Computational fluid dynamics challenges for hybrid air vehicle applications

This paper begins by comparing turbulence models for the prediction of hybrid air vehicle (HAV) flows. A 6 : 1 prolate spheroid is employed for validation of the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method. An analysis of turbulent quantities is presented and the Shear Stress Transport (SST) k-ω model is compared against a k-ω Explicit Algebraic Stress model (EASM) within the unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) framework. Further comparisons involve Scale Adaptative Simulation models and a local transition transport model. The results show that the flow around the vehicle at low pitch angles is sensitive to transition effects. At high pitch angles, the vortices generated on the suction side provide substantial lift augmentation and are better resolved by EASMs. The validated CFD method is employed for the flow around a shape similar to the Airlander aircraft of Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd. The sensitivity of the transition location to the Reynolds number is demonstrated and the role of each vehicle£s component is analyzed. It was found that the ¦ns contributed the most to increase the lift and drag.

[1]  Arne V. Johansson,et al.  An explicit algebraic Reynolds stress model for incompressible and compressible turbulent flows , 2000, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[2]  L Rumsey Christopher,et al.  Recent Turbulence Model Advances Applied to Multi-Element Airfoil Computations , 2000 .

[3]  D. Wilcox.  Simulation of Transition with a Two-Equation Turbulence Model , 1994 .

[4]  F. Menter.  Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications , 1994 .

[5]  Nathan Scott,et al.  Using Detached Eddy Simulation and Overset Grids to Predict Flow Around a 6:1 Prolate Spheroid , 2005 .

[6]  José C. Páscoa,et al.  Analysis of transitional flow in 3D geometries using a novel phenomenological model , 2015 .

[7]  George N. Barakos,et al.  Transition Modelling for Rotorcraft CFD , 2008 .

[8]  Separated Turbulent Flow Simulations Using a Reynolds Stress Model and Unstructured Meshes , 2005 .

[9]  B. V. Leer,et al.  Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme V. A second-order sequel to Godunov's method , 1979 .

[10]  V. Vatsa,et al.  Navier-Stokes computations of a prolate spheroid at angle of attack , 1989 .

[11]  S. Wallin,et al.  An explicit algebraic Reynolds stress model based on a nonlinear pressure strain rate model , 2005 .

[12]  Gregory J. Walker,et al.  Experimental and Computational Investigation of Flow around a 3-1 Prolate Spheroid , 2008 .

[13]  Alessandro Ceruti,et al.  Airship Research and Development in the Areas of Design, Structures, Dynamics and Energy Systems , 2012 .

[14]  Stanley Osher,et al.  Upwind schemes and boundary conditions with applications to Euler equations in general geometries , 1983 .

[15]  N. Scott.  UNSTEADY REYNOLDS-AVERAGED NAVIER-STOKES PREDICTIONS OF THE FLOW AROUND A PROLATE SPHEROID , 2004 .

[16]  Prediction for Separation Flows around a 6:1 Prolate Spheroid Using Hybrid RANS/LES Methods , 2006 .

[17]  G. Barakos,et al.  Sliding mesh algorithm for CFD analysis of helicopter rotor–fuselage aerodynamics , 2008 .

[18]  T. B. Gatski,et al.  Nonlinear eddy viscosity and algebraic stress models for solving complex turbulent flows , 2000 .

[19]  O. Axelsson.  Iterative solution methods , 1995 .

[20]  Peter Funk,et al.  Experimental investigations on hull-fin interferences of the LOTTE airship , 2003 .

[21]  Eric Schall,et al.  Numerical study of turbulent flow around a generic airship at high angle of attack , 2005 .

[22]  S. Likki.  TESTING AND VALIDATION OF A CORRELATION BASED TRANSITION MODEL USING LOCAL VARIABLES , 2004 .

[23]  P. Libby,et al.  Analysis of Turbulent Boundary Layers , 1974 .

[24]  Rajkumar S. Pant,et al.  Evaluation of Assumed-Transition-Point Criterion in Context of Reynolds-Averaged Simulations Around Lighter-Than-Air Vehicles , 2013 .

[25]  Roger L. Simpson,et al.  Detailed Investigation of the Three-Dimensional Separation About a 6:1 Prolate Spheroid , 1997 .

[26]  Dengping Duan,et al.  Experimental Investigations on Aerodynamic Characteristics of the ZHIYUAN-1 Airship , 2010 .

[27]  Analysis of Extensive Cross-Flow Separation using Higher-Order RANS Closure Models , 2003 .

[28]  Mark Woodgate,et al.  Implementation of all‐Mach Roe‐type schemes in fully implicit CFD solvers – demonstration for wind turbine flows , 2013 .

[29]  Eric Schall,et al.  Turbulence modeling challenges in airship CFD studies , 2003 .

[30]  Ken Badcock,et al.  Development of CFD Capability for Full Helicopter Engineering Analysis , 2005 .

[31]  Jinhee Jeong,et al.  On the identification of a vortex , 1995, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[32]  R. Simpson,et al.  Measurement of Three-Dimensional Crossè ow Separation , 1998 .

[33]  Felix Rieper,et al.  A low-Mach number fix for Roe's approximate Riemann solver , 2011, J. Comput. Phys..

[34]  Florian R. Menter,et al.  The Scale-Adaptive Simulation Method for Unsteady Turbulent Flow Predictions. Part 1: Theory and Model Description , 2010 .

[35]  James R. Forsythe,et al.  Numerical Investigation of Flow Past a Prolate Spheroid , 2002 .

[36]  Todd Garrett Wetzel,et al.  Unsteady flow over a 6:1 prolate spheroid , 1996 .

[37]  F. Menter,et al.  A Correlation-Based Transition Model Using Local Variables: Part I — Model Formulation , 2004 .

[38]  A. Hellsten,et al.  New Advanced k-w Turbulence Model for High-Lift Aerodynamics , 2004 .

[39]  S. B. V. Gomes,et al.  An investigation into the flight dynamics of airships with application to the YEZ-2A , 1990 .