Mach: 000000
W*eLoc: 1.000
reflect: 1
CLRle: CL m.d_t
I enent
FdrceFilefdrces mdat
ElemerrFileSem mxtat

Figure 4-9: LinAir Vortex Panel Method Airfoil

4.3.2 Roll Moment Analysis

The roll moment on an airplane when it starts to sideslip is a function of wing

dihedral and wing sweep, wing position on the fuselage and vertical tail location.

However the greatest effect is from the wing dihedral angle T. A derivative of a roll

stability derivation by Nelson [15] is used to derive an approximation formula for rolling

moment coefficient. The incremental change in roll moment due to a change in lift can

be expressed as

AC, =(ALift)y

Equation 4.1

If the is broken into i along the span, then a summation of lift

lifting surface strips

contributions from zero to i can provide an approximation for wing lift assuming a

uniform lift distribution.

44
 Vv-rtical
Wing profile

Vhoiizontal

Figure 4-10: Dihedral and Roll Moment Profile

For small angles and small angle Vss

sideslip approximation,
=
Vsin(P) ~vp, and Vssn ~

Vpr. The angle of attack is increased by a

~

sin(a) ~
VverticaiA^. The effect of dihedral

angle is in effect to increase alpha, the angle of attack. Therefore, the new angle of attack

due to sideslip and dihedral angle is a + f3T. From this relationship, lift may be defined

as

Lift^Q,S,(Claa)
i

Equation 4.2

where Qa is the 2D lift curve slope and a is equal to a + BT ,

from the above discussion.

Also for a dihedral wing, y-bar may be approximated as b/4. Therefore equation 5.2 may

be shown in coefficient form as

45
 2>.M(C/a/T)
___j ^
= _________

4QSb 4

Equation 4.3

This equation was used to generate

rolling moment coefficient values for a 10

degree dihedral angle, input sideslip angle, and an averaged 2D lift curve slope obtained

from 3D lift data of a similar profile flat plate geometry (see Figure 5-8). A uniform lift

distribution (2D) has been assumed in this analytical technique.

4.4 Statistical Analysis

Two methods are employed in analyzing the sets of experimental data. The first

method is called a student-t analysis and is used to draw inferences of a sample's mean

and standard deviation for small sample populations. As the sample size increases, the

students-t distribution converges to the results of a normal distribution. For n > 100 the t-

distribution and normal distribution are barely distinguishable. The quantity

t- y-vo

/7r
y/n

Equation 4.4 [20]

is called the t-statistic and its distribution is called the student's t. The degrees of

freedom parameter is defined as

46
 df =
n -

1; where n =
number of observations

Equation 4.5

A two tail student's t distribution is applied to force and moment data to quantify a factor

of repeatability. This method provides a 100(l-a)% confidence interval for a sample

population's unknown mean and standard deviation from each data set. The confidence

interval is defined as

"

,
s

/2 Vn

Equation 4.6

Where, df =
n-1 and the confidence coefficient is (1-a). A 95% confidence interval is

calculated from experimental data. Test procedures are outlined in Appendix C: and a

summary of statistical results is found in Appendix D:.

A second method of analysis is a technique for measuring variability on a single

variable coupled with curve fitting techniques used to approximate an unknown mean.

This method is ideal for small sample populations possessing a mound-shaped

distribution. In most cases, a linear curve fit is adequate in approximating a sample data

set. From the curve fit equation, a theoretical mean value is found and assumed to be the

sample's mean. From this assumption, a sample variance is calculated. The equation for

sample variance is

y)2

,, .

Vanance= s
2
= y
> ivrz
, n \

Equation 4.7

47
where y-bar is the theoretical mean calculated from the curve fit equation, n is the

i*
number of observations and y; is the observation in a sample population of size n. The

standard deviation for a sample is defined as

s =
VVariance
Equation 4.8

The following is an example in determining a confidence interval for tare moment

of a flat plate used in the pitching moment experiment. First, pitching moment vs. pitch

angle data is approximated by a linear curve fit (see Figure 4-6). From the linear curve fit,

a theoretical mean value is calculated and used to estimate the sample's variance and

standard deviation from Equation 4.7 and 4-5 at any pitch angle. Given a set of n

measurements possessing a mound-shaped histogram the interval, y-bar 2s contains

approximately 95% of the measurements [20]. Therefore a 95% confidence interval is

calculated for linear or non-linear data sets of small sample sizes whose distribution is

approximately normal.

4.5 Uncertainty Analysis

A method used in Mueller's analysis was developed by Kline and McClintock and

is used to determine the uncertainties in experimental data [2]. This method involves

uncertainties associated with experimental measurements of pressure, temperature,

lengths and the accuracy of measurement instruments [12]. From Equation 3.3 and

Equation 3.4 the following relation is developed for the uncertainty in the coefficient of

48
 "W"
lift. Capital in the following formulas represents error quantities, similar to notation

used in reference 1 1 .

F I 1

LLift Qbc

Equation 4.9

From this equation the force uncertainty (W) is calculated as

2
(dC,WFm^ 2 ^2 rdCLWQ^ 2
wc =
L m
+
rdCLWLm +
fdCLWL/ + |
fdcjvbX facjvc
{
\ 9Fm rrr
,
J \
\ SLm
rn J
,
K dLft j v dQ j db [ dc

Equation 4.10

By dividing by Cl equation 4.6 simplifies to

(tist \ fWQ^
Wr WL
uft
fWb^ fWc^
+ + + +
c, V Fm J \ L"ft J V ^ J \ o ) \c )

Equation 4.11

Similar equations are derived for drag, pitching moment, and rolling moment coefficients

and are shown below.

Error function: Drag coefficient:

(nrr
\2
( WL V (Wb^ fWc^
Wr
fWF^ +
WL
+
drag
+ (WQ} + +

cr F Q V o j \ c J
V ^drag J v -1 J

Equation 4.12

49
 Error function: Pitching moment coefficient:

2
^z^V
Wn rWF.y (Wx WQ
/x2
Wb
(Wc^1

+ + + + 2
C , Fm J ^ x
,Q J \ o J V c )

Equation 4.13

Error function: Rolling moment coefficient

r \2
fWx^2
W,Cr rWQ" (Wc^2

+ + 2
rWbX .

+
c K Fm ,
V x J \ o j V c )

Equation 4.14

"W"
As previously mentioned, the capital represents quantities associated
uncertainty

with equipment accuracy. The following table summarizes the precision in values of each

corresponding variable involved in the above equations.

Table 4.1: Uncertainty of measurement variables

Minimum Resolution/error
Sliding mass =
0.05 Grams
Ruler scale =
1/64 Inches
Vein length =
1/64 Inches
Dyn. Press. =
0.5%
Span =
.001 Inches
Chord =
.001 Inches

From the above derivation, uncertainties in force and moment coefficients are

calculated based on the minimum resolution of experimental equipment shown in table

4.1. The values summarized in table 4.2 for force and moment coefficients assume a

standard gravitational field, a range of sliding mass deviation in length between .01 and 2

inches, and associated dynamic pressure during testing conditions. Similarly, the

50
minimum resolution in force and moments are obtained by moment analysis methods

outlined in section 3.3. The values obtained from the analysis assume a minimum scale

l/64th
resolution of inches and a standard gravitational field value. Refer to table 4.2 for

a summary of the averaged uncertainty results.

Table 4.2: Summary of predicted uncertainty obtained from experimental methods

Uncertainty in. . . Coefficient Force or Moment

Resolution*

Force 0.008 5.0E-05 lbf

Moment 0.002 1.5E-04 in-lbf

*
Nominal Q =
0.8548 psf and S =
0.0073 sq. ft.

51
Chapter 5 Results

5.1 Lift Results

Lift data is collected by methods described in Chapter 4. Figure 5-1 shows the

collected data of angle of attack vs. lift coefficient curve for a flat plate of aspect ratio

6.75 and Reynolds number 5500. To provide perspective of the scale of forces measured

in this experiment (approximately in the order of 10"3lbf), lift force is shown on the

secondary axis and plotted as a solid line. Bright red data points represent the average of

20 runs collected at 3, 15, and 30 degrees. For these angles a 95% confidence interval for

the coefficient of lift is found to be (0.27633, 0.29646), (0.66903, 0.68335), and (0.79533,

0.80734) respectively.

From Equation 4.11, the theoretical value of uncertainty for lift measurements is

found by taking the average uncertainty over the range of eight test runs at angles of

attack between 0 and 30 degrees. It was found that that there is an average deviation of

0.008 based on the values from Table 4.1. The deviation was found to slightly increases

with higher angle of attack and may be attributed to the increased oscillation of the airfoil

and vibration of the balance and wind tunnel system.

52
 Plot of Lift Coefficient and Lift Force vs. Angle of Attack for a Flat Plate
(AR =
6.75 & Re =
5500)
0.006

i 0.005

-sr

0.0004X3 3X2

y
= + -
0.01 + 0.1 58x
R2
= 0.9919
-
0.002

-
0.001

10 15 20 25

Angle of Attack (degrees)

? Data Set 1 Data Set 2 Data Set 3 Data Set 4

X Data Set 5 - Data Set 6 + Data Set 7 Data Set 8

Average Values ? avg. of 20 runs Lift Force - -

Poly. (Average Values)

Figure 5-1: Experimental Values of Lift Force and Coefficient

In Figure 5-2, published data from Sunada et. al. [7] for a flat plate of aspect ratio

6.75 and Reynolds number 4,000 is superimposed with results obtained in this research.

Dark black circles represent the airfoil tested at the prescribed conditions (Re=4000,

airfoil). The experimental data shows good agreement of the lift curve
same geometry

profile with published values. By inspection there is a similar occurrence of a stall region

Sunada et. al. recorded a 3D lift curve

at an angle of attack at approximately 12 degrees.

=
5.5 5 degrees angle of attack. From
slope of 5.8 per radian and (Cl/CdW at

53
experimental data, a 3D lift curve slope of 4.98 per radian (a difference of 9.45%) and an

approximated (CL/CD)max =
5.7 at 5 degrees angle of attack (a difference of 5.56%) was

calculated.

Glauert's calculations approximate the 3D lift curve slope for a rectangular

planform wing with aspect ratio equal to the span divided by chord as

ln
r -

\ + (2IAR)(\ + r)

Equation 5.1

For an aspect ratio of 6.75 and a theoretical 2D lift curve slope value ao=27i, Glauert

found x ~
.165 and 8 ~
0.05 [1 16]. With these values a 3D lift curve slope value of 4.67

per radian is calculated. The experimental value is greater than the theoretical value by

6.6%. Similar results of higher experimental 3D lift curve values were recorded in low

Reynolds flow experiments by Laitone [10].

54
 Plot of Lift Co. fficisnt vt. Anyla of Attack for a Flat Plats
(AR 6.75 8, P.a <*
ESOO)
1

1 1
0 9

-~
*~*^r
_-
.

O.B

<fi-
5 o_e> -
-*-<"""^

J
0 7 r w^-j____f^S

^
i P i

0 6 -
'
' !!
f _y

0.5
/
3x'
y=-5-06..' 0 0004k'- 0 01 0.1 58x
0 4 -

0.3 - -

'-_.

0 2 -

Shaded circles represent a 5% thick flat plate AR =

6.75
/ Shaded triangles represent a 2.5% thick flat plate AR=6.75
0 1 -

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
AiHjt*. ..r Attach .i.*.ji*<. s.

? Data Set 1 Data Set 2 Data Set 3 Data Set 4

Data8et5 -
Data 8et 6 Data Set 7 Data8et8
Average Values ? avg of 20 runs Polv (Average Values)

Figure 5-2: Comparison of Experimental Lift Data to Published Data

(Experiment data- colored foreground & black &

published values -
white background)

5.2 Drag Results

For the same airfoil, drag coefficient and force results are summarized in Figure 5-3. To

provide perspective of the scale of forces measured in this experiment (approximately in

the order of 10"3lbf), lift force is shown on the secondary axis and plotted as a solid line.

Bright red data points represent the average of 20 runs collected at 0, 15, and 30 degrees.

For these angles a 95% confidence interval for the coefficient of lift is found to be

(0.02898, 0.03612), (0.26593, 0.27384), and (0.54818, 0.55887) respectively.

55
 Coefficient of Drag and Drag Force vs. Angle of Attack for a Flat Plate
(AR =
6.75 & Re =
5500)

0.60

i To
0 50
t

.A.

0 0025 c

0 0020 o
IL
Ol
ra
-
0.0015 Q

0 0010

9E-05X"

y
= + 0.01 51 x + 0.0251
R2

? 0 9988
=

X
>o
10 15 20

Angle of Attack (degrees)

Data Set 1 Data Set 2 Data Set 3 x Data Set 4

Data Set 5 ? Data Set 6 Data Set 7 -
Data Set 8
? average value ? avg of 20 runs -
Drag Force Poly, (average value)

Figure 5-3: Experimental Drag Data

Experiment results are superimposed with published data from Sunada et. al. [5]

in Figure 5-4. The un-shaded white triangles represent an airfoil of aspect ratio 6.75 and

Reynolds number of 4000. By observation there appears to be good agreement between

experimental and published values. A zero lift CD was found to be 0.033 vs. 0.045

published by Sunada et. al. The theoretical drag coefficient error calculated from

Equation 4.12, is found to be an average of 0.003 throughout the operation range of

This value is obtained by taking the average error from the first
drag measurements.

eight test runs at angles of attack between 0 and 30 degrees.

56
 Coefficient of Drag and Drag Force vs. Angle of Attack for a Flat Plate
(AR = 6.75 8. Re =
5500)

0 50 -|

0.45 Un-shaded triangles represent a 5% thick flat plate AR =

6.75
Un-shaded circles represent a 2.5% thick flat plate AR=6.75
0 40

0 35

030

025
j .

020

0 15 -y^-g_Ki5'

+ C
FP =
0.9988

0 10

0 05 ;--

0 00 -I

8 10 12 20

i.nc)le of Attack (degrees)

Data Set 1 Data Set 2 Data Set 3 .

Data Set 4

? Data Set 5 ? Data Set 6 Data Set 7 -

Data Set 6

average value avg of 20 runs - -

Poly, (average value)

Figure 5-4: Comparison of Experimental Drag Data to Published Data

(Experiment data-colored foreground & published values -

black & white background)

57
5.3 Pitch Moment Results

Pitching moment data was obtained

by methods described in Chapter 4. Level

moment tare values were subtracted from the total moment obtained
during testing as a

correction factor to account for the shift in the airfoil's center of at respective
gravity

angles of attack (see Figure 4-6 for moment tare calibration plot).
Also, a correction

factor for balance zero angle bias (refer to section 4.2.2) was applied to the raw data.

Figure 5-5 is a summary of experimental results for pitching moment and coefficients.

The secondary axis of Figure 5-5 shows the magnitude of moments analyzed in low

Reynolds flow and small airfoil geometries.

Pitching Moment and Coefficient vs. AoA

for a 4% Chambered Flat Plate
(AR = 1.5 and Re = 40,500)

0.00 0
& 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2O

-0.05 -
-0.005

?
* f

E
I
i
a
c

-0 20 -
-0 02

-
-0.25 -0.025

Angle of Attack (degress)

? Pitching moment coeff. a Pitching Moment

Figure 5-5: Experiment Pitching Moment Data

58
 Alain Pelletier and Thomas Mueller published data on a 4% chambered flat plate

with an aspect ratio of 1 .5 and Re =

60,000. Figure 5-6 shows a comparison between

corrected experimental results (blue diamonds) and published values (un-shaded white

diamonds). The data comparison shows good agreement at the higher pitch angles tested

however at a zero angle of attack there is approximately a 43% difference in value. This

large deviation in value may be attributed to the setup of the airfoil prior to testing. A

slight initial negative pitch angle may be attributed to a percentage in error of the first

reading. A finer resolution in pitch angle data collection is required to better analyze

effects at the zero angle location. It is promising however that data has been repeatedly

collected by the prescribed process. It may be a fact that there is a bias factor not taken

into consideration. The theoretical uncertainty analysis of pitching moment values shows

an average error of 0.002, computed by methods described in section 4.4.

59
 Pitching Moment Coefficient vs. AoA for a 4% Chambered Flat Plate
(AR 1.5 Re
~

and =
40.500)

0.00!
1B 20

-0.05

/\
-0.10

-.20
Un-shaded diamonds represent a 4% cambered airfoil AR=1.5
Un-shaded triangles represent a 4% cambered airfoil AR=3

0.26

Ali'lle 'tt An.uk lile tHeosl

?Avg. of 20 runs

Figure 5-6: Pitching Moment Experimental and Published Values

(Experiment data- colored foreground & black &

published values -

white background)

5.4 Roll Moment Results

There is a lack of published information on low Reynolds flow and roll moment

coefficients for very small airfoils. Therefore to assess the performance of the rolling

moment balance, a 10 degree dihedral airfoil was chosen for several reasons. First, testing

a similar flat plat airfoil profile with aspect ratio of 6.75 provided a means for calculating

an approximate value of the rolling moment coefficient by use of the 2D lift curve slope

obtained from experimental data. Secondly, the previously discussed computational

program called
"LinAir"
provided another means to estimate the rolling moment

60
coefficient of flat plate airfoils (refer to section 4.3.2). Figure 5-7 shows the moment and

coefficient of roll for a 10 degree dihedral, 6.75 aspect ratio flat plate.

Rolling Moment & Coefficient for a 10 Degree Dihedral Airfoil

(AR = 6.75 & Re =
6800)

0.005 -i
-
0.0002

i) -_
-
J 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 0
-

*^

"^ ^
-v

V.
-
-0.0002
-
- o
v

-
-
^

^ T
^ ^ y
=
-0.004X + 0.0006
" R-*
->
,_,
= 0.9935
a
-
-0.0006

^^
"1 -
-0.0008

1
-
-0.04

-
- -0.001
-0.045

, Sideslip Angle (degrees)

Roll Moment Coeff. Roll Moment Linear (Roll Moment Coeff.)

Figure 5-7: Experimental Data; Rolling Moment

By comparing hand calculations, LinAir, and experimental values, it is clear that

is increased. It is apparent that the hand

there is a huge deviation as the sideslip angle

calculation overestimates the roll moment coefficient due to the inaccuracies of the

formula high angles of and the big assumption of a uniform lift distribution.
at sideslip

from lift testing of a high aspect

Also, an unusually high 3D lift curve slope obtained

low Reynolds number attribute to a percent of the deviation.

ratio airfoil at may

61
 Conversely LinAir shows a better agreement to experimental values with a

deviation of approximately 14% at the maximum sideslip angle tested compared to a 47%

deviation from hand calculated values. It should be noted that the only calibration of the

balance is the tare comparison conducted with the wind tunnel on and no airfoil, and with

the tunnel on and airfoil present. This analysis investigates bias error in the balance

design. An unknown bias error due to yaw effects may attribute to the deviation seen in

the results. Flow separation and leading edge vortex effects as seen by Sunada et. al. in

flow visualization experiments [5] may also cause discrepancies between experimental

and analytical results.

Rolling Moment for a 10 Degree Dihedral Airfoil

0.005 -

oi
10
() ^-T^r]--^^ 23456789

-
-0.005
"
~~ """ ~
R2
- -
-^ -
-T -
_
=
0.9935

-
-0.01

"""""- a__.
"

-
^
.
^ ~~--__ y
= -0.0024X

R*
-
3E-05
-0.015 '
- .
"""--__. "---_ = 0.9999
o_
O
-
-0.02

-
-0.025 ~_
"

_k

^
*

-0.03

-
-0.035

R2=1

-0.04

p, Sideslip Angle (degrees)

Linear (Experimental) Linear (Hand Calc.) Linear (Linair)

0 Experimental HandCalc. A Linair

Analytical Models
Figure 5-8: Roll Moment Coefficient Comparison to

62
 5.5 Uncertainty in Measurements
Sections 4.4 and 4.5 outline the two methods employed to assess the of
uncertainty

experimental data. The target design goal was to design a force and moment balance

with a precision of 0.001 for force and moment coefficients respectively. However

from the post analysis of experimental data it was found that the target precision could

not be achieved. At best, force coefficients were measurable to a precision of 0.006

and moment coefficients to a precision of 0.004. These values are obtained from the

student-t analysis and 95% confidence interval with 19 degrees of freedom. These

uncertainties correspond to a force resolution of 4.0E-05 lbf and a moment resolution of

2.2E-04 in-lbf, extremely small values. These force and moment values were found to be

the minimum resolution of the sliding mass and beam system. Table 5.1 shows these

measured uncertainties compared to the actual predicted uncertainties from equipment-

specific error (discussed in section 4). The results show close agreement between

predicted and actual error.

Table 5.1: Comparison of Uncertainty Analysis Techniques

Uncertainty 95% Confidence Interval

(Average value) From Uncertainty (Student-t)
Table 4.2
cF 0.008 0.006
^m 0.002 0.004

The underlying principle in the acquisition of experimental data is that no

measurement can be known to provide the true result. Thus the purpose for statistical

analysis of data to draw inferences on the population mean and deviation is required and

63
provides a means to
quantify error associated with experiment methods.
However, the

systematic or bias errors are sources that are most difficult to quantify. The best attempt

to quantify contributions of bias error was done by comparing the lift coefficient at zero

degrees angle of attack and the pitching moment coefficient at zero degrees of a plat plate.

It is known that the theoretical value of both for flat is

coefficients a plate zero. By

comparing the deviation between experimental and theoretical values an approximation

of bias error was calculated and assumed to influence the whole data set. Other

contributions to bias error may be investigated from by a comparison of experimental

data to published values. At best, the value obtained can be used as an approximate

estimate of bias uncertainty. However, published values may or may not be correct. This

may well be the case in comparing works that involve different fluid mediums for testing.

For example, water tunnel data at high speeds are dominated by high pressure forces,

whereas at low speeds viscous forces are dominant. The influence of these effects may

not provide an appropriate basis for comparison.

64
Chapter 6 Summary
Through research and experimental investigation, prototype models of

aerodynamic load balances have been designed and tested. A series of wind tunnel

experiments successfully provided data to evaluate the performance of each device. A

brief overview of balance specifications and performance is summarized. The force

balance has a design criterion to measure force coefficients of small airfoils to a

resolution of 0.001 at a range of forces from approximately 3.0E-06 lbf to 1.25E-01 lbf.

The uncertainty analysis of the collected data showed that the actual resolution in force

coefficients was slightly higher, approximately in the order of 0.006. Theoretical design

device precision was not achieved. However, through experimental data, it is found that

there is good agreement with values published by Sunada et. al. There is at most, 12%

deviation in lift coefficient values at the stall region angles of attack between 12 and 15

degrees. At all other angles tested the deviation was found to be less than 6%. An

experimental value of 3D lift curve slope was found to deviate by 9.5% to published

vales and 6.6% to numerical value derived by Glauert [16]. A similar drag analysis

revealed a maximum deviation between experimental and published values of

lift to drag ratio from experimental data was found

approximately 8%. Also, a maximum

to be 5.7 at 5 degrees angle of attack. This value deviates by 5.56% to a value of 5.5 at 5

Sunada 5]. The simple knife/fulcrum system

degrees angle of attack published by et. al

designed is able to accurately measure lift and drag forces on small airfoils within

experimental uncertainty.

65
 Table 6.1: Summary of Lift and Drag Force Results
Max Drag Max Lift Coeff. 3D lift curve (L/D)max
Coeff. Deviation Deviation slope

Exp. 7% 12% at stall region 4.98/rad 5.7 @5

Data degrees AoA
Published 5.8/rad 5.5 @ 5
Data degrees AoA

The moment balance is designed to measure roll and pitching moments of test

airfoils. It has a design target moment coefficient resolution of 0.001 and measure

moments between a range of approximately 1.0E-06 ft-lbf to 1.9E-02 ft-lbf . It was

found however that due to the vibration of the tunnel wall at higher velocities a minimum

resolution of moment coefficient of 0.001 could not be met by adjusting the weight of the

sliding mass. From the statistical analysis an uncertainty value of 0.004 was measured.

Theoretical design coefficient uncertainty could not be achieved. However, comparison

of experimental values with published works [21] showed good agreement at higher pitch

angles (approximately 10% deviation). A large disagreement was found in the pitching

moment coefficient at zero degrees pitch angle, approximately a 43% difference. This is

for flat (Figure 4-7),

puzzling due to the fact that the moment coefficient profile a plate

follows a similar pattern. In fact, pitching moment coefficients published by Pelletier at

Reynolds number of
8xl04
shows a similar pattern in which pitching moment is near zero

at zero degrees angle of attack and a local maximum at about 6 degrees angle of attack

for a flat plate [21]. More work is required to confirm the pitch coefficient values

obtained near zero degrees angle of attack.

66
 Comparison of roll moment data yielded results that need to be further

investigated. The method used to approximate an analytical solution to the roll

coefficient is far from perfect in comparing it to the data It

actual collected during tests.

is believed that flow separation leading

and edge vortices are occurring in test

experiments as seen by flow visualization tests by Sunada et al. These occurrences are

not modeled in analytical methods. It is however promising to obtain a similar plot

profile between experimental and analytical results. Refer the table below for a summary

and comparison of results.

Table 6.2: Summary of Pitch and Roll Moment Results

Max pitching moment Max rolling moment

deviation deviation
Published Values 43% at low AoA N/A
10% at high AoA
LinAir (3D) N/A 14%
Calculated Values (2D) N/A 47%

Lastly, the ability of the fabricated balance devices was found to be highly

repeat-able in collecting data. Confidence interval obtained from a student's t statistical

analysis was on the same order of magnitude of quantization error. For example,

measuring a confidence interval of (0.2763, 0.2965) is on the same order of uncertainty

obtained from analytical techniques described in section 4.5. This is a promising result

that indicates a repeatable process.

The initial alignment and setup is crucial in obtaining data with minimum bias errors

and friction effects. The results contained in this thesis are a good springboard for the

next iteration goals of measuring full scales MAV's.

67
Chapter 7 Future Recommendations

As previously mentioned, this thesis is a good starting point for continued research

into modifying the balance prototypes for MAV applications. There are minor changes to

be made to the aerodynamic load balances, which will allow for more accurate and easily

operable devices.

The ease of machinability and performance of the lift/drag balance is acceptable to

within experimental uncertainty. However, there are design areas that may be improved

upon. First, it is found that vibration becomes a problem as the angle of attack is

increased beyond approximately 20 degrees. This observation is very apparent as the

tunnel free stream velocity is increased beyond what was tested in this research.

Depending on the range of testing, increasing the mass of the knife pendulum assembly

may easily accommodate the levels of vibration disturbance. By adding mass below the

center of gravity of the knife assembly, the system will also have a tendency to obtain a

level position (see figure 7-1).

Figure 7-1: Balance design with added mass

68
 Other options to investigate include incorporating an oil pot-damping device to

manage the dynamic motion of the system. Secondly, the bubble level used to indicate

the null position, although functional, may be replaced by a more accurate measuring

device. A laser and target indicator mounted on a far wall should provide better visual

resolution and ease the data collection process. Linear differential transformers are

another option, which is used in larger balance applications and can detect the

equilibrium state. Lastly, if a finer visual resolution of angle of attack is required, the

protractor can be replaced by an angle caliper or anglemometer to ease data collection.

This will further provide accuracy in measuring changes in angle of attack to 0. 1 degrees

if necessary.

There are similar points to improve the design of the pitch/roll moment balance

prototype. The level indicator and methods for increasing the mass of the knife

pendulum assembly previously mentioned can be applied to this design. A notable effect

in performance seems to be attributed to the increased drag seen by the balance veins.

With the current setup, the device experiences a yawing effect due to the uneven

distribution of drag forces on the test assembly. A way of countering this effect may be

"T"

to rearrange the y-bar test platform into a or equiangular formation. A second effect

seen at higher tunnel velocities is the lifting of the test platform. Weight was added to the

y-bar test platform in order to keep the test airfoils from floating. Using a denser metal

fabrication solve this problem. Lastly, the vein used to hold the
for the part can easily

into position is effective, however at the cost of additional frictional effects. A

airfoil

redesign of the vein to easily adjust the height of the rod at various angles would be

69
beneficial in order to ease data collection. A mounting scheme in which the test platform

is secured to the lower tunnel wall may prove to be a better support method.

Pitch angle adjustment is controlled by rotating a clevis on a threaded rod. This

clevis also introduces additional drag and is not able to accurately resolve pitch angles

below 0.3 degrees. A more accurate angle indicator is required if finer angle adjustment

is required.

70
Appendix A: Lift/Drag Balance CAD Drawings

Figure A-l: Force Balance Assembly Drawing

71
 : uj
t
i

^j o
V -O

Vfc <

[
___/

i ~~JL
I- ~ ~^^^

j.
\ f^j '

-
-i

t5h?i-
?
t Hi i v ;.
*

Is .5 ti t 5 S I t

r
1
i
i
* __

r j _. ? i j s ;

rv
T-

i _____

1
1

pig
#5
1

Figure A-2: Lift & Drag Balance Knife Wedge

72
 o
*
S * j:
.,
_e
^
o -l
5 5 ar -t
|
ri

SJ

Li

Figure A-3: Lift & Drag Balance Swivel Plate

73
 ij_i
G-'

'
LU
'-'"'

' __
-i i -

' >
C. _i -

o
T
: i

1
1
irf ir4 ~~&
r Cl
ii -

-f
ili\

~
JJ =
J .

I3_A
'

J*.

~: _i J-

___:
=

Figure A-4: Lift & Drag Balance V-Block

74
 -, B =.

43 i:* si

i ^

a
f -3.
$

= _i____I__________

->_:

*L

-crfc 7^
, &
0_ '~r
^ .

X ^ :s*.
v*-

:S. ;"n*
<_.--*-

._.
"
,-I-f
I JU
'
1 r <_. .**.

J"B.> ~
__
S___ .1 .

o *
J _^

IX.
>*"

,,
-5
'<
;j -_. '- ''"'

Figure A-5: Lift & Drag Balance Base Plate

75
 X

FT

::

Si' .;'.

I
s .
_ n
]'

o-
1^

s
o
191

/
t-
m 1

Figure A-6: Lift & Drag Balance Protractor Bracket

76
Appendix B: Pitch/Roll Moment Balance CAD Drawings

Figure B-l: Moment Balance Assembly Drawing

77
 X

<or

UJ -J
<
1/J^-J

< o <
______ jj

-o

g .
-___, X
1 i
_n

*< --.

-->
_j

_l -..
_JU
i/*:

___-

i
* \\
*"". Ll.
rt. u-
t~*l L.' ____

X
*"""_:
W & __L.

e. -r
<! :
-8
..

: r~
_-! i ,

4 i!

_
H'
i"*.
-

Figure B-2: Pitch & Roll Moment Balance Base Plate

78
 uC

j^
E. -

e__
i _

"V
*
_r .
I
U-

/
1 P
*
\1 < ;_

^ _> <
_j

a__ i_ c <
:_". c: cn
V
_s

*
J
\ *_/
"

- *
*_
i1

:
- J!
..-
I **
~ _. r i.
'*' ''

0 3 S
| -

i?

fn ||f'.?.?

'"-
r,0

M _=_

-'
r_
*--_

*____! /
__r
*"**
-ti

r-i O ^
c
_r

c^
\. <l -

^^ ^ /
_3
...
,
_______^J*k_|
?/ &<^^

^Af S ;. ^,:?_ >

1. py\ t*
* a ^K
-

,
-
__
*

//
=1
f^l r _s
* d *
-m ?
- -
=
'

r
_L/

VJ |
JF V\ 8
_

*!.'
f

1 ;'3|
T HI T J.
_ I
p
________
X_. JJ 1
^*tJ ft

^* r^l
__r
*
1

JPLr .= _>

^*-fc_ '~
-J

-^__f!_5lf
u- ._.
-__
5W
<_. V 1
_

2s. 53 -'. _j

r
f-. x _?

j& i

f
>.. -Si
"? _
;-- -

Figure B-3: Pitch & Roll Moment Balance Swivel Plate

79
 JJ ">

_ v _

I ? r, - * :
R*i

_._..

^ 3$. "-O 8
v-i
--C-

Q
.0

r. *:_ __

Figure B-4: Pitch & Roll Moment Balance Knife Wedge

80
 _i

i
-".UJ

v-^ .
_/\ .

/? ___o

//
/
/^ 5 ^
<
//
fi
X-J
i<
^3-
vv

u/>
\V7 <
-y

W _____:

*
xS
<

</
V
-

h
> 3 _

?i
i__
S ..
"
i
_n __. !
'? g S
h
. __

- r"l
er l**.^ ' !*i'

* 0 I
i*i _z

-J^Tj*

-C. "1/
U-
U- r-. LL.
*"_
Q-
~

"
-j
r:
I?'
'' ^--
i/.

%- fe ":
= -'

:.!
Sift ": _-

is*
>: .*.-

<
/ r. .^
i ::
-
i
o -_r

i-

/ j>

f~*
C>
M
i1 ' [

"--.

Jm
T
4
F
on

'-_"!
"_<
*""
c^i
I";
'5.
_

_~.

H- ^__N*
41 ""- ~ ~
_ *T^i r^-
1
~_

5;
-.01

"

Figure B-5: Pitch & Roll Moment Balance h-bar

81
 X

<5rv
V. v__
"

<S ~?

: ___

f _y
jj
"

;il r
*'
* '

-
<

~
s :;
| ., .
;
r,
.-i

'_.

% -
: * .:. rt 3. j
* : _
-}
5 -.-
5 '?: -.
i
~

fee
E J.

Figure B-6: Pitch & Roll Moment Balance V-block

82
 U

_f

*_>

_l

__;:__

< 2:

__:

-JJ

*J

i|#;'
*

Figure B-7: Pitch & Roll Moment Balance Y-bar

83
Appendix C: Experiment Procedures Document

Lift Data Collection Procedures

1 . Turn on the VLMX pressure transducer equipment at least 30 minutes prior to

collection of data. Flip the big red lever, fan switch, and chiller switch to the on

position.

2. Call airport information center to obtain ambient pressure and temperature.

3. Set-up the balance for lift data collection; see Figure 3-4.

4. Secure the balance device to the top of the wind tunnel panel and lock down the
two machine screws such that the balance is zeroed at 90 degrees.

5. Use the small tare mass to level the balance (wind tunnel off).

6. Attach the airfoil to the knife and vein assembly; the airfoil should be parallel to
the flow.

7. Check to ensure the balance level indicator is still centered.

8. Adjust the tunnel velocity to match the Reynolds number flow speed for testing.

9. Run the tunnel for 10 minutes; obtain a steady operation temperature.

10. Collect data starting at zero degrees angle of attack and incrementing by three
degrees until 30 degrees is reached. At each angle, the position of the sliding mass
on the scale is recorded at balance level position.

1 1 This is the last step in completing the first iteration of lift data collection. Next
.

repeat step 10 to collect 20 data points at 3, 15, and 30 degrees AoA.

12. Record at least 5 data points at all other AOAs.

13. Shut down equipment when done.

84
Drag Data Collection Procedures

1 . Turn on the VLMX pressure transducer equipment at least 30 minutes prior to

collection of data. Flip the lever, fan switch, to the on
big red and chiller switch

position.

2. Call airport information center to obtain ambient density, temperature, and

viscosity?

3. Set-up the balance for drag data collection; see Figure 3-5.

4. Use the small tare mass to level the balance (wind tunnel off).

5. Attach the airfoil to the knife and vein assembly; the airfoil should be parallel to
the flow.

6. Adjust the tunnel velocity to match the Reynolds number desired for testing.

7. Run the tunnel for 10 minutes; obtain a constant operation temperature.

8. Collect data starting at zero degrees angle of attack and incrementing by 3 degrees
until 30 degrees is reached. At each angle, the position of the sliding mass on the

scale is recorded at balance level position.

9. This is the last step in completing the first iteration of drag data collection. Next
repeat step 8 to collect 20 data points at 0, 15, and 30 degrees Angle of attack.

10. Record at least 5 data points at all other AOAs.

1 1 Turn . off equipment when done.

Note: Vein drag tare data is assumed to be known prior to collecting drag data on test
airfoils.

85
Pitching Moment Experimental Procedures Document

1 . Turn on the VLMX pressure transducer equipment at least 30 minutes prior to

collection of data. Throw the fan switch,
big red lever, and chiller switch.

2. Call airport information center to obtain ambient density, temperature, and

viscosity?

3 .
Set-up the balance for pitching moment data collection; see Figure 3-11.

4. Mount test airfoil and tare balance to indicate level position. (Wind tunnel off)

5. Adjust the tunnel velocity to match the Reynolds number for desired testing speed.

6. Run the tunnel for 10 minutes; obtain a constant operation temperature.

7. Collect data starting at zero degrees pitch angle, increment to 6 degrees, then

lastly 1 1 degrees. May also alternate between maximum to minimum pitch angle

to provide variability and assess hysteresis effects. At each angle, the position of

the sliding mass on the scale is recorded at balance level position.

8. Repeat step 7 to collect 20 data points at 0, 6, and 1 1 degrees Angles of attack.

9. Turn off equipment when done.

Note: Calibration data for pitch moment configuration is assumed to be known prior to

collecting pitch moment data on test airfoils. Refer to section 4.2.2.

86
Rolling Moment Experimental Procedures Document

1 . Turn on the VLMX pressure transducer equipment at least 30 minutes prior to

collection of data. Throw the fan switch,
big red lever, and chiller switch.

2. Call airport information center to obtain ambient density, temperature, and

viscosity?

3. Set-up the balance for rolling moment data collection; see Figure 3-12Figure 3-11.

4. Mount test airfoil and tare balance to indicate level position. (Wind tunnel off)

5. Adjust the tunnel velocity to match the Reynolds number for desired testing speed.

6. Run the tunnel for 1 0 minutes; obtain a constant operation temperature.

7. Collect data starting at zero degrees sideslip angle, increment to 6 degrees, then
lastly 9 degrees. May also alternate between maximum to minimum pitch angle to
provide variability and assess hysteresis effects. At each angle, the position of the

sliding mass on the scale is recorded at balance level position.

8. Repeat step 7 to collect 20 data points at 0, 6, and 9 degrees sideslip angles.

9. Turn off equipment when done.

Note: Calibration data for pitch moment configuration is assumed to be known prior to

collecting pitch moment data on test airfoils. Refer to section 4.2.2.

87
Appendix D: Statistical Analysis

Lift Data Statistical Analysis Drag Data Statistical Analysis

Histogram of Lift- 3 AoA Histogram of Drag -

0 AoA
(v_th 95% .-confidence interval forth* meant (with 95% .-confidence Interval for the mean)

S -
I 7

6-
5 -

5-
A __________

0)
8- J

2-
LL

0 . 1 1 I il I L_
[-.- i

3 25 0 26 0 27 0 2B 0 29 0 30 0 31 0 32 0 33 0 34 0 045
0 015 0 020 0 025 0 030 0 035 0 040

Drag -
0 AoA

Figure D-l Figure D-4

Histogram of Lift- 1 5 AoA Histogram 1 5 AoA

of Drag -

(with 95% (-confidence interval for the mean)

6-
|
5-
|
4-

u
3-
s
3 i
2-
J.

i
o ! J I ..

i 1 1 1 r
0 6? 0 68 0 69 0 70 0 71
0.255 0 260 0.265 0 270 0.275 0.280 0 285 0 290

Drag -
1 5 AoA

Figure D-2 Figure D-5

Histogram of Drag -
30 AoA
Histogram of Lift- 30 AoA (with 95% .-confidence interval for the mean)

7-

e-

5-

4-

__

3-

i 2-

I ,. 1 -

0- n n
n~i
0 530 0 535 0 540 0 545 0 550 0 555 0 560 0 565 0 570

0 808 0 811 0 818 0 8_l 0 828 0 831

0 788 0 791 0 798 0 801
Drag -
30 AoA

Figure D-6
Figure D-3

88
T Confidence Intervals

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95.0 % CI

Lift -

3 20 0.28639 0.02151 0.00481 ( 0.27633, 0.29646)

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95.0 % CI

Lift -
15 20 0.67619 0.01531 0.00342 ( 0.66903, 0.68335)

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95.0 % CI

Lift -

30 20 0.80134 0.01283 0.00287 ( 0.79533, 0.80734)

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95.0 % CI

Drag
-

0 20 0.03255 0.00762 0.00170 ( 0.02898, 0.03612)

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95.0 % CI

Drag
-

1 20 0.26988 0.00845 0.00189 ( 0.26593, 0.27384;

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95.0 % CI

Drag
-
3 20 0.55353 0.01141 0.00255 ( 0.54818, 0.55887)

Note: Minitab is used for statistical analysis.

89
Pitching Moment Statistical Analysis Rolling Moment Statistical Analysis

Histogram of Pitch -
0 AoA Histogram of Roll -
0
(vsth 95% t-con_lef_e Nerval for the mean) (wrth 95% t-confldence Interval for the mean)

I I

-0.003 41002 -0001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0 003

Roll-0

Figure D-10
Figure D-7

Histogram of Roll -
6
Histogram of Pitch -
6 AoA
(vsrth 9Mb t-cor_der_e nterval tor the mean)
(wth 95% t-ccrrtijence nerval for the mean)

1-

"I 1 1

Figure D-8 Figure D-ll

Histogram of Pitch -
1 1 AoA Histogram of Roll 9
{with 95% t-confidence interval for the mean) (with 95% t-confidence interval for the meen}

g. 4-

c
3"
3

2-

1 1 1 ' '
1
-0.075 -0 070
0.095 -0.090 -0.085 -0.080

Figure D-9 Figure D-12

90
T Confidence Intervals

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95.0 % CI

Pitch -

20 -0.05750 0.00646 0.00144 (-0.06052,-0.05448)

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95.0 % CI

Pitch -

20 -0.09169 0.00735 0.00164 (-0.09513,-0.08824)

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95.0 % CI

Pitch -

20 -0.07622 0.00585 0.00131 (-0.07895,-0.07348)

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95.0 % CI

Roll -

0 20 0.00003 0.00123 0.00027 (-0.00054, 0.00061)

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95.0 % CI

Roll -
6 20 -0.01090 0.00176 0.00039 (-0.01173,-0.0100.

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95.0 % CI

Roll 9 20 -0.01835 0.00176 0.00039 (-0.01917,-0.01752)

Note: Minitab is used for statistical analysis.

91
Appendix E: Excel Data Charts
US'
igSlsg I 8 1 5

!58! : S2 ?!
S |
s 3 8
laaic 11 s s a
s F.
S3 _

s
S fi
i 1 __

a *
i3 s ji 5 __

s !
S s 3
s
: 3
1
":

11 S3
1 3
1
=T Pi :-
5 1 i s

s
s ?! E_ Si
i I 1 ?
_

s
5 .

i
i.
1 s _

5 S " 5 a
1 s
l
s
i s fa i 2 s
s

s
s.
s
i
S3 2 1

i5 5
9 FS s
s s 5

a
s
5 1 i
S. 3
2 1

aB
s
i 1 S3 :: -:
"- s ff _

II
"
s ?- c s 3
i V
Pi g ' _

325 ':
5
i 11 i. s s
1 S_ 5S

3
S K
1
S3 3
1 !: s. s
? s a

5 s 1 C. 3 g SS
s
SS
_
PI s *
|
II
s s S3
s ?Is 3 g E
1i S
_.

I
_j

a S
g 2g
s E ff s
s
5 J. r 52
I 5
Ji
I1 i
s
s s .
S3
g s G. 1. s.
I 3 ^ _

1
:
il
e ___
I
e
;;. s 3 S ff
8 ;
--

S3
8-
5 g gf5 iS
-
5 _

s _

lilt |
i _ :
i ?J
I 1(
[ :
-5

IIIII-Ssb I
-lit

f f

Table E.l: Lift Data Spreadsheet

92
 rSS.

i5gg : 3 3} _

_ s: s.

?g

||.
S 8
3 a
Ie
U. *
II k
fl
I In. S Q 5
Q. Q. t A \
5". Sift
Hill-: f_
s -| ^ js a a
__

I S 3 .e e e

lllifl I!

Table E.2: Drag Data Spreadsheet

93
 S Sii

si sa 3 S!

I I t-

to
J *
1 i
a I

_
i1 'Hi
3 S 5
3

.
|1
5
i3 r
1
| (=
I

|S ~ gl

I * if, j i-i ll
|| I 111, _
S-J
iii
f!ij!f
-e o_!!*._;4-_i-"!e_-_;i

|fl,.?j |_!8i8JHs____S_._.8 1 1 1
II
111
i| 111
I
| .8
I
3-
c ffiiliifffi .saws
ai i?e|s
;sa

j aa| gs
.g-^-o.gS^s^-o^-o-D.gs^s

1 1 i- 1 I i- 1 1 s I il
111
ij
E i^liisi
s
__.
? a c s o
"""
!
s
-S____Sc>io= EH__I
?Il|sl|lslU|II5
Ii = =
_-__. ^^q Is 1 Iii
111s ill Si is ill I S 1 Sf E S a _a

?: w . ; i a3J iJ 1 S | | | | 1

Table E.3: Pitching Moment Spreadsheet (1 of 2)

94
 se t s_
@ S 6
c? c? ^?

_S

m
1

'% s
s s -s

S3 3 -

-_j a 2
1 =

J
Moment Spreadsheet (2 of 2)
Table E.4: Pitching

95
 *? a.
SS 55
JgSSi

22
illii _ 9 =?

5 S !
gig'

__
88

i ess
r3
| I_3
2
"
o o o

lis
_F2 ess
I |! o o o
-

g |

is1. II
111000 III
i| si

> 5.5

lljl! r

ii i_D E

il
e 1
4
J

ll I a? i 1 | 9 S 9 __ J
III ^ -__ a "S. <i
8*

I Mil*? p 5 _
I1J3 J5 3J i
fc t
I i
lit 11
l"l I 3 i J E E HS
iii ill a e
a ._

!?___?
g
I
_

3
_

III J-fo s >

Moment Spreadsheet
Table E.5: Rolling

96
Reference

1 .
Kroo, I., Kunz, P. J., Meso-Scale Flight and Miniature Rotorcraft
and
Development,"
Proceedings of the Conference on Fixed, Flapping and Rotary
Vehicles at Very Low Reynolds Numbers, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
IN, 2000, pp. 184-196.

2. Mueller, J. Thomas, "Aerodynamic Measurements at Low Reynolds Numbers for

Fixed Wing Micro- Air Vehicles", University of Notre Dame, Sept. 1999, pp. 1-30

3 .
Pelletier, A., Mueller, J. T., "Low Reynolds Number Aerodynamics of Low-Aspect-
Ratio, Thin/Flat/Cambered-Plate Wings". Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 37, No. 5, 2000,
pp. 825-832.

4. Jacobs, E. N., Sherman, A. "Airfoil Section Characteristics as Affected by

Number,"
Variations of the Reynolds NACA. TR-586 (1 937).

5. Sunada, S., Yasuda, T., Yasuda, K., Kawachi, K., "Comparison of Wing
Characteristics at an Ultra-low Reynolds Number". Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No.
2, 2002, pp. 331-338.
Capabilities"
6. RIT Aero. "Wind Tunnel September 2003.
<http://www.rit.edu/~ritaero/windtunnel/capable/capabilities.html>.

7. Sunada, Shigeru, Sakaguchi, Akitoshi, Kawachi, Keiji. "Airfoil Section

Number."
Characteristics at a Low Reynolds Journal of Fluids Engineering Vol.1 19,
129- 135.
1997, pp

8. Schmitz, F. W., "Aerodynamics of the Model Airplane. Part I. Airfoil

Measurements,"
NACA TM x-60976, 1967.

9. Morris, S. J., Holden, M., "Design of Micro Air Vehicles and Flight Test
and
Validation,"
Proceedings for the Conference on Fixed, Flapping and Rotary Vehicles
at Very Low Reynolds, Numbers, Univ. of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 2000, pp.
153-175.

10. Laitone, E. V., "Wind Tunnel Tests of Wings and Rings at Low Reynolds Numbers".
Univ. of California, Berkeley, California, 2001, pp. 83-90.

1 1 Pope, Alan,
. et. al. Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1999, pp. 234-300.

97
12. Pope, Alan, et. al. Low Speed Wind Tunnel Testing. New York: John WAiley &
Sons, Inc., 1999, pp. 444-471, pp. 676-979.

13. Montgomery, D. C, Design and Analysis of Experiments,

3rd

ed., John Wiley &

Sons, New York, 1991
LinAir"
14. LinAir. "Using November 2003.
<http://www.desktopaero.com/manuals/LAPManual/intro.html>

3rd
15. Nelson, C. Robert. Flight Stability and Automatic Control. Edition. New York:
McGraw Hill, 1998. pp. 78-85.

2nd
16. Glauert, H., The elements of aerofoil and airscrew theory edition. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1926. pp. 137-155.

rd
17. Anderson, Jr. John, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics 3 edition. New York:
McGraw Hill, 2001, pp. 247-347.

18. Baird, D. C, Experimentation: An Introduction to Measurement Theory and

Experiment Design. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1962.

044."
19. Laitone, E. V., "Aerodynamic Lift at Reynolds Numbers Below 7x1 AIAA
Journal, Vol. 34, No. 9, Sept. 1996, pp. 1941 1942.
-

20. Ott, Lyman. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. Boston:
PWS-Kent, 1984. pp. 43-53, pp.152 -160.

21. Pelletier, Alain, Mueller, J. Thomas, "Aerodynamic Force/Moment Measurements

at Very Low Reynolds Numbers", University of Notre Dame, pp. 59-67

70,000."

22. Laitone, E. V., "Wind Tunnel Tests of Wings at Reynolds numbers below
Experiments in fluids, Vol.23, 1997, pp. 405-409.

98