Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Cliff, Susan E.

Publications and source records attributed to Cliff, Susan E..

26 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1999

Simulated Inlet Unstart and Nacelle/Diverter Effects for the Boeing Reference H Configuration

The Boeing Reference H configuration was tested in the NASA Ames 9x7 Supersonic Wind Tunnel. A simulated unstarted inlet was evaluated as well as the aerodynamic performance of the configuration with and without nacelle and diverter components. These experimental results were compared with computational results from the unstructured grid Euler flow solver AIRPLANE. The comparisons between computational and experimental results were good, and demonstrated that the Euler code is capable of efficiently and accurately predicting the changes in the aerodynamic coefficients associated with inlet unstart and the effects of the nacelle and diverter components.

Cliff, Susan E.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Ames Optimized TCA Configuration

Configuration design at Ames was carried out with the SYN87-SB (single block) Euler code using a 193 x 49 x 65 C-H grid. The Euler solver is coupled to the constrained (NPSOL) and the unconstrained (QNMDIF) optimization packages. Since the single block grid is able to model only wing-body configurations, the nacelle/diverter effects were included in the optimization process by SYN87's option to superimpose the nacelle/diverter interference pressures on the wing. These interference pressures were calculated using the AIRPLANE code. AIRPLANE is an Euler solver that uses a unstructured tetrahedral mesh and is capable of computations about arbitrary complete configurations. In addition, the buoyancy effects of the nacelle/diverters were also included in the design process by imposing the pressure field obtained during the design process onto the triangulated surfaces of the nacelle/diverter mesh generated by AIRPLANE. The interference pressures and nacelle buoyancy effects are added to the final forces after each flow field calculation. Full details of the (recently enhanced) ghost nacelle capability are given in a related talk. The pseudo nacelle corrections were greatly improved during this design cycle. During the Ref H and Cycle 1 design activities, the nacelles were only translated and pitched. In the cycle 2 design effort the nacelles can translate vertically, and pitch to accommodate the changes in the lower surface geometry. The diverter heights (between their leading and trailing edges) were modified during design as the shape of the lower wing changed, with the drag of the diverter changing accordingly. Both adjoint and finite difference gradients were used during optimization. The adjoint-based gradients were found to give good direction in the design space for configurations near the starting point, but as the design approached a minimum, the finite difference gradients were found to be more accurate. Use of finite difference gradients was limited by the CPU time limit available on the Cray machines. A typical optimization run using finite difference gradients can use only 30 to 40 design variables and one optimization iteration within the 8 hour queue limit for the chosen grid size and convergence level. The efficiency afforded by the adjoint method allowed for 50-120 design variables and 5-10 optimization iterations in the 8 hour queue. Geometric perturbations to the wing and fuselage were made using the Hicks/Henne (HH) shape functions. The HH functions were distributed uniformly along the chords of the wing defining sections and lofted linearly. During single-surface design, constraints on thickness and volume at selected wing stations were imposed. Both fuselage camber and cross-sectional area distributions were permitted to change during design. The major disadvantage to the use of these functions is the inherent surface waviness produced by repeated use of such functions. Many smoothing operations were required following optimization runs to produce a configuration with reasonable smoothness. Wagner functions were also used on the wing sections but were never used on the fuselage. The Wagner functions are a family of increasingly oscillatory functions that have also been used extensively in airfoil design. The leading and trailing edge regions of the wing were designed by use of polynomial and monomial functions respectively. Twist was attempted but was abandoned because of little performance improvement available from changing the baseline twist.

Cliff, Susan E.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Inlet Spillage Drag Predictions Using the AIRPLANE Code

AIRPLANE (Jameson/Baker) is a steady inviscid unstructured Euler flow solver. It has been validated on many HSR geometries. It is implemented as MESHPLANE, an unstructured mesh generator, and FLOPLANE, an iterative flow solver. The surface description from an Intergraph CAD system goes into MESHPLANE as collections of polygonal curves to generate the 3D mesh. The flow solver uses a multistage time stepping scheme with residual averaging to approach steady state, but R is not time accurate. The flow solver was ported from Cray to IBM SP2 by Wu-Sun Cheng (IBM); it could only be run on 4 CPUs at a time because of memory limitations. Meshes for the four cases had about 655,000 points in the flow field, about 3.9 million tetrahedra, about 77,500 points on the surface. The flow solver took about 23 wall seconds per iteration when using 4 CPUs. It took about eight and a half wall hours to run 1,300 iterations at a time (the queue limit is 10 hours). A revised version of FLOPLANE (Thomas) was used on up to 64 CPUs to finish up some calculations at the end. We had to turn on more communication when using more processors to eliminate noise that was contaminating the flow field; this added about 50% to the elapsed wall time per iteration when using 64 CPUs. This study involved computing lift and drag for a wing/body/nacelle configuration at Mach 0.9 and 4 degrees pitch. Four cases were considered, corresponding to four nacelle mass flow conditions.

Thomas, Scott D.↗
NASA NTRS1995

An edge-based solution-adaptive method applied to the AIRPLANE code

Computational methods to solve large-scale realistic problems in fluid flow can be made more efficient and cost effective by using them in conjunction with dynamic mesh adaption procedures that perform simultaneous coarsening and refinement to capture flow features of interest. This work couples the tetrahedral mesh adaption scheme, 3D_TAG, with the AIRPLANE code to solve complete aircraft configuration problems in transonic and supersonic flow regimes. Results indicate that the near-field sonic boom pressure signature of a cone-cylinder is improved, the oblique and normal shocks are better resolved on a transonic wing, and the bow shock ahead of an unstarted inlet is better defined.

Biswas, Rupak↗
NASA NTRS1992

Computational/experimental analysis of three low sonic boom configurations with design modifications

The Euler code, designated AIRPLANE, which uses an unstructured tetrahedral mesh was used to compute near-field sonic boom pressure signatures on three modern low sonic boom configurations: the Mach 2, Mach 3, and Haglund models. The TEAM code which uses a multi-zoned structured grid was used to calculate pressure signatures for the Mach 2 model. The computational pressure signatures for the Mach 2 and Mach 3 models are compared with recent experimental data. The computed pressure signatures were extracted at distances less than one body length below the configuration and extrapolated to the experimental distance. The Mach 2 model was found to have larger overpressures off-ground-track than on-ground-track in both computational and experimental results. The correlations with the experiment were acceptable where the signatures were not contaminated by instrumentation and model-support hardware. AIRPLANE was used to study selected modifications to improve the overpressures of the Mach 2 model.

Cliff, Susan E.↗
NASA NTRS1991

An evaluation of three two-dimensional computational fluid dynamics codes including low Reynolds numbers and transonic Mach numbers

Full-potential, Euler, and Navier-Stokes computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes were evaluated for use in analyzing the flow field about airfoils sections operating at Mach numbers from 0.20 to 0.60 and Reynolds numbers from 500,000 to 2,000,000. The potential code (LBAUER) includes weakly coupled integral boundary layer equations for laminar and turbulent flow with simple transition and separation models. The Navier-Stokes code (ARC2D) uses the thin-layer formulation of the Reynolds-averaged equations with an algebraic turbulence model. The Euler code (ISES) includes strongly coupled integral boundary layer equations and advanced transition and separation calculations with the capability to model laminar separation bubbles and limited zones of turbulent separation. The best experiment/CFD correlation was obtained with the Euler code because its boundary layer equations model the physics of the flow better than the other two codes. An unusual reversal of boundary layer separation with increasing angle of attack, following initial shock formation on the upper surface of the airfoil, was found in the experiment data. This phenomenon was not predicted by the CFD codes evaluated.

Hicks, Raymond M.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Euler/experiment correlations of sonic boom pressure signatures

The ability of inviscid computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes to compute sonic boom pressure signatures is examined using three different codes that solve the Euler equations of fluid flow on structured hexahedral and unstructured tetrahedral grids. The results of these Euler codes were evaluated by comparing the computed pressure signatures with near-field experimental data. The computational pressure signatures were determined at distances of one body length or less below the configuration in the plane of symmetry and extrapolated to experimental distances. The extrapolated CFD pressure signatures gave acceptable correlations with experimental data, provided that fine grids were used near the surface and downstream of the configuration.

Cliff, Susan E.↗