Wind tunnel measurement systems for unsteady aerodynamic forces on bluff bodies: Review and new perspective
Sensors (Switzerland), ISSN: 1424-8220, Vol: 20, Issue: 16, Page: 1-24
2020
- 14Citations
- 45Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations14
- Citation Indexes14
- 14
- CrossRef12
- Captures45
- Readers45
- 45
- Mentions1
- Blog Mentions1
- Blog1
Review Description
Wind tunnel tests have become one of the most effective ways to evaluate aerodynamics and aeroelasticity in bluff bodies. This paper has firstly overviewed the development of conventional wind tunnel test techniques, including high frequency base balance technique, static synchronous multi‐pressure sensing system test technique and aeroelastic test, and summarized their advantages and shortcomings. Subsequently, two advanced test approaches, a forced vibration test technique and hybrid aeroelastic‐ force balance wind tunnel test technique have been comprehensively reviewed. Then the characteristics and calculation procedure of the conventional and advanced wind tunnel test techniques were discussed and summarized. The results indicated that the conventional wind tunnel test techniques ignored the effect of structural oscillation on the measured aerodynamics as the test model is rigid. A forced vibration test can include that effect. Unfortunately, a test model in a forced vibration test cannot respond like a structure in the real world; it only includes the effect of structural oscillation on the surrounding flow and cannot consider the feedback from the surrounding flow to the oscillation test model. A hybrid aeroelasticpressure/force balance test technique that can observe unsteady aerodynamics of a test model during its aeroelastic oscillation completely takes the effect of structural oscillation into consideration and is, therefore, effective in evaluation of aerodynamics and aeroelasticity in bluff bodies. This paper has not only advanced our understanding for aerodynamics and aeroelasticity in bluff bodies, but also provided a new perspective for advanced wind tunnel test techniques that can be used for fundamental studies and engineering applications.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know