Contributions to HiLiftPW-3 Using Structured, Overset Grid Methods

The High-Lift Common Research Model (HL-CRM) and the JAXA Standard Model (JSM) were analyzed computationally using both the OVERFLOW and LAVA codes for the third AIAA High-Lift Prediction Workshop. Geometry descriptions and the test cases simulated are described. With the HL-CRM, the effects of surface smoothness during grid projection and the effect of partially sealing a flap gap were studied. Grid refinement studies were performed at two angles of attack using both codes. For the JSM, simulations were performed with and without the nacelle/pylon. Without the nacelle/pylon, evidence of multiple solutions was observed when a quadratic constitutive relation is used in the turbulence modeling; however, using time-accurate simulation seemed to alleviate this issue. With the nacelle/pylon, no evidence of multiple solutions was observed. Laminar-turbulent transition modeling was applied to both JSM configuration, and had an overall favorable impact on the lift predictions.

[1]  Edward N. Tinoco,et al.  Summary of Data from the Sixth AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop: CRM Cases 2 to 5 , 2017 .

[2]  Thomas H. Pulliam,et al.  Implementation of Preconditioned Dual-Time Procedures in OVERFLOW , 2003 .

[3]  Anthony J. Sclafani,et al.  Development of the High Lift Common Research Model (HL-CRM): A Representative High Lift Configuration for Transonic Transports , 2016 .

[4]  Marie Denison,et al.  LAVA Simulations for the 3rd AIAA CFD High Lift Prediction Workshop with Body Fitted Grids , 2018 .

[5]  Shayan Moini-Yekta,et al.  Computational framework for Launch, Ascent, and Vehicle Aerodynamics (LAVA) , 2016 .

[6]  Strategies for turbulence modelling and simulations , 2000 .

[7]  James G. Coder,et al.  Enhancement of the Amplification Factor Transport Transition Modeling Framework , 2017 .

[8]  Christopher L. Rumsey,et al.  Overview and Summary of the Second AIAA High-Lift Prediction Workshop , 2015 .

[9]  Edward N. Tinoco,et al.  Summary of the Fourth AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Drag Prediction Workshop , 2014 .

[10]  P. Spalart.  Strategies for turbulence modelling and simulations , 2000 .

[11]  John C. Vassberg,et al.  Development of a Common Research Model for Applied CFD Validation Studies , 2008 .

[12]  James G. Coder,et al.  OVERFLOW Analysis of the DLR-F11 High-Lift Configuration Including Transition Modeling , 2015 .

[13]  M. Giles,et al.  Viscous-inviscid analysis of transonic and low Reynolds number airfoils , 1986 .

[14]  James G. Coder,et al.  Computational Fluid Dynamics Compatible Transition Modeling Using an Amplification Factor Transport Equation , 2014 .

[15]  T. Shaw,et al.  MISES Implementation of Modified Abu-Ghannam / Shaw Transition Criterion ( Second Revision ) , 2008 .

[16]  J. L. Steger,et al.  On the use of composite grid schemes in computational aerodynamics , 1987 .

[17]  Edward N. Tinoco,et al.  Summary of Data from the Fifth Computational Fluid Dynamics Drag Prediction Workshop , 2014 .

[18]  P. Spalart,et al.  Turbulence Modeling in Rotating and Curved Channels: Assessing the Spalart-Shur Correction , 2000 .

[19]  William M. Chan.  Best Practices on Overset Structured Mesh Generation for the High-Lift CRM Geometry , 2017 .

[20]  F. Menter,et al.  A One-Equation Local Correlation-Based Transition Model , 2015 .

[21]  Mitsuhiro Murayama,et al.  Experiment and CFD of a High-lift Configuration Civil Transport Aircraft Model , 2006 .

[22]  P. Spalart.  A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows , 1992 .

[23]  Michael Long,et al.  Summary of the First AIAA CFD High Lift Prediction Workshop , 2011 .

[24]  L. Mack,et al.  Transition and laminar instability , 1977 .

[25]  Christopher L. Rumsey,et al.  NASA Trapezoidal Wing Computations Including Transition and Advanced Turbulence Modeling , 2015 .

[26]  Kazuomi Yamamoto,et al.  Investigation and Improvement of High-Lift Aerodynamic Performances in Lowspeed Wind Tunnel Testing , 2008 .