Computational Simulations of a Mach 0.745 \\Transonic Truss-Braced Wing Design

A joint e ort between the NASA Ames and Langley Research Centers was undertaken to analyze the Mach 0.745 variant of the Boeing Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW) Design. Two di erent flow solvers, LAVA and USM3D, were used to predict the TTBW flight performance. Sensitivity studies related to mesh resolution and numerical schemes were conducted to define best practices for this type of geometry and flow regime. Validation e orts compared the numerical simulation results of various modeling methods against experimental data taken from the NASA Ames 11-foot Unitary Wind Tunnel experimental data. The fidelity of the computational representation of the wind tunnel experiment, such as utilizing a porous wall boundary condition to model the ventilated test section, was varied to examine how di erent tunnel e ects influence CFD predictions. LAVA and USM3D results both show an approximate 0.5 angle of attack shift from experimental lift curve data. This drove an investigation that revealed that the trailing edge of the experimental model was rounded in comparison to the CAD model, due to manufacturing tolerances, which had not been accounted for in the initial simulations of the experiment. Simulating the TTBW with an approximation of this rounded trailing-edge reduces error by approximately 60%. An accurate representation of the tested TTBW geometry, ideally including any wing twists and deflections experienced during the test under various loading conditions, will be necessary for proper validation of the CFD.

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

[2]  Jeffrey A. Housman,et al.  Time-Derivative Preconditioning Methods for Multicomponent Flows—Part I: Riemann Problems , 2009 .

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

[4]  William R. Corliss,et al.  Wind tunnels of NASA , 1981 .

[5]  Jeffrey A. Housman,et al.  Time-Derivative Preconditioning Methods for Multicomponent Flows-Part II: Two-Dimensional Applications , 2009 .

[6]  Boris Diskin,et al.  Accuracy, Scalability, and Efficiency of Mixed-Element USM3D for Benchmark Three-Dimensional Flows , 2019, AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum.

[7]  Kimberly Aldenbrook Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel 11-by 11-foot TWT Test Section , 2015 .

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

[9]  Christopher K. Droney,et al.  SUBSONIC ULTRA-GREEN AIRCRAFT RESEARCH : TRANSONIC TRUSS-BRACED WING TECHNICAL MATURATION , 2018 .

[10]  Thomas H. Pulliam,et al.  Artificial Dissipation Models for the Euler Equations , 1985 .

[11]  Paresh Parikh,et al.  The NASA tetrahedral unstructured software system (TetrUSS) , 2000, The Aeronautical Journal (1968).

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

[13]  Neal T. Frink,et al.  Tetrahedral Unstructured Navier-Stokes Method for Turbulent Flows , 1998 .

[14]  L. Daryl,et al.  A Boundary Condition for Simulation of Flow Over Porous Surfaces , 2001 .

[15]  Marcel Vinokur,et al.  Conservation equations of gasdynamics in curvilinear coordinate systems , 1974 .

[16]  William M. Chan,et al.  Developments in Strategies and Software Tools for Overset Structured Grid Generation and Connectivity , 2011 .

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