Experimental analysis of transonic buffet on a 3D swept wing using fast-response pressure-sensitive paint

  • 542 Accesses

  • 10 Citations


Transonic buffeting phenomena on a three-dimensional swept wing were experimentally analyzed using a fast-response pressure-sensitive paint (PSP). The experiment was conducted using an 80%-scaled NASA Common Research Model in the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) 2 m × 2 m Transonic Wind Tunnel at a Mach number of 0.85 and a chord Reynolds number of 1.54 × 106. The angle of attack was varied between 2.82° and 6.52°. The calculation of root-mean-square (RMS) pressure fluctuations and spectral analysis were performed on measured unsteady PSP images to analyze the phenomena under off-design buffet conditions. We found that two types of shock behavior exist. The first is a shock oscillation characterized by the presence of “buffet cells” formed at a bump Strouhal number St of 0.3–0.5, which is observed under all off-design conditions. This phenomenon arises at the mid-span wing and is propagated spanwise from inboard to outboard. The other is a large spatial amplitude shock oscillation characterized by low-frequency broadband components at St < 0.1, which appears at higher angles of attack (α ≥ 6.0°) and behaves more like two-dimensional buffet. The transition between these two shock behaviors correlates well with the rapid increase of the wing-root strain fluctuation RMS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 199

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29


C :

PSP calibration coefficient

C L :

Lift coefficient

C M :

Pitching moment coefficient

C P :

Pressure coefficient

C Prms :

RMS pressure fluctuations

\(C_{P}^{\prime }\) :

Dynamic component of pressure coefficient

Coh2 :

Coherence of the cross-spectrum

I :

PSP emission intensity

M :

Free-stream Mach number

M loc :

Local Mach number

N :

Number of data points

P :


P 0 :

Total pressure


Power spectral density

Re :

Reynolds number

S XX , S YY :

Auto-spectrum of X and Y

S XY :

Cross-spectrum between X and Y


Strouhal number (= fcmac/U)

T :


U :

Free-stream velocity

U C :

Convection velocity

b :

Span length

c :

Chord length

c mac :

Mean aerodynamic chord length

f :


f S :

Frame rate of the camera

k + :

Roughness height

t :


x :

Model chordwise location

y :

Model spanwise location

Δf :

Frequency resolution for FFT analysis

α :

Angle of attack

ϕ XY :

Phase shift of the cross-spectrum

η :

Spanwise location normalized by the half-span length

κ :

Reduced frequency (= 2πfc/U)

λ :

Spanwise wavelength




Reference condition, 100 kPa


  1. Babinsky H, Harvey JK (2011) Shock wave-boundary-layer interactions. Cambridge University Press, NewYork

  2. Balakrishna S, Acheson MJ (2011) Analysis of NASA common research model dynamic data. AIAA-2011-1127.

  3. Braslow AL, Knox EC (1958) Simplified methods for determination of critical height of distributed roughness particles for boundary-layer transition at Mach numbers from 0 to 5. NASA Technical Note 4363.

  4. Crouch JD, Garbaruk A, Magidov D, Travin A (2009) Origin of transonic buffet on aerofoils. J Fluid Mech 628:357–369.

  5. Dandois J (2016) Experimental study of transonic buffet phenomenon on a 3D swept wing. Phys Fluids 28:016101.

  6. Giannelis NF, Vio GA, Levinski O (2017) A review of recent developments in the understanding of transonic shock buffet. Prog Aerosp Sci 92:39–84.

  7. Gregory JW, Asai K, Kameda M, Liu T, Sullivan JP (2008) A review of pressure-sensitive paint for high-speed and unsteady aerodynamics. Proc Inst Mech Eng G 222:249–290.

  8. Gregory JW, Sakaue H, Liu T, Sullivan JP (2014) Fast pressure-sensitive paint for flow and acoustic diagnostics. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 46:303–330.

  9. Hartmann A, Feldhusen A, Schröder W (2013) On the interaction of shock waves and sound waves in transonic buffet flow. Phys Fluids 25:026101.

  10. Iovnovich M, Raveh DE (2015) Numerical study of shock buffet on three-dimensional wings. AIAA J 53:449–463.

  11. Jacquin L, Molton P, Deck S, Maury B, Soulevant D (2009) Experimental study of shock oscillation over a transonic supercritical profile. AIAA J 47:1985–1994.

  12. Koike S, Ueno M, Nakakita K, Hashimoto A (2016) Unsteady pressure measurement of transonic buffet on NASA common research model. AIAA-2016-4044.

  13. Korkegi RH (1973) A simple correlation for incipient turbulent boundary-layer separation due to a skewed shock-wave. AIAA J 11:1578–1579.

  14. Kouchi T, Yamaguchi S, Koike S, Nakajuma T, Sato M, Kanda H, Yanase S (2016) Wavelet analysis of transonic buffet on a two-dimensional airfoil with vortex generators. Exp Fluids 57:166.

  15. Lawson SG, Greenwell D, Quinn M (2016) Characterization of buffet on a civil aircraft wing. AIAA-2016-1309.

  16. Lee BHK (1990) Oscillatory shock motion caused by transonic shock boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J 28:942–944.

  17. Lee BHK (2001) Self-sustained shock oscillations on airfoils at transonic speeds. Prog Aerosp Sci 37:147–196.

  18. Mabey DG (1989) Buffeting criteria for a systematic series of wings. J Aircr 26:576–582.

  19. Masini L, Timme S, Ciarella A, Peace A (2017) Influence of vane vortex generators on transonic wing buffet: further analysis of the BUCOLIC experimental data set. In: Proceedings of the 52nd 3AF international conference on applied aerodynamics. FP14-AERO2017-masini

  20. Merienne MC, Sant YL, Lebrun F, Deleglise B, Sonnet D (2013) Transonic buffeting investigation using unsteady pressure-sensitive paint in a large wind tunnel. AIAA-2013-1136.

  21. Michou Y, Deleglse B, Lebrun F, Scolan E, Grivel A, Steiger R, Pugin R, Merienne MC, San YL (2015) Development of a sol–gel based nanoporous unsteady pressure sensitive paint and validation in the large transonic ONERA’s S2MA windtunnel. AIAA-2015-2408.

  22. Molton P, Dandois J, Lepage A, Brunet V, Bur R (2013) Control of buffet phenomenon on a transonic swept wing. AIAA J 51:761–772.

  23. Nakakita K (2007) Unsteady pressure distribution measurement around 2D-cylinders using pressure-sensitive paint. AIAA-2007-3819.

  24. Nakakita K (2013) Detection of phase and coherence of unsteady pressure field using unsteady psp measurement. AIAA-2013-3124.

  25. Ohmichi Y, Ishida T, Hashimoto A (2017) Numerical investigation of transonic buffet on a three dimensional wing using incremental mode decomposition. AIAA-2017-1436.

  26. Roos FW (1985) The Buffeting pressure field of a high-aspect-ratio swept wing. AIAA-85-1609.

  27. Sartor F, Mettot C, Sipp D (2015) Stability, receptivity, and sensitivity analyses of buffeting transonic flow over a profile. AIAA J 53:1980–1993.

  28. Schairer ET, Mehta RD, Olsen ME (2002) Effects of pressure-sensitive paint on experimentally measured wing forces and pressures. AIAA J 40:1830–1838.

  29. Schlichting H (1999) Boundary-layer theory, 8th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

  30. Steimle PC, Karhoff DC, Schroder W (2012) Unsteady transonic flow over a transport-type swept wing. AIAA J 50:399–415.

  31. Sugimoto T, Sugioka Y, Numata D, Nagai H, Asai K (2017) Characterization of frequency response of pressure-sensitive paints. AIAA J 55:1460–1464.

  32. Sugioka Y, Numata D, Asai K, Nakakita K, Koike S, Koga S (2015) Unsteady PSP measurement of transonic buffet on a wing. AIAA-2015-0025.

  33. Sugioka Y, Numata D, Asai K, Koike S, Nakakita K, Nakajima T (2018) Polymer/ceramic pressure-sensitive paint with reduced roughness for unsteady measurement in transonic flow. AIAA J.

  34. Tijdeman H (1977) Investigation of the transonic flow around oscillating airfoils. NLR TR 77090 U.

  35. Ueno M, Kohzai T, Koga S (2014) Transonic wind tunnel test of the NASA CRM (volume 1). JAXA Research and Development Memorandum JAXA-RM-13-017E

  36. Vassberg JC, DeHaan MA, Rivers MS, Wahls RA (2008) Development of a common research model for applied CFD validation studies. AIAA-2008-6919.

Download references


The authors wish to thank the members of the Next Generation Aeronautical Innovation Hub Center and Wind Tunnel Technology Center, JAXA, for their kind preparation and operation of the wind-tunnel test. We gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions with Mr. Tsutomu Nakajima, Dr. Makoto Ueno, and Mr. Kodai Hiura. TiO2 samples used for the PSP binder were provided by Tayca Corporation. The present study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant number JP16J02503.

Author information

Correspondence to Yosuke Sugioka.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 2726 KB)

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 2726 KB)

Supplementary material 2 (MP4 4921 KB)

Supplementary material 2 (MP4 4921 KB)

Supplementary material 3 (MP4 2898 KB)

Supplementary material 3 (MP4 2898 KB)

Supplementary material 4 (MP4 5026 KB)

Supplementary material 4 (MP4 5026 KB)

Supplementary material 5 (MP4 2826 KB)

Supplementary material 5 (MP4 2826 KB)

Supplementary material 6 (MP4 5095 KB)

Supplementary material 6 (MP4 5095 KB)

Supplementary material 7 (PDF 122 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sugioka, Y., Koike, S., Nakakita, K. et al. Experimental analysis of transonic buffet on a 3D swept wing using fast-response pressure-sensitive paint. Exp Fluids 59, 108 (2018) doi:10.1007/s00348-018-2565-5

Download citation