Computational benchmark of commercial fluid-structure interaction software

Developments in the field of fluid-structure interaction are improving the feasibility of fully coupled Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)/Computational Structural Mechanics (CSM) solutions in large scale aeroelastic problems. With such emerging technologies, validation of developed codes and software packages is imperative to ensure accurate and robust solution schemes. In this paper two fluid-structure interaction benchmark cases, the Turek-Hron channel flow and AGARD 445.6 weakened wing, are performed performed using the ANSYS software suite with System Coupling capability. An implicit, subiterative coupling scheme is adopted, with under-relaxation in the fluid load transfer to achieve tightly coupled solutions. Results obtained from the Turek-Hron test case indicate the individual structural and fluid solvers convey excellent agreement with the benchmark solution. The ANSYS System Coupling workflow is also found to effectively address large grid deformations in the Turek-Hron case and predicts a flutter speed index within 4.5% of the experimental results for the AGARD 445.6 weakened wing. Discrepancies are however found in addressing added-mass effects in the Turek-Hron benchmark and further investigation is required for complete validation of the ANSYS System Coupling package for fluid-structure interaction problems.

[1]  Roland Wüchner,et al.  Fluid–structure interaction using a partitioned semi-implicit predictor–corrector coupling scheme for the application of large-eddy simulation , 2012 .

[2]  Fabio Nobile,et al.  Added-mass effect in the design of partitioned algorithms for fluid-structure problems , 2005 .

[3]  Ekkehard Ramm,et al.  Large deformation fluid structure interaction - advances in ALE methods and new fixed grid approaches , 2006 .

[4]  Manfred Krafczyk,et al.  Lattice-Boltzmann Method on Quadtree-Type Grids for Fluid-Structure Interaction , 2006 .

[5]  Roland Wüchner,et al.  Fluid-Structure Interaction in the Context of Shape Optimization and Computational Wind Engineering , 2011 .

[6]  Gecheng Zha,et al.  Numerical simulation of 3-D wing flutter with fully coupled fluid–structural interaction , 2006 .

[7]  W. Wall,et al.  Fixed-point fluid–structure interaction solvers with dynamic relaxation , 2008 .

[8]  E C Yates,et al.  AGARD Standard Aeroelastic Configurations for Dynamic Response I - Wing 445.6 , 1988 .

[9]  Michael Schäfer,et al.  Efficiency and accuracy of fluid-structure interaction simulations using an implicit partitioned approach , 2008 .

[10]  John T. Batina,et al.  Wing flutter computations using an aerodynamic model based on the Navier-Stokes equations , 1996 .

[11]  Thomas J. R. Hughes,et al.  Fast projection algorithm for unstructured meshes , 1992 .

[12]  S. Turek,et al.  Proposal for Numerical Benchmarking of Fluid-Structure Interaction between an Elastic Object and Laminar Incompressible Flow , 2006 .

[13]  Walter A. Silva,et al.  Evaluation of linear, inviscid, viscous, and reduced-order modelling aeroelastic solutions of the AGARD 445.6 wing using root locus analysis , 2014 .

[14]  Gecheng Zha,et al.  Prediction of a Supersonic Wing Flutter Boundary Using a High Fidelity Detached Eddy Simulation , 2012 .

[15]  Michael Schäfer,et al.  An Implicit Partitioned Method for the Numerical Simulation of Fluid-Structure Interaction , 2006 .

[16]  John T. Batina,et al.  Wing flutter boundary prediction using unsteady Euler aerodynamic method , 1993 .

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

[18]  Jonathan E. Cooper,et al.  A Comparison of Linear and Non-Linear Flutter Prediction Methods: A Summary of PUMA DARP Aeroelastic Results , 2004 .

[19]  Charbel Farhat,et al.  CFD‐Based Nonlinear Computational Aeroelasticity , 2004 .

[20]  Rolf Rannacher,et al.  NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION BASED ON MONOLITHIC VARIATIONAL FORMULATIONS , 2010 .

[21]  Stefan Turek,et al.  Numerical Benchmarking of Fluid-Structure Interaction: A Comparison of Different Discretization and Solution Approaches , 2011 .