Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Christopher L Rumsey

Publications and source records attributed to Christopher L Rumsey.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

FUN3D Manual: 14.1

This manual describes the installation and execution of FUN3D version 14.1, including optional dependent packages. FUN3D is a suite of computational fluid dynamics simulation and design tools that uses mixed-element unstructured grids in a large number of formats, including structured multiblock and overset grid systems. A discretely-exact adjoint solver may be used for formal design optimization, error estimation, and mesh adaptation. FUN3D also offers a reacting, real-gas capability and provides GPU acceleration of many common simulation options.

William K Anderson↗
NASA NTRS2023

FUN3D Manual: 14.0.2

This manual describes the installation and execution of FUN3D version 14.0.2, including optional dependent packages. FUN3D is a suite of computational fluid dynamics simulation and design tools that uses mixed-element unstructured grids in a large number of formats, including structured multiblock and overset grid systems. A discretely-exact adjoint solver may be used for formal design optimization, error estimation, and mesh adaptation. FUN3D also offers a reacting, real-gas capability and provides GPU acceleration of many common simulation options.

William K Anderson↗
NASA NTRS2022

FUN3D Manual: 14.0

This manual describes the installation and execution of FUN3D version 14.0,including optional dependent packages. FUN3D is a suite of computational fluid dynamics simulation and design tools that uses mixed-element unstructured grids in a large number of formats, including structured multiblock and overset grid systems. A discretely-exact adjoint solver may be used for for-mal design optimization, error estimation, and mesh adaptation. FUN3D also offers a reacting, real-gas capability and provides GPU acceleration of many common simulation options.1

William K Anderson↗
NASA NTRS2020

FUN3D Manual: 13.7

This manual describes the installation and execution of FUN3D version 13.7, including optional dependent packages. FUN3D is a suite of computational fluid dynamics simulation and design tools that uses mixed-element unstructured grids in a large number of formats, including structured multiblock and overset grid systems. A discretely-exact adjoint solver may be used for formal design optimization, error estimation, and mesh adaptation. FUN3D also offers a reacting, real-gas capability and provides GPU acceleration of many common simulation options.

FUN3D↗
NASA NTRS2019

FUN3D Manual: 13.6

This manual describes the installation and execution of FUN3D version 13.6, including optional dependent packages. FUN3D is a suite of computational fluid dynamics simulation and design tools that uses mixed-element unstructured grids in a large number of formats, including structured multiblock and overset grid systems. A discretely-exact adjoint solver enables efficient gradient-based design and grid adaptation to reduce estimated discretization error. FUN3D is available with and without a reacting, real-gas capability. This generic gas option is available only for those persons that qualify for its beta release status.

Robert T Biedron↗
NASA NTRS2010

TPSAS-NF1676L-10980-DND

We plan to perform the following sets of computations on unadapted (fixed) grids: 1) Structured RANS set 1 (Code: CFL3D, Grid: Str-OnetoOne-A-v1 (supplied by HiLiftPW-1 committee), Turbulence model: Spalart-Allmaras), 2) Structured RANS set 2 (Code: CFL3D, Grid: Str-OnetoOne-A-v1 (supplied by HiLiftPW-1 committee), Turbulence model: Menter SST), 3) Structured RANS set 3 (time permitting) (Code: CFL3D, Grid: Str-OnetoOne-B-v1 (supplied by HiLiftPW-1 committee), Turbulence model: Menter SST), 4) Unstructured RANS set 1 (Code: FUN3D, Grid: Unst-Mixed-FromTet-Nodecentered-A-v1 (supplied by HiLiftPW-1 committee), Turbulence model: Spalart-Allmaras), and 5) Unstructured RANS set 2 (time permitting) (Code: FUN3D, Grid: Unst-Hex-FromOnetoOne-A-v1 (supplied by HiLiftPW-1 committee), Turbulence model: Spalart-Allmaras),. Optional case 3 is not being computed. CFL3D is a structured upwind-biased cell-centered RANS code,1 and FUN3D is an unstructured upwind-biased node-centered RANS code

Elizabeth M Lee-Rausch↗
NASA NTRS2004

Study of CFD Variation on Transport Configurations from the Second Drag-Prediction Workshop

This paper describes and analyzes a series of nearly 90 CFD test cases performed as a contribution to the second Drag Prediction Workshop, held in association with the AIAA in June 2003. Two configurations are included: DLR-F6 wing-body and wing-body-nacelle-pylon. The ability of CFD to predict the drag, lift, and pitching moment from experiment-including the "delta" arising from the addition of the nacelle and pylon-is assessed. In general, at a fixed angle of attack CFD overpredicts lift, but predicts the delta C (sub L) reasonably well. At low lift levels (C (sub L) less than 0.3)), delta C (sub D) is 20-30 drag counts (30-45%) high. At the target lift coefficient of C(sub L) = 0.5, delta C (sub D) is overpredicted by between 11-16 counts. However, the primary contribution of this paper is mot so much the assessment of CFD against experiment, but rather a detailed assessment and analysis of CFD variation. The series of test cases are designed to determine the sensitivity/variability of CFD to a variety of factors, including grid, turbulence model, transition code, and viscous model. Using medium-level grids (6-11 million points) at the target lift coefficient, the maximum variation in drag due to different grids is 5-11 drag counts, due to code is 5-10 counts, due to turbulence model is 7-15 counts, due to transition is 10-11 counts, and due to viscous model is 4-5 counts. Other specific variations are described in the paper.

Christopher L Rumsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Influence of Length-Scale Correction on Predicting Aeronautical Flows

A length-scale correction recently developed for the SSG/LRR-ωReynolds-stress model is applied to the flow around airfoils near maximum lift and the transonic flows around a wing and a generic aircraft with shock-induced separation. The length-scale correction is active only in regions of separation. It reduces the predicted maximum lift of airfoils by widening the separation bubble at the trailing edge, and predicts an increased size of shock-induced separation regions.

Bernhard Eisfeld↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Requirements and Challenges for CFD Validation within the High-Lift Common Research Model Ecosystem

The High-Lift Common Research Model (CRM-HL) ecosystem is envisioned to become an industry standard set of test cases for high-lift aerodynamics prediction, with data generated providing a strong foundation for CFD validation. Since its original development, preliminary wind tunnel tests have been conducted to further understand and configure the geometry, and several more are in the planning phases. It is anticipated that the data generated in these tests will be used extensively by the CFD community for research, development, and validation of new techniques that yield more accurate results. To derive the maximum benefit from planned wind tunnel testing, data acquisition will be focused in several key areas to address specific shortcomings in CFD predictive capabilities. Significant challenges currently exist in areas including, but not limited to, characterizing high-lift flow phenomena, quantifying effects due to configuration changes, understanding wind tunnel and model installation effects, and establishing data uncertainty. This paper will discuss the current state-of-the-art in high-lift CFD prediction, key limitations of current CFD methods and tools, establishing a validation dialog between test and CFD practitioners, and the flow phenomena of highest interest, in an effort to begin to address these challenges. To this end, it is expected that the data generated from CRM-HL tests will form a strong foundation for future predictive capability.

Adam M Clark↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CFD Validation Experiments: Toward a Broader Perspective

The current literature considers a CFD validation experiment synonymously with a particular type of wind tunnel test. By drawing on the experience of the authors, this paper makes a case for broadening the definition to include a more balanced and synergistic exploitation of computational and physical testing techniques. The concept of validation dialog is introduced which, together with technique verification, is considered a key enabler in the pursuit of an improved CFD predictive capability. An outline of a lifecycle for a CFD validation experiment is also proposed to consolidate the thinking. The result, it is reasoned, will encourage improved engagement with a broader range of stakeholders and wider recognition of the value of the outcomes of what might otherwise be considered studies of lesser importance. In turn, this is expected to encourage the adoption of more systematic approaches to complex problems, such that they are more readily broken down into smaller, more focused endeavors, while at the same time making such activities easier to fund.

CFD↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

HLPW-4/GMGW-3: Overview and Workshop Summary

The Fourth AIAA CFD High Lift Prediction Workshop and the Third Geometry and Mesh Generation Workshop were held collaboratively with the common goal of assessing the numerical prediction capability of current-generation computational fluid dynamics (CFD) technology for swept, medium/high-aspect-ratio wings in high-lift configurations. A key aspect of this joint endeavor was the use of Technology Focus Groups, an innovative new approach for workshops involving close collaboration between participants. These groups, which included both mesh generation and flow solver experts, worked to accelerate advancements for their particular methodologies by addressing key questions of importance {\em prior} to the workshop. The high-lift version of the NASA Common Research Model (CRM-HL) configuration was the focus of this workshop. Measured experimental wind tunnel data were available for comparison. The workshop also included a two-dimensional turbulence model verification exercise based on the CRM-HL wing shape. Altogether, 44 participants submitted a total of 184 data sets of CFD results. This paper provides a high-level summary of the results and conclusions from the workshop. Like at past workshops, fixed-grid Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes continued to be inaccurate and inconsistent for high lift. However, mesh adaptation definitively brought more consistency. Scale-resolving methods appeared most promising for predicting high-lift flow physics.

Christopher L Rumsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Measurements and Computations of the Turbulent Corner Flow on the NASA Juncture-Flow Model with a Symmetric Wing

The NASA Juncture Flow experiment is designed to acquire high-quality flowfield data deep in the corner of a wing-fuselage junction specifically for the purpose of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) validation and turbulence model improvement. This paper presents and discusses the results of a recent experiment with the juncture-flow model in the NASA Langley 14- by 22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel. The main objective of the test was to expand the existing juncture-flow dataset with a symmetric wing case that displays fully attached, incipient separation, and separated flow in the corner of the wing-fuselage junction, depending on the model angle of incidence. Laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) measurements were made at three model angles of incidence (0 deg: fully attached, 1 deg: incipient separation, and 5 deg: separated flow) and for each one, mean-flow and Reynolds-stress data were obtained on the fuselage and at several streamwise locations along the corner of the wing-fuselage junction. Supporting measurements were made during the test campaign and included model and tunnel wall static pressures, tunnel wall and ceiling boundary-layer rake data, oil-flow visualizations, and laser-based measurements of the as-built model geometry and model position in the test section. Comparisons between the experimental data on the test article and Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes CFD results are presented and discussed.

Juncture Flow↗