Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “LAVA”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 325 records · Page 18
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Scale resolving simulations of the NASA Juncture Flow Model using the LAVA solver

Two distinct simulation methodologies: Delayed Detached Eddy Simulation (DDES) and stress based Wall-modelled Large Eddy Simulation (WMLES) are evaluated using structured overset curvilinear grids for the NASA juncture flow model. While both methodologies are shown to mitigate the primary shortcomings of steady state Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes(RANS) simulations, several unresolved aspects are identified. Strong sensitivity to RANS-typegrid refinement is observed in the DDES with a substantial deterioration of the solution quality with increasing spatial resolution associated with deficiencies in the shielding function. Mean profiles for attached boundary layers on the fuselage show spurious inflections suggesting modelled stress depletion on finer grids. Lower numerical dissipation in terms of spatial discretization and time step size is seen to improve the solution quality, and the advantage of using RC and QCR2000 corrections in the underlying RANS closure is demonstrated for DDES on RANS-type meshes. Equilibrium Wall-Modelled LES used grids that resolved the tripping dots over the fuselage nose and the wing leading edge, consistent with the experiment setup. These simulations resulted in a cost-competitive approach compared to DDES on RANS-type grids. Although the agreement between WMLES predictions of first and second order single point statistics with experimental measurements is promising, a fundamental shortcoming is noted in terms of an overshoot in streamwise momentum in corner regions of the wing-fuselage juncture. This excess momentum subsequently delays the onset of separation,thereby resulting in an underprediction in length of the separation bubble. Some quantitative sensitivity to numerical discretization is observed; lowering of numerical dissipation shows better agreement with the experiment.

T^3↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

High-Lift Common Research Model: RANS, HRLES and WMLES Perspectives for CLmax Prediction Using LAVA

A unified assessment of three turbulence treatments: Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes(RANS), Hybrid RANS/LES (HRLES) and Equilibrium Wall-Modelled Large Eddy Simulation(WMLES) is presented for the High-Lift Common Research Model (CRM-HL). For the free-air configuration, steady-state RANS simulations show very accurate drag polar predictions in the low-𝛼linear regime. However, strong grid sensitivity is reported near the maximum lift-state(𝐶𝐿max), with finer-grids showing larger errors and predicting erroneous flow topologies on the wing. Our RANS simulations show that several corrections for the Spalart-Allmaras (SA)turbulence model widely used in the community lead to more erroneous results compared to the baseline closure, without exception. Both scale-resolving methods (HRLES and WMLES)address these drawbacks and predict an outboard separation pattern on the main element that is in good agreement with the oil flow photographs taken from the QinetiQ wind tunnel experiments, when LES-appropriate grids and numerical discretizations are used. While RANS simulations with the baseline SA closure do not show any wing-root separation post𝐶𝐿max, both HRLES and WMLES show onset of corner flow separation with varying degrees of progression, along with a weak pitch break in the wing-contribution of the overall pitching moment. This post-𝐶𝐿max pitch break seen in the free-air simulations is weaker than the break observed in experiments, with a weaker break reported in WMLES for each iteration of grid-refinement. In-tunnel simulations using both SA-baseline RANS and WMLES show a much stronger post-𝐶𝐿max break with the WMLES predictions showing excellent agreement with the experiment in terms of both the flow-topology observed and the pressure-coefficients at various spanwise stations. Sensitivity to the tunnel wall boundary layer is characterized via comparisons between viscous and inviscid treatments for the tunnel walls. WMLES predictions show moderate sensitivity at the predicted inboard flow-state at 𝐶𝐿max along with the progression towards a post-𝐶𝐿max stall; however, this stalled state at 𝛼≈20◦(inside the tunnel) obtained with both tunnel wall treatments appears to be largely identical.

TTT↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Perspective for the High Lift Common Research Model Using the LAVA Framework

An in-depth assessment of the High Lift-Common Research Model (HL-CRM) aerodynamic performance is made using a Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) methodology. Results presented here were produced in support of the 4th AIAA High Lift Prediction Workshop(HLPW-4), with additional simulation results and analysis used to support findings from the workshop. Mesh resolution, RANS closure models, and tunnel effects were among the sources of simulation sensitivity addressed, all in the pursuit of evaluating best-practice simulation methods for complex high-lift configurations. In general, free-air simulations using RANS yield accurate predictions of integrated loads in the pre-stall regime for the HL-CRM, while strong sensitivity to simulation method is observed near CLmax. Additionally, a study assessing changes in aerodynamic performance due to flap deflection angle indicated strong sensitivity to turbulence model closure and mesh resolution, particularly at the highest deflection setting. Several available corrections for the Spalart-Allmaras (SA) turbulence model were tested and generally introduced more error relative to the experiment in comparison to the baseline SA closure model. The Standard Menter Baseline Two-Equation (k-ωBSL) turbulence model was also explored, which arguably yielded results highly consistent with experiment, but at a substantially higher computational cost. Therefore, as a compromise between computational cost and accuracy, the baseline SA closure model was selected for additional HL-CRM studies that assess alternative solution methods. These strategies include “warm start” approaches, which initialize the simulation from a previously converged solution at a nearby angle of attack, unsteady calculations, and simulations that model the experimental wind tunnel. Results from these studies would reinforce the shortcomings of RANS in predicting aircraft performance at high-lift conditions, namely at high-αand highly loaded flap conditions, while also answering questions about appropriate modeling techniques to minimize the errors associated with RANS where possible

TTT↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Hybrid RANS-LES Perspective for the High Lift Common Research Model Using LAVA

An assessment of a Hybrid RANS/LES (HRLES) approach for𝐶𝐿,max prediction is presented for the NASA High-Lift Common Research Model (CRM-HL). Both the free air and the wind tunnel configuration of the CRM-HL are investigated and the results are compared to the QinetiQ wind tunnel experiments and to two other numerical approaches: Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) and Wall-Modeled Large Eddy Simulations (WMLES). For the free-air configuration, HRLES was shown to address some of the known shortcomings in RANS methods and prevent inboard and outboard flow separation particularly in the region of𝐶𝐿,max and post-stall. To achieve these improvements over RANS, LES-appropriate grids and numerical discretizations are required. HRLES predicts a weak pitch break at the highest angle-of-attack due to onset of wing-root corner flow separation whereas the free-air corrected experiment values indicate an occurrence of a much stronger pitch break. The improvements of HRLES over a URANS approach has been objectively shown by computing a set of solutions with the same grid, same numerics and time-step size and comparing the solutions. It was also found that when applying HRLES to a RANS best practice grid and numerics that the HRLES method significantly under performed RANS. For the in tunnel configuration, HRLES showed good agreement with the loads, surface pressure and oil-flow photographs obtained in the experiment. HRLES was able to improve upon the RANS simulations, which showed a sharp loss of lift at the two highest angles-of-attack due to large scale inboard and outboard separation on the wing, by correctly predicting the corner flow separation and showing remarkably close agreement in the flow topologies with the experiment.

TTT↗