NASA Tech Briefs, October 2000

Topics include: special coverage sections on CAD, CAE, and PDM, and, Composites and Plastics, and sections on electronic components and systems, software, test and measurement, mechanics, manufacturing/fabrication, physical sciences, information sciences, book and reports, and special sections of Electronics Tech Briefs and Motion Control Tech Brief

Parallel scientific computing with message-passing toolboxes

Los usuarios de Entornos de Computación Científica (SCE, por sus siglas en inglés) siempre requieren mayor potencia de cálculo para sus aplicaciones. Utilizando las herramientas propuestas, los usuarios de las conocidas plataformas Matlab® y Octave, en un cluster de computadores, pueden paralelizar sus aplicaciones interpretadas utilizando paso de mensajes, como el proporcionado por PVM (Parallel Virtual Machine) o MPI (Message Passing Interface). Para muchas aplicaciones SCE es posible encontrar un esquema de paralelización con ganancia en velocidad casi lineal. Estas herramientas son interfaces prácticamente exhaustivas a las correspondientes librerías, soportan todos los tipos de datos compatibles en el SCE base y se han diseñado teniendo en cuenta el rendimiento y la facilidad de mantenimiento. En este artículo se resumen trabajos anteriores, su repercusión, y algunos resultados obtenidos por usuarios finales. Con base en la herramienta más reciente, la Toolbox MPI para Octave, se describen brevemente sus características principales, y se presenta un estudio de caso, el conjunto de Mandelbrotusers of Scientific Computing Environments (SCE) always demand more computing power for their CPu-intensive SCE applications. using the proposed toolboxes, users of the well-known Matlab® and Octave platforms in a computer cluster can parallelize their interpreted applications using the native multi-computer programming paradigm of message-passing, such as that provided by PVM (Parallel Virtual Machine) and MPI (Message Passing Inter-face). For many SCE applications, a parallelization scheme can be found so that the resulting speedup is nearly linear on the number of computers used. The toolboxes are almost compre-hensive interfaces to the corresponding libraries, they support all the compatible data types in the base SCE and they have been designed with performance and maintainability in mind. In this paper, we summarize our previous work, its repercussion, and some results obtained by end-users. Focusing on our most recent MPI Toolbox for Octave, we briefly describe its main features, and introduce a case study: the Mandelbrot se

CEAS/AIAA/ICASE/NASA Langley International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics 1999

The proceedings of a workshop sponsored by the Confederation of European Aerospace Societies (CEAS), the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Washington, D.C., and the Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering (ICASE), Hampton, Virginia, and held in Williamsburg, Virginia June 22-25, 1999 represent a collection of the latest advances in aeroelasticity and structural dynamics from the world community. Research in the areas of unsteady aerodynamics and aeroelasticity, structural modeling and optimization, active control and adaptive structures, landing dynamics, certification and qualification, and validation testing are highlighted in the collection of papers. The wide range of results will lead to advances in the prediction and control of the structural response of aircraft and spacecraft

Advanced Concept Studies for Supersonic Commercial Transports Entering Service in the 2018-2020 Period Phase 2

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (LM), working in conjunction with General Electric Global Research (GE GR) and Stanford University, executed a 19 month program responsive to the NASA sponsored "N+2 Supersonic Validation: Advanced Concept Studies for Supersonic Commercial Transports Entering Service in the 2018-2020 Period" contract. The key technical objective of this effort was to validate integrated airframe and propulsion technologies and design methodologies necessary to realize a supersonic vehicle capable of meeting the N+2 environmental and performance goals. The N+2 program is aligned with NASA's Supersonic Project and is focused on providing system level solutions capable of overcoming the efficiency, environmental, and performance barriers to practical supersonic flight. The N+2 environmental and performance goals are outlined in the technical paper, AIAA-2014-2138 (Ref. 1) along with the validated N+2 Phase 2 results. Our Phase 2 efforts built upon our Phase 1 studies (Ref. 2) and successfully demonstrated the ability to design and test realistic configurations capable of shaped sonic booms over the width of the sonic boom carpet. Developing a shaped boom configuration capable of meeting the N+2 shaped boom targets is a key goal for the N+2 program. During the LM Phase 1 effort, LM successfully designed and tested a shaped boom trijet configuration (1021) capable of achieving 85 PLdB under track (forward and aft shock) and up to 28 deg off-track at Mach 1.6. In Phase 2 we developed a refined configuration (1044-2) that extended the under 85 PLdB sonic boom level over the entire carpet of 52 deg off-track at a cruise Mach number of 1.7. Further, the loudness level of the configuration throughout operational conditions calculates to an average of 79 PLdB. These calculations rely on propagation employing Burger's (sBOOM) rounding methodology, and there are indications that the configuration average loudness would actually be 75 PLdB. We also added significant fidelity to the design of the configuration in this phase by performing a low speed wind tunnel test at our LTWT facility in Palmdale, by more complete modelling of propulsion effects in our sonic boom analysis, and by refining our configuration packaging and performance assessments. Working with General Electric, LM performed an assessment of the impact of inlet and nozzle effects on the sonic boom signature of the LM N+2 configurations. Our results indicate that inlet/exhaust streamtube boundary conditions are adequate for conceptual design studies, but realistic propulsion modeling at similar stream-tube conditions does have a small but measurable impact on the sonic boom signature. Previous supersonic transport studies have identified aeroelastic effects as one of the major challenges associated with the long, slender vehicles particularly common with shaped boom aircraft (Ref. 3). Under the Phase 2 effort, we have developed a detailed structural analysis model to evaluate the impact of flexibility and structural considerations on the feasibility of future quiet supersonic transports. We looked in particular at dynamic structural modes and flutter as a failure that must be avoided. We found that for our N+2 design in particular, adequate flutter margin existed. Our flutter margin is large enough to cover uncertainties like large increases in engine weight and the margin is relatively easy to increase with additional stiffening mass. The lack of major aeroelastic problems probably derives somewhat from an early design bias. While shaped boom aircraft require long length, they are not required to be thin. We intentionally developed our structural depths to avoid major flexibility problems. So at the end of Phase 2, we have validated that aeroelastic problems are not necessarily endemic to shaped boom designs. Experimental validation of sonic boom design and analysis techniques was the primary objective of the N+2 Supersonic Validations contract; and in this Phase, LM participated in four high speed wind tunnel tests. The first so-called Parametric Test in the Ames 9x7 tunnel did an exhaustive look at variation effects of the parameters: humidity, total pressure, sample time, spatial averaging distance and number of measurement locations, and more. From the results we learned to obtain data faster and more accurately, and made test condition tolerances easy to meet (eliminating earlier 60 percent wasted time when condition tolerances could not be held). The next two tests used different tunnels. The Ames 11 ft tunnel was used to test lower Mach numbers of 1.2 and 1.4. There were several difficulties using this tunnel for the first time for sonic boom including having to shift the measurement Mach numbers to 1.15 and 1.3 to avoid flow problems. It is believed that the 11 ft could be used successfully to measure sonic boom but there are likely to be a number of test condition restrictions. The Glenn 8x6 ft tunnel was used next and the tunnel has a number of desirable features for sonic boom measurement. While the Ames 9x7 can only test Mach 1.55 to 2.55 and the 11 ft can only test Mach 1.3 and lower, the Glenn 8x6 can test continuously from Mach 0.3 to 2.0. Unfortunately test measurement accuracy was compromised by a reference pressure drift. Post-test analysis revealed that the drift occurred when Mach number drifted slightly. Test measurements indicated that if Mach number drift is eliminated, results from the 8x6 would be more accurate, especially at longer distances, than results from the 9x7. The fourth test in the 9x7, called LM4, used everything we learned to comprehensively and accurately measure our new 1044-02 configuration with a full-carpet shaped signature design. Productivity was 8 times greater than our Phase 1 LM3 test. Measurement accuracy and repeatability was excellent out to 42 in. However, measurements at greater distances require the rail in the aft position and become substantially less accurate. Further signature processing or measurement improvements are needed for beyond near-field signature validation