Akaydin, H. Dogus

Bahr, Christopher

Housman, Jeffrey A.

Hutcheson, Florence

Kiris, Cetin

Moini-Yekta, Shayan

NASA Technical Reports Server

1	  
CFD/CAA	  Analysis	  for	  a	  Wing	  Leading	  Edge	  Test	  in	  the	  
Quiet	  Flow	  Facility	  
(Work	  in	  Progress)	  
	  
Jeﬀrey	  Housman	  and	  Ce0n	  Kiris	  
NASA	  Ames	  Research	  Center	  
Dogus	  Akaydin	  and	  Shayan	  Moini-­‐Yekta	  
Science	  and	  Technology	  Corpora0on	  
Florence	  Hutcheson	  and	  Christopher	  Bahr	  
NASA	  Langley	  Research	  Center	  
	  
Funded	  by	  the	  NASA	  Fundamental	  Aeronau3cs	  Program	  
Environmentally	  Responsible	  Avia3on	  (ERA)	  Project	  
	  
Spring	  2015	  AcousGcs	  Technical	  Working	  Group	  MeeGng	  
NASA	  Langley	  Research	  Center,	  April	  21-­‐22,	  2015	  
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20150023567 2019-08-31T04:39:18+00:00Z
2	  
Outline	  	  
o  Objec0ve	  and	  Approach	  
o  Launch	  Ascent	  and	  Vehicle	  Aerodynamics	  (LAVA)	  
Framework	  
o  3rd	  AIAA	  BANC	  Workshop:	  Slat	  Cove	  Noise	  
o  Aerodynamic	  Characteriza0on	  of	  Slat	  Conﬁgura0on	  
o  Summary	  
3	  
Outline	  	  
o Objec0ve	  and	  Approach	  
o Launch	  Ascent	  and	  Vehicle	  Aerodynamics	  
(LAVA)	  Framework	  
o 3rd	  AIAA	  BANC	  Workshop:	  Slat	  Cove	  Noise	  
o Aerodynamic	  Characteriza0on	  of	  Slat	  
Conﬁgura0on	  
o Summary	  
4	  
Objec0ve	  and	  Approach	  	  
Objec3ve	  
o  Compare	  noise	  source	  genera0on	  mechanisms	  between	  
the	  conven0onal	  slat	  and	  LE	  Krueger	  ﬂap	  high	  liW	  devices	  
Approach	  
o  Aerodynamic	  characteriza0on	  of	  a	  conven0onal	  slat	  
conﬁgura0on	  
o  Design	  a	  LE	  Krueger	  ﬂap	  with	  “equivalent	  aerodynamic	  
performance”	  
o  Iden0fy	  noise	  genera0on	  mechanisms	  and	  compare	  far-­‐
ﬁeld	  noise	  characteris0cs	  between	  the	  conven0onal	  slat	  
and	  LE	  Krueger	  ﬂap	  using	  both	  experimental	  and	  CFD/
CAA	  analysis	  tools	  
5	  
Outline	  	  
o Objec0ve	  and	  Approach	  
o Launch	  Ascent	  and	  Vehicle	  Aerodynamics	  
(LAVA)	  Framework	  
o 3rd	  AIAA	  BANC	  Workshop:	  Slat	  Cove	  Noise	  
o Aerodynamic	  Characteriza0on	  of	  Slat	  
Conﬁgura0on	  
o Summary	  
6	  
LAVA	  Framework	  
o  Computa0onal	  Fluid	  Dynamics	  (CFD)	  Solvers	  
•  Cartesian,	  Curvilinear,	  and	  Unstructured	  Grid	  Types	  
•  Overset	  Grid	  and	  Immersed	  Boundary	  Methods	  
•  Reynolds	  Averaged	  Navier-­‐Stokes	  and	  hybrid	  RANS/LES	  
Simula0on	  Capabili0es	  
o  Computa0onal	  Aeroacous0cs	  (CAA)	  Solvers	  
•  Linear	  Helmholtz	  and	  Ffowcs	  Williams-­‐Hawkings	  Formula0ons	  
in	  the	  Frequency	  Domain	  
•  Radia0ng	  and	  Sca`ering	  Capabili0es	  (linear	  Helmholtz)	  
Launch	  Ascent	  and	  Vehicle	  Aerodynamics	  Framework*	  
Development	  Team	  
Ce0n	  
Kiris	  
Jeﬀrey	  
Housman	  
Michael	  
Barad	  
Emre	  
Sozer	  
Christoph	  
Brehm	  
Shayan	  
Moini-­‐Yekta	  
*Kiris	  et.	  al.	  	  
AIAA-­‐2014-­‐0070	  
7	  
LAVA	  Framework	  
o  3-­‐D	  Structured	  Overset	  Curvilinear	  Navier-­‐Stokes	  Solver	  
o  Spalart-­‐Allmaras	  Turbulence	  Model	  
•  Unsteady	  DDES	  for	  acous0cs	  (BANC-­‐III)	  
•  Steady	  RANS	  for	  aerodynamics	  (QFF)	  
o  Convec0ve	  Flux	  Discre0za0on	  
•  4th	  –	  order	  central	  with	  5th	  order	  WENO	  based	  matrix	  
dissipa0on	  (BANC-­‐III)	  
•  6th	  –	  order	  HWCNS	  with	  high-­‐order	  metrics	  (QFF)	  
o  2nd	  –	  order	  central	  diﬀerencing	  for	  viscous	  ﬂuxes	  and	  0me	  
o  Implicit	  dual-­‐0me	  stepping	  (BANC-­‐III)	  
•  2	  orders	  of	  magnitude	  residual	  drop	  (11	  to	  16	  subs)	  
o  Implicit	  Euler	  (QFF)	  
•  3-­‐4	  orders	  of	  residual	  drop	  and	  steady	  force	  
convergence	  
Computa3onal	  Approach	  
8	  
Outline	  	  
o Objec0ve	  and	  Approach	  
o Launch	  Ascent	  and	  Vehicle	  Aerodynamics	  
(LAVA)	  Framework	  
o 3rd	  AIAA	  BANC	  Workshop:	  Slat	  Cove	  Noise	  
o Aerodynamic	  Characteriza0on	  of	  Slat	  
Conﬁgura0on	  
o Summary	  
9	  
3rd	  AIAA	  BANC	  Workshop:	  Slat	  Cove	  Noise	  
30P30N	  Conﬁgura0onF	  
o  Stowed	  Chord	  c	  =	  0.457	  m	  
•  Slat	  Chord	  cs=	  0.15	  c	  
•  Flap	  Chord	  =	  0.3	  c	  
o  Model	  Span	  b	  =	  1.016	  m	  
o  Simulated	  Span	  bsim	  =	  0.0508	  m	  
o  Periodic	  in	  Spanwise	  Direc0on	  
Geometric	  Model	  
Slat	   Main	  Element	   Flap	  
bsim	  
o  Mach	  =	  0.17	  
o  Re	  =	  1.71x106	  
(based	  on	  chord)	  
o  AOA	  =	  5.5	  deg.	  
Free-­‐stream	  	  
Condi3ons	  
10	  
3rd	  AIAA	  BANC	  Workshop:	  Slat	  Cove	  Noise	  
o  Goal	  was	  to	  assess	  the	  current	  capabili0es	  of	  LAVA	  CFD/
CAA	  tools	  applied	  to	  slat	  noise	  genera0on	  
o  Flow	  physics	  is	  highly	  complex	  pushing	  the	  limits	  of	  
current	  turbulence	  modeling	  and	  numerical	  methods	  	  
Vortex	  
Impingement	  
Vortex	  Shedding	  
Break-­‐up	  and	  
Merging	  
Vortex	  Sheet	  
Piston	  
eﬀect	  
11	  
3rd	  AIAA	  BANC	  Workshop:	  Slat	  Cove	  Noise	  
o  55	  zones,	  189.9	  
million	  grid	  
points	  
o  Span	  resolu0on	  
ranges	  from	  0.25	  
to	  1.9	  mm	  
o  Grid	  aligned	  to	  
streamwise	  ﬂow	  
features	  
Fine	  Mesh	  Overset	  Grid	  System	  for	  DDES	  Simula3on	  
Spanwise	  
Coarsening	  by	  
factor	  of	  2	  
Δb+	  =	  50	  
12	  
Near-­‐Field	  PSD	  
o  Broadband	  noise	  characteris0cs	  within	  the	  slat	  cove	  are	  well	  
captured	  for	  St	  <	  10	  
o  High	  frequency	  noise	  generated	  from	  the	  ﬁnite	  thickness	  TE	  of	  the	  
slat	  is	  observed	  at	  St	  ≈	  28	  
3rd	  AIAA	  BANC	  Workshop:	  Slat	  Cove	  Noise	  
13	  
3rd	  AIAA	  BANC	  Workshop:	  Slat	  Cove	  Noise	  
2-­‐D	  Turbulent	  Kine3c	  
Energy	  (Resolved)	  
Instantaneous	  Streamwise	  
Vor3city	  Isocontours	  
Flow	  Field	  Visualiza3ons	  
o  Fine	  spanwise	  resolu0on	  in	  the	  slat	  cove	  is	  necessary	  to	  accurately	  
resolve	  the	  turbulent	  kine0c	  energy	  in	  order	  to	  capture	  vortex	  sheet	  
breakdown	  into	  3D	  structures	  
14	  
Outline	  	  
o Objec0ve	  and	  Approach	  
o Launch	  Ascent	  and	  Vehicle	  Aerodynamics	  
(LAVA)	  Framework	  
o 3rd	  AIAA	  BANC	  Workshop	  
o Aerodynamic	  Characteriza0on	  of	  Slat	  
Conﬁgura0on	  
o Summary	  
15	  
Aerodynamic	  Characteriza0on	  of	  Slat	  Conﬁgura0on	  
Procedure	  
o CFD	  valida0on	  of	  a	  conven0onal	  wing/slat	  model	  
o Steady-­‐state	  deployment	  analysis	  of	  slat	  model	  in	  
free-­‐air	  
o Steady-­‐state	  deployment	  analysis	  of	  slat	  model	  
installed	  in	  QFF	  
o Comparison	  of	  free-­‐air	  and	  installed	  deployment	  
analysis	  
•  Angle	  of	  a`ack	  rela0on	  
•  Centerline	  Cp	  comparison	  
•  Centerline	  streamlines	  comparison	  
16	  
CFD	  Valida0on	  
Straight	  Nozzle	  
Conven0onal	  Wing/
Slat	  Model	  
Extended	  Side	  Wall	  
Collector	  Plate	  
Simpliﬁed	  QFF	  and	  Conven3onal	  Wing/Slat	  –	  Overset	  Grid	  System	  
o  28	  zones	  and	  45.5	  M	  grid	  points	  
o  Triple	  Fringe	  with	  No	  Orphans	  
o  Wall	  y+	  ≈	  1	  over	  all	  viscous	  wall	  surfaces	   Main	  Element	  Chord	  16	  inch	  
Aeroacous3c	  Measurements	  
of	  a	  Wing/Slat	  Model	  
Mendoza,	  Brooks,	  Humphreys	  
AIAA	  2002-­‐2604	  
17	  
CFD	  Valida0on	  
Wall Distance (m)
U 
(m
/s
)
10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Pstag/Pref = 1.016
Pstag/Pref = 1.022
Pstag/Pref = 1.019
Experiment Ref.
U	  velocity	  contours	  on	  symmetry	  plane	  and	  at	  nozzle	  exit	  
o  Ini0ally	  isentropic	  ﬂow	  rela0ons	  were	  used	  to	  set	  the	  stagna0on	  
condi0ons	  at	  the	  nozzle	  plenum	  based	  on	  the	  desired	  nozzle	  exit	  jet	  
velocity	  (neglec0ng	  viscous	  losses	  at	  the	  nozzle	  walls),	  which	  lead	  to	  
a	  lower	  velocity	  than	  the	  experimental	  reference	  
o  A	  sensi0vity	  study	  was	  performed	  in	  which	  the	  stagna0on	  pressure	  
was	  varied	  and	  the	  exit	  velocity	  was	  monitored	  
18	  
CFD	  Valida0on	  
x/c
Cp
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
Experiment
CFD
Centerline	  Cp	  Comparison	   o  Good	  match	  in	  
centerline	  Cp	  is	  
obtained	  
o  Small	  diﬀerences	  
on	  the	  pressure	  
side	  of	  the	  main	  
element	  and	  the	  
suc0on	  side	  of	  the	  
slat	  
o  More	  accurate	  QFF	  
geometry	  
representa0ons	  
were	  analyzed,	  
and	  overall	  
comparison	  did	  
not	  change	  
Y X
Z
19	  
Free-­‐Air	  Deployment	  Analysis	  
Deployment	  Parameter	  Space	  
o  A	  database	  of	  steady	  RANS	  analysis	  for	  free-­‐air	  slat	  deployments	  
has	  been	  performed	  (270	  cases)	  
•  Notch	  0,	  4,	  6,	  8,	  and	  9	  (Gap/CME	  =0.032,0.025,0.021,0.018,0.016)	  
•  Slat	  Deployment	  Angle:	  10o,	  20o,	  30o	  
•  Angle	  of	  A`ack:	  1.0o	  to	  9.5o	  in	  0.5o	  increments	  
Conven3onal	  Slat	  Geometry	  
o  Modiﬁed	  30P30N	  fully	  deployed	  in	  free-­‐air	  
o  Stowed-­‐Flap	  CME	  =	  16”	  
o  Fully-­‐Stowed	  C	  =	  16.73”	  
o  Nominally	  2D	  (b	  =	  0.8”	  CFD	  grid	  uses	  5	  planes	  in	  span)	  
αs	   dx	  
20	  
Free-­‐Air	  Deployment	  Analysis	  
LiV	  Coeﬃcient	  
Angle of Attack (deg.)
Li
ft 
Co
ef
fic
ie
nt
2 4 6 8 10
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
Notch 0, Slat Angle 10
Notch 0, Slat Angle 20
Notch 0, Slat Angle 30
Notch 4, Slat Angle 10
Notch 4, Slat Angle 20
Notch 4, Slat Angle 30
Notch 6, Slat Angle 10
Notch 6, Slat Angle 20
Notch 6, Slat Angle 30
Notch 8, Slat Angle 10
Notch 8, Slat Angle 20
Notch 8, Slat Angle 30
Notch 9, Slat Angle 10
Notch 9, Slat Angle 20
Notch 9, Slat Angle 30
o  Linear	  behavior	  is	  
observed	  over	  the	  
angle	  of	  a`ack	  
sweep	  
o  Slat	  deployment	  
angle	  10	  shows	  
the	  largest	  liW	  for	  
all	  gap	  distances	  
and	  AOAs	  
o  LiW	  decreases	  
with	  increasing	  
deployment	  angle	  
for	  1	  ≤	  α	  ≤	  9.5	  deg.	  
21	  
Free-­‐Air	  Deployment	  Analysis	  
LiV	  Coeﬃcient	  Component	  Breakdown:	  Notch	  0	  
Angle of Attack
Li
ft 
Co
ef
fic
ie
nt
2 4 6 8 10
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4 Wing SlatAng 10Wing SlatAng 20
Wing SlatAng 30
Slat SlatAng 10
Slat SlatAng 20
Slat SlatAng 30
Main SlatAng 10
Main SlatAng 20
Main SlatAng 30
Flap SlatAng 10
Flap SlatAng 20
Flap SlatAng 30
o  The	  main	  
element	  carries	  
most	  of	  the	  liW	  
and	  shows	  an	  
increase	  in	  liW	  
with	  increasing	  
deployment	  
angle	  
o  LiW	  on	  the	  slat	  
decreases	  with	  
increasing	  
deployment	  
angle	  
o  LiW	  on	  the	  ﬂap	  
is	  constant	  
22	  
Installed	  Deployment	  Analysis	  
Geometry	  and	  Slat	  Deployment	  Parameteriza3on	  
Notch	   Gap	  (inch)	   G/CME	  
0	   0.514	   0.032	  
4	   0.397	   0.025	  
6	   0.339	   0.021	  
8	   0.283	   0.018	  
9	   0.255	   0.016	  
*	  Gap	  is	  for	  αs	  =	  30o	  
Gap	  
α	  
o  Installed	  version	  of	  the	  
conven0onal	  slat	  model	  has	  ﬂap	  
retracted	  
o  Two	  angles	  of	  a`ack	  are	  studied	  in	  the	  
current	  analysis,	  α	  =	  27o	  and	  33o	  
o  Rota0on	  of	  the	  model	  is	  performed	  about	  COR	  (large	  
circle)	  and	  the	  angle	  is	  measured	  from	  the	  stowed	  chord	  
line	  
23	  
Installed	  Deployment	  Analysis	  
Structured	  Overset	  Grids	  
o  30	  grid	  systems	  generated	  for	  each	  slat	  conﬁgura0on	  and	  AOA	  with	  
the	  slat	  and	  ME	  grids	  simply	  translated	  and	  rotated	  for	  each	  
conﬁgura0on	  
o  40	  zones	  and	  109.6	  M	  grid	  points	  for	  the	  full-­‐span	  conﬁgura0on	  
with	  y+	  ≈	  1	  at	  all	  viscous	  walls	  
o  A	  hemi-­‐spherical	  oﬀ-­‐body	  grid	  extends	  400	  chord	  lengths	  
24	  
Installed	  Deployment	  Analysis	  
Centerline	  Cp	  Distribu3ons:	  Notch	  0	  AOA	  27o	  
x/c
Cp
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
SlatAng 10
SlatAng 20
SlatAng 30
o  Cp	  distribu0on	  
on	  the	  slat	  
decreases	  in	  
magnitude	  with	  
increasing	  
deployment	  
angle	  
o  In	  contrast,	  the	  
magnitude	  of	  
the	  Cp	  increases	  
on	  the	  main	  
element	  with	  
increasing	  
deployment	  
angle	  
25	  
Installed	  Deployment	  Analysis	  
Surface	  Streamlines	  AOA	  27o	  Notch	  0	  
Slat	  Angle	  10o	  
Slat	  Angle	  20o	  
Slat	  Angle	  30o	  
26	  
Installed	  Deployment	  Analysis	  
Surface	  Streamlines	  AOA	  27o	  Notch	  4	  
Slat	  Angle	  10o	  
Slat	  Angle	  20o	  
Slat	  Angle	  30o	  
27	  
Free-­‐Air/Installed	  Comparison	  
Force	  Integra3on	  Surface	  
Deﬁni3on	  for	  Comparison	  
o  A	  subset	  of	  the	  slat	  and	  main	  
element	  surfaces	  are	  used	  to	  
compare	  the	  local	  
aerodynamics	  of	  interest	  
o  Main	  element	  0	  ≤	  x/cME	  ≤	  0.2	  
o  Spanwise	  extent	  -­‐0.1	  ≤	  y/b	  ≤	  0.1	  
WingSub	   SlatSub	  
28	  
Free-­‐Air/Installed	  Comparison	  
Lift Coefficient
An
gl
e 
of
 A
tta
ck
 (d
eg
.)
0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8
100
101
102
Notch 0 free-air
Notch 4 free-air
Notch 6 free-air
Notch 8 free-air
Notch 9 free-air
Notch 0 installed
Notch 4 installed
Notch 6 installed
Notch 8 installed
Notch 9 installed
27 deg.
2.2 deg.
Free-­‐Air/Installed	  WingSub	  AOA	  Comparison:	  Slat	  Angle	  20o	  
29	  
Free-­‐Air/Installed	  Comparison	  
Lift Coefficient
An
gl
e 
of
 A
tta
ck
 (d
eg
.)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
100
101
102
Notch 0 free-air
Notch 4 free-air
Notch 6 free-air
Notch 8 free-air
Notch 9 free-air
Notch 0 installed
Notch 4 installed
Notch 6 installed
Notch 8 installed
Notch 9 installed
27 deg.
4.5 deg.
Free-­‐Air/Installed	  SlatSub	  AOA	  Comparison:	  Slat	  Angle	  20o	  
x/c
Cp
0 0.5 1
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Free-Air AOA 2 SlatAng 20
Installed AOA 27 SlatAng 20
30	  
Free-­‐Air/Installed	  Comparison	  
Cp	  Comparisons:	  Notch	  0	  Slat	  Angle	  20o	  
x/c
Cp
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Free-Air AOA 2 SlatAng 20
Installed AOA 27 SlatAng 20
Installed AOA 27 SlatAng 30
31	  
Free-­‐Air/Installed	  Comparison	  
Cp	  Comparisons:	  Notch	  0	  Slat	  Angle	  20o	  (and	  30o)	  
x/c
Cp
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Free-Air AOA 4.5 SlatAng 20
Installed AOA 27 SlatAng 20
32	  
Free-­‐Air/Installed	  Comparison	  
Cp	  Comparisons:	  Notch	  0	  Slat	  Angle	  20o	  
33	  
Free-­‐Air/Installed	  Comparison	  
Installed	  AOA	  27o	  Notch	  0	  Slat	  Angle	  20o	   Installed	  AOA	  27o	  Notch	  0	  Slat	  Angle	  30o	  
Free-­‐Air	  AOA	  2o	  Notch	  0	  Slat	  Angle	  20o	   Free-­‐Air	  AOA	  4.5o	  Notch	  0	  Slat	  Angle	  20o	  
Best	  qualita0ve	  
match	  
34	  
Summary	  	  
o  The	  LAVA	  CFD/CAA	  analysis	  tools	  have	  been	  validated	  for	  this	  work	  
using	  the	  BANC-­‐III	  Workshop	  and	  data	  from	  AIAA-­‐2002-­‐2604	  
o  A	  free-­‐air	  slat	  deployment	  study	  was	  performed	  on	  the	  modiﬁed	  
30P30N	  model	  showing	  a	  linear	  increase	  in	  liW	  with	  AOA	  
o  A	  component	  breakdown	  of	  liW	  indicates	  the	  main	  element	  carries	  
most	  of	  the	  liW,	  increasing	  with	  deployment	  angle,	  but	  the	  liW	  on	  
the	  slat	  decreases	  faster	  with	  increased	  deployment	  
o  A	  QFF	  installed	  deployment	  study	  was	  performed	  on	  the	  
conven0onal	  slat	  with	  the	  ﬂap	  retracted	  showing	  side-­‐wall	  induced	  
separa0on	  on	  the	  main	  element	  with	  decreasing	  gap	  distance	  and	  
increasing	  deployment	  angle	  
o  Two	  integra0on	  surface	  subset	  were	  used	  to	  derive	  a	  free-­‐air/
installed	  angle	  of	  a`ack	  rela0on	  for	  the	  local	  aerodynamics	  
o  Comparing	  the	  centerline	  Cp	  and	  streamline	  pa`erns,	  based	  on	  the	  
angle	  of	  a`ack	  rela0ons,	  indicates	  that	  matching	  the	  liW	  on	  the	  slat	  
leads	  to	  a	  reasonably	  good	  match	  in	  local	  aerodynamics	  
35	  
Acknowledgements	  	  
o  Russell	  Thomas	  and	  Casey	  Burley	  from	  NASA	  Langley	  Research	  
Center	  
o  NASA	  Advanced	  Supercompu0ng	  (NAS)	  Center	  


CFD/CAA Analysis for a Wing Leading Edge Test in the Quiet Flow Facility

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server