ciam, sukhoi nct and irkut contribution to hiliftpw-2 · ciam, sukhoi nct and irkut contribution to...
TRANSCRIPT
CIAM, Sukhoi NCT and Irkut Contribution to
HiLiftPW-2
Vladimir Makarov at all
Central Institute of Aviation Motors (CIAM), Moscow, Russia
32nd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 2nd High Lift Prediction Workshop Special Session APA-21,
June 16-20 2014, Atlanta
2
The DLR-F11’s configuration considered:
Configuration 2
Configuration 4
Mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) Semispan (b/2) Wing aspect ration
0.34709 m 1.4 m 9.353
3
Problem statement:
External bounds Internal bounds
External region: 12 blocks
Configuration 2: 335 blocks Configuration 4: 480 blocks
External bounds of internal region
symmetry
plane
symmetry
plane symmetry
plane
Different mesh topology
Red lines: topology
block’s bounds
4
Mesh generation (base principles and details):
Case Mesh No. of cells
(million)
First cell
heights (m)
Case 1 Coarse 5 756 600 0.00055
Medium 13 773 390 0.00037
Fine 43 346 620 0.00024
Case 2 Medium 47 252 565 0.00037
All meshes were block-structured and were constructed by the ICEM-CFD
Details of the meshes used
5
Mesh generation (Case 1 illustration):
wing-fuselage junction
cut view at wing root
zoom near wing nose
zoom near wing trailing edge
Coarse Medium Fine
flap stack fairings
Mesh generation (Case 2 illustration):
wing-fuselage junction cut view at wing root
zoom near wing nose zoom near wing
trailing edge
zoom near slat
stack junctions
zoom near flap stack fairing junctions
Details of the numerical method and software:
Numerical method:
• 2D/3D Euler/RANS/URANS solver
• Finite volume
• Explicit/implicit time integration
• Second order spatial/time discretization
• Dual time approach for unsteady problems
• Cartesian coordinate system
• Multi-block structured fixed/moving mesh
• Parallel capability shared/distributed
memory
Typical performance:
• Courant number up to 1000 (in implicit
mode)
• Up to 5, 000, 000 mesh cells for 1 Gb RAM
• Near linear parallel computation speed-up
factor
Flow capabilities:
• Inviscid
• Laminar
• Turbulent
• Real/perfect gases
• Turbulent models:
o Spalart-Allmaras
o k-
o SST (high and low Reynolds)
• Standart/extended wall function
• Perforated walls
• Particles tracking with wall interaction
• Stationary and/or Rotating frame of
reference
Computer platforms:
• Linux (32/64 bit)
• Windows XP/7 64 bit 7
Results (Case 1):
8
0.6
1.0
1.4
1.8
2.2
2.6
3.0
3.4
3.8
4.2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Lif
t C
oe
ffic
ien
t
Iterations/Pseudo-time steps
Cobra (Fine SA): AoA= 7.0 degree
Cobra (Fine SA): AoA=16.0 degree
Iteration/pseudo-time convergence of lift coefficient for Case 1
Configuration: configuration 2 of DLR-F11
Free stream Mach number: 0.175
Angle of attack (AoA): 7 and 16
Meshes: coarse, medium, fine
Reynolds number: 15.1 million
Results (Case 1 mesh convergence):
9
1.82
1.84
1.86
1.88
1.90
1.92
1.94
1.96
1.98
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80 3.20
Lif
t C
oe
ffic
ien
t
Mesh parameter1e-5
Simulation: AoA= 7.0 deg., Cobra(SA)
Experiment: AoA=7.039 deg., Re=15.1e+6
0.160
0.162
0.164
0.166
0.168
0.170
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80 3.20
Dra
g C
oe
ffic
ien
t
Mesh parameter1e-5
Simulation: AoA= 7.0 deg., Cobra(SA)
Experiment: AoA=7.039 deg., Re=15.1e+6
Lift coefficient Drag coefficient
Mesh convergence for AoA = 7
1.82
1.84
1.86
1.88
1.90
1.92
1.94
1.96
1.98
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80 3.20
Lif
t C
oe
ffic
ien
t
Mesh parameter1e-5
Simulation: AoA= 7.0 deg., Cobra(SA)
Experiment: AoA=7.039 deg., Re=15.1e+6
0.160
0.162
0.164
0.166
0.168
0.170
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80 3.20
Dra
g C
oe
ffic
ien
t
Mesh parameter1e-5
Simulation: AoA= 7.0 deg., Cobra(SA)
Experiment: AoA=7.039 deg., Re=15.1e+6
Lift coefficient Drag coefficient
Mesh convergence for AoA = 7
Results (Case 1 pressure coefficient distribution at AoA=7):
10
Z=0.150
Z=0.449
Z=0.891
Slat Wing Flap
z
Results (Case 1 Summary):
11
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Lift
Coeffie
nt
Angle of Attack, deg.
China Aerodynamics Research_SA-officialPenn State University_SA -officialEcole Polytechnique de Montreal_SA -officialIntelligent Light_SACessna Aircraft Company_SABombardier_kwNASA Langley_CFL3D -SANASA Langley_FUN3D -SATATA_SAJAXA_SA -officialDLR_RSMNASA -Boeing_SAOnera_SAWTTCIAM ( Medium SA)CIAM ( Medium SST+wf)
Summary CL plots from different HiLift PW-2 for Case 1 for medium
mesh
Results (Case 2):
12
Configuration: configuration 4 of DLR-F11
Free stream Mach number: 0.175
Angle of attack (AoA): 0, 7, 12, 16, 18.5, 19, 20 and 21
Meshes: medium
Reynolds numbers: low Reynolds 1.35 million (Case 2a) high Reynolds 15.1 million (Case 2b)
Results (Case 2a aerodynamic characteristics):
13
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Lif
t C
oe
ffic
ien
t
Angle of Attack, degree
Experiment: Re=1.35e+6
Cobra(Medium SA LR)
Cobra(Medium SA LR reset)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Dra
g C
oe
ffic
ien
t
Angle of Attack, degree
Experiment: Re=1.35e+6
Cobra(Medium SA LR)
Cobra(Medium SA LR reset)
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.6
Lif
t C
oe
ffic
ien
t
Drag Coefficient
Experiment: Re=1.35e+6
Cobra(Medium SA LR)
Cobra(Medium SA LR reset)
-0.60
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Mo
me
nt
Co
eff
icie
nt
Angle of Attack, degree
Experiment: Re=1.35e+6
Cobra(Medium SA LR)
Cobra(Medium SA LR reset)
Drag polar Pitching moment
Lift coefficient Drag coefficient
Results (Case 2a Surface stream lines and oil flow):
14
AoA=7
AoA=18.5
AoA=20
Results (Case 2b aerodynamic characteristics):
15Drag polar Pitching moment
Lift coefficient Drag coefficient
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Lif
t C
oe
ffic
ien
t
Angle of Attack, degree
Experiment: Re=15.1e+6
Cobra(Medium SA Case 2b)
Cobra(Fine SA Case 2b)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Dra
g C
oe
ffic
ien
t
Angle of Attack, degree
Experiment: Re=15.1e+6
Cobra(Medium SA Case 2b)
Cobra(Fine SA Case 2b)
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.60
Lif
t C
oe
ffic
ien
t
Drag Coefficient
Experiment: Re=15.1e+6
Cobra(Medium SA Case 2b)
Cobra(Fine SA Case 2b)
-0.60
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Mo
me
nt
Co
eff
icie
nt
Angle of Attack, degree
Experiment: Re=15.1e+6
Cobra(Medium SA Case 2b)
Cobra(Fine SA Case 2b)
Results (Case 2b Summary):
16Summary CL plots from different HiLift PW-2 for Case 2b
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Lif
t C
oe
ffic
ien
t
Angle of Attack, deg.
chen_China Aerodynamics Research
coder_Penn State University
holman_Next Limit
langlois_Bombardier
leerausch_NASA Langley_FUN3D
moitra_TATA
rudnik_DLR
sclafani_NASA-Boeing
WTT
CIAM ( Medium SA)
Conclusions:
17
• Results of the calculations have different degree of convergence with WTT-data
for different parameters
• The general tendency is good coordination of CL and dCL/d with experiment for
Case 1 and Case 2b in a linear range and over prediction of CLmax nearly
identical for all meshes
• For the Case 2a the best coordination of CLmax as the good coordination of
dCL/d takes place, but CL in a linear range is however worse predicted
• Values of CD were predicted satisfactory within the limits of the given problem
for all cases considered
• The results received for the Case 2a have shown a capability of a hysteresis of
aerodynamic characteristics during calculations that demands additional study of
the reasons of this phenomenon and its physical adequacy in the problem
considered
• The comparative analysis of the results received by various participants of the
HiLiftPW-2 project for calculation of CL vs curves for various DLR-F11’s
configurations, has shown, that CIAM’s in-house Cobra code is among of the
majority of the CFD software used in the project
Acknowledgments:
18
This work is the results of several fruitful collaborations and we gratefully acknowledge to
the Sarov's Institute of Experimental Physics which have provided supercomputer and
information resources and to Sukhoi Aircraft Company which have ensured of a great many
of works for the Cobra preliminary validation
I would like to express special gratitude to Chris Rumsey (NASA) for its persistence and
goodwill by publication and report preparation
19
Thank you for attention…
20