Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “solver”

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 541 records · Page 30
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1993

Computational flow predictions for hypersonic drag devices

The effectiveness of two types of hypersonic decelerators is examined: mechanically deployable flares and inflatable ballutes. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is used to predict the flowfield around a solid rocket motor (SRM) with a deployed decelerator. The computations are performed with an ideal gas solver using an effective specific heat ratio of 1.15. The results from the ideal gas solver are compared to computational results from a thermochemical nonequilibrium solver. The surface pressure coefficient, the drag, and the extend of the compression corner separation zone predicted by the ideal gas solver compare well with those predicted by the nonequilibrium solver. The ideal gas solver is computationally inexpensive and is shown to be well suited for preliminary design studies. The computed solutions are used to determine the size and shape of the decelerator that are required to achieve a drag coefficient of 5. Heat transfer rates to the SRM and the decelerators are predicted to estimate the amount of thermal protection required.

Tokarcik, Susan A.↗
NASA NTRS2007

USM3D Unstructured Grid Solutions for CAWAPI at NASA LaRC

In support the Cranked Arrow Wing Aerodynamic Project International (CAWAPI) to improve the Technology Readiness Level of flow solvers by comparing results with measured F-16XL-1 flight data, NASA Langley employed the TetrUSS unstructured grid solver, USM3D, to obtain solutions for all seven flight conditions of interest. A newly available solver version that incorporates a number of turbulence models, including the two-equation linear and non-linear k-epsilon, was used in this study. As a first test, a choice was made to utilize only a single grid resolution with the solver for the simulation of the different flight conditions. Comparisons are presented with three turbulence models in USM3D, flight data for surface pressure, boundary-layer profiles, and skin-friction results, as well as limited predictions from other solvers. A result of these comparisons is that the USM3D solver can be used in an engineering environment to predict flow physics on a complex configuration at flight Reynolds numbers with a two-equation linear k-epsilon turbulence model.

Lamar, John E.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Numerical Solutions for the CAWAPI Configuration on Unstructured Grids at NASA LaRC, United States

In support of the Cranked Arrow Wing Aerodynamic Project International (CAWAPI) with its goal of improving the Technology Readiness Level of flow solvers by comparing results with measured F-16XL-1 flight data, NASA Langley employed the TetrUSS unstructured grid solver, USM3D, to obtain solutions for all seven flight conditions of interest. A newly available solver version that incorporates a number of turbulence models, including the two-equation linear and non-linear k- , was used in this study. As a first test, a choice was made to utilize only a single grid resolution with the solver for the simulation of the different flight conditions. Comparisons are presented with three turbulence models in USM3D, flight data for surface pressure, boundary-layer profiles, and skin-friction distribution, as well as limited predictions from other solvers. A result of these comparisons is that the USM3D solver can be used in an engineering environment to predict vortex-flow physics on a complex configuration at flight Reynolds numbers with a two-equation linear k- turbulence model.

Lamar, John E.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Recent Advances in Agglomerated Multigrid

We report recent advancements of the agglomerated multigrid methodology for complex flow simulations on fully unstructured grids. An agglomerated multigrid solver is applied to a wide range of test problems from simple two-dimensional geometries to realistic three- dimensional configurations. The solver is evaluated against a single-grid solver and, in some cases, against a structured-grid multigrid solver. Grid and solver issues are identified and overcome, leading to significant improvements over single-grid solvers.

Nishikawa, Hiroaki↗
NASA NTRS2018

LAVA Simulations for the 3rd AIAA CFD High Lift Prediction Workshop with Body Fitted Grids

In response to the 3rd AIAA CFD High Lift Prediction Workshop, the workshop cases were analyzed using Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes flow solvers within the Launch Ascent and Vehicle Aerodynamics (LAVA) solver framework. For the workshop cases the advantages and limitations of both overset-structured an unstructured polyhedral meshes were assessed. The workshop included 3 cases: a 2D airfoil validation case, a mesh convergence study using the High Lift Common Research Model, and a nacelle/pylon integration study using the JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) Standard Model. The 2D airfoil case from the workshop is used to verify the implementation of the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model along with some of its variants within the solver. The High Lift Common Research Model case is used to assess solver performance and accuracy at varying mesh resolutions, as well as identify the minimum mesh fidelity required for LAVA on this class of problem. The JAXA Standard Model case is used to assess the solver's sensitivity to the turbulence model and to compare the structured and unstructured mesh paradigms. These workshop cases have helped establish best practices for high lift flow configurations for the LAVA solver.

LAVA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploring Airfoil Table Generation using XFOIL and OVERFLOW

The rotorcraft design process is a continuously evolving field of research that incorporates a number of software programs. An accurate airfoil table is critical in the design and testing process for rotorcraft. With multiple flow solvers available and flow conditions of multirotor UAM vehicles potentially covering a wide range of Reynolds and Mach numbers, a documented approach for developing airfoil tables is needed. Using benchmark data from legacy airfoil tables and wind tunnel tests for comparison, simulations for a comprehensive test matrix could guide rotorcraft design engineers in generating their own airfoil tables using the XFOIL and OVERFLOW solvers. The motivation for this study is to investigate flow solver features to develop a best practices document for airfoil table generation. The study uses the OVERFLOW and XFOIL flow solvers, coupled with the airfoil table generator AFTGen, to analyze three airfoils for a specific Reynolds numbers flow regime and provide details on how well each flow solver performs within a specific angle of attack range, Mach number range, Reynolds number range, and in different flow conditions, such as turbulent and transitional flow. OVERFLOW analyses in AFTGen for fully turbulent and transition flow are compared with XFOIL results and experimental test data for the section lift, section drag, and pressure coefficients. XFOIL ultimately yields results that are accurate within the linear angle of attack range and below a Mach number of 0.4 but tends to overpredict lift and underpredict drag unless the flow is in the compressible regime. XFOIL cannot accurately model stall and post-stall conditions due to the nature of the solver. This is evident in nearly every case run with XFOIL, where the linear range is usually predicted acceptably and the lift coefficient is overpredicted as the stall angle of attack is approached (with the exception being the generally poor correlation with most of the SSC-A09 cases). OVERFLOW is limited at low Mach numbers, and appears to perform best at Mach numbers of 0.4 and above. The exploration of airfoil table generation using XFOIL and OVERFLOW yielded moderately successful results for the NACA 0012 airfoil, reasonably good results for the RC(4)-10 airfoil, and less accurate results for the SSC-A09 airfoil.

Airfoil Table Generation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recent Advancements in the PATO Material Response Code

Introduction: Predicting the complicated multiphysics phenomena during atmospheric entry requires high-fidelity modeling tools to refine estimates of mission risks during entry. To this end, new capabilities are being added to the Porous-material Analysis Toolbox based on OpenFOAM (PATO). PATO is an open-source software for Computational Material Response (CMR) of reactive porous materials submitted to high-temperature environments. The objective of this work is to highlight current efforts to add to and improve upon the modeling capabilities of PATO. These include efforts to loosely couple PATO with other discipline specialized codes including hypersonic Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), to assess the interaction effects between pyrolysis gas blowing and the boundary layer, and Computational Solid Mechanics (CSM), to address modeling of mechanical erosion. Other refinements include surface phenomena modeling capabilities to address the effects of silicone-based coatings applied to the TPS during flight preparation, and a unified multiphase solver for a mixed porous-material and plain-fluid domain. Coupling CMR with CFD (CMR/CFD): A loose coupling between PATO and the Data Parallel Line Relaxation (DPLR) CFD code has been achieved by making use of a blowing boundary condition at the heatshield surface available in DPLR. Starting with heat flux estimates with no pyrolysis gas blowing at the surface, blowing gases are computed by the CMR and passed to the CFD such that aerothermal properties of the environment can be recomputed for a new CMR computation. This leads to an iterative process which is supplemented with an estimate of the radiative heat flux using the Nonequilibrium air radiation (NEQAIR) program. The entire iterative process is illustrated in Figure 1. This coupling strategy has been utilized in computing the MSL material response. The goal is to compare the coupled CMR/CFD results with material response results obtained using traditional blowing corrections. Coupling CMS with CMR: A mechanical erosion model is currently being implemented in PATO to account for the additional mass removal induced by high shear conditions. The modeling process at each timestep consists of updating the mechanical properties as a function of temperature and computing the stress tensor and displacement fields of the material. Then, a failure criteria model determines the regions in which the stress exceeds the ultimate strength values resulting in mesh movement to account for mass removal. This model allows the material response simulation to compute the recession due to both oxidation and shear-induced erosion. The model is demonstrated by computing material response of sphere-cone arc jet samples. Surface Modeling Capabilities: NuSil, a silicone-based coating, was sprayed onto the MSL and Mars 2020 heatshields to mitigate shedding of phenolic dust. To better understand the effects of the NuSil coating on the material response, a novel model has been implemented in PATO. In this model, the equilibrium of the charred NuSil surface is modeled as pure silica, and a constant offset, inspired by the classical spallation model, is added to the the char blowing rate and wall enthalpy to reproduce HyMETS experimental results. The model has also been used to estimate the 3D material response of the MSL heatshield. Unified Solver: In addition to the iterative loose coupling approach mentioned above, a multiphase unified solver is being developed to couple the environment (plain-fluid phase) and the porous-material phase. The solver is based on the volume averaged conservation of mass, momentum, and energy for the macroscale with closure models which include microscale effects through effective physicochemical properties. The unified solver has been used to compute flow through a porous plug and solve the Beavers and Joseph problem. Since the strong coupling between phases is inherent to this solver, modeling assumptions present in other coupling methods of material response are mitigated. This strategy also makes it feasible to capture the competition between surface and volume ablation in the same computational domain, which is usually not possible with other coupling approaches.

Material Response↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recent Advancements in the PATO Material Response Code

Introduction: Predicting the complicated multiphysics phenomena during atmospheric entry requires high-fidelity modeling tools to refine estimates of mission risks during entry. To this end, new capabilities are being added to the Porous-material Analysis Toolbox based on OpenFOAM (PATO) [1,2,3]. PATO is an open-source software for Computational Material Response (CMR) of reactive porous materials submitted to high-temperature environments. The objective of this work is to highlight current efforts to add to and improve upon the modeling capabilities of PATO. These include efforts to loosely couple PATO with other discipline specialized codes including hypersonic Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), to assess the interaction effects between pyrolysis gas blowing and the boundary layer, and Computational Solid Mechanics (CSM), to address modeling of mechanical erosion. Other refinements include surface phenomena modeling capabilities to address the effects of silicone-based coatings applied to the TPS during flight preparation, and a unified multiphase solver for a mixed porous-material and plain-fluid domain. Coupling CMR with CFD (CMR/CFD): A loose coupling between PATO and the Data Parallel Line Relaxation (DPLR) [4] CFD code has been achieved by making use of a blowing boundary condition at the heatshield surface available in DPLR. Starting with heat flux estimates with no pyrolysis gas blowing at the surface, blowing gases are computed by the CMR and passed to the CFD such that aerothermal properties of the environment can be recomputed for a new CMR computation. This leads to an iterative process which is supplemented with an estimate of the radiative heat flux using the Nonequilibrium air radiation (NEQAIR) [5] program. The entire iterative process is illustrated in Figure 1. This coupling strategy has been utilized in computing the MSL material response. The goal is to compare the coupled CMR/CFD results with material response results obtained using traditional blowing corrections. Coupling CMS with CMR: A mechanical erosion model is currently being implemented in PATO to account for the additional mass removal induced by high shear conditions. The modeling process at each timestep consists of updating the mechanical properties as a function of temperature and computing the stress tensor and displacement fields of the material. Then, a failure criteria model determines the regions in which the stress exceeds the ultimate strength values resulting in mesh movement to account for mass removal. This model allows the material response simulation to compute the recession due to both oxidation and shear-induced erosion. The model is demonstrated by computing material response of sphere-cone arc jet samples. Surface Modeling Capabilities: NuSil, a silicone-based coating, was sprayed onto the MSL and Mars 2020 heatshields to mitigate shedding of phenolic dust. To better understand the effects of the NuSil coating on the material response, a novel model has been implemented in PATO. In this model, the equilibrium of the charred NuSil surface is modeled as pure silica, and a constant offset, inspired by the classical spallation model, is added to the the char blowing rate and wall enthalpy to reproduce HyMETS experimental results. The model has also been used to estimate the 3D material response of the MSL heatshield [6]. Unified Solver: In addition to the iterative loose coupling approach mentioned above, a multiphase unified solver is being developed to couple the environment (plain-fluid phase) and the porous-material phase. The solver is based on the volume averaged conservation of mass, momentum, and energy for the macroscale with closure models which include microscale effects through effective physicochemical properties. The unified solver has been used to compute flow through a porous plug and solve the Beavers and Joseph problem [7]. Since the strong coupling between phases is inherent to this solver, modeling assumptions present in other coupling methods of material response are mitigated. This strategy also makes it feasible to capture the competition between surface and volume ablation in the same computational domain, which is usually not possible with other coupling approaches.

Thermal Protection Systems↗
NASA NTRS1991

Computation of compressible quasi-axisymmetric slender vortex flow and breakdown

The unsteady, compressible Navier-Stokes equations are used to compute and analyze compressible quasi-axisymmetric isolated vortices. The Navier-Stokes equations are solved using an implicit, upwind, flux difference splitting finite volume scheme. The developed three dimensional solver was verified by comparing its solution profiles with those of a slender, quasi-axisymmetric vortex solver for a subsonic, quasi-axisymmetric vortex in an unbounded domain. The Navier-Stokes solver is then used to solve for a supersonic, quasi-axisymmetric vortex flow in a configured circular duct. Steady and unsteady vortex-shock interactions and breakdown were captured. The problem was also calculated using the Euler solver of the same code; the results were compared with those of the Navier-Stokes solver. The effect of the initial swirl was investigated.

Kandil, Osama A.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Computation of steady and unsteady compressible quasi-axisymmetric vortex flow and breakdown

The unsteady, compressible Navier-Stokes equations are used to compute and analyze compressible quasi-axisymmetric isolated vortices. The Navier-Stokes equations are solved using an implicit, upwind, flux-difference splitting finite-volume scheme. The developed three-dimensional solver has been verified by comparing its solution profiles with those of a slender, quasi-axisymmetric vortex solver for a subsonic, isolated quasi-axisymmetric vortex in an unbounded domain. The Navier-Stokes solver is then used to solve for a supersonic quasi-axisymmetric vortex flow in a configured circular duct. Steady and unsteady vortex-shock interactions and breakdown have been captured. The problem has also been calculated using the Euler solver of the same code and the results are compared with those of the Navier-Stokes solver. The effect of the initial swirl has been tentatively studied.

Kandil, Osama A.↗
NASA NTRS1993

A concurrent hybrid Navier-Stokes/Euler approach to fluid dynamic computations

We present a methodology for the numerical simulation of flow fields by the simultaneous application of two distinct approaches to computational aerodynamics. We compute the three dimensional flow field of a missile at moderate angle of attack by dividing the flow field into two regions: a region near the surface where we use a structured grid and a Navier Stokes solver, and a region farther away from the surface where we utilize an unstructured grid and an Euler solver. The two solvers execute as independent UNIX processes either on the same machine or on two machines. The solvers communicate data across their common interfaces within the same machine or over the network. The computations indicate that extensively separated flow fields can be computed without significant distortion by combining viscous and inviscid solvers.

Tavella, Domingo A.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Preconditioned conjugate gradient methods for the Navier-Stokes equations

A preconditioned Krylov subspace method (GMRES) is used to solve the linear systems of equations formed at each time-integration step of the unsteady, two-dimensional, compressible Navier-Stokes equations of fluid flow. The Navier-Stokes equations are cast in an implicit, upwind finite-volume, flux-split formulation. Several preconditioning techniques are investigated to enhance the efficiency and convergence rate of the implicit solver based on the GMRES algorithm. The superiority of the new solver is established by comparisons with a conventional implicit solver, namely line Gauss-Seidel relaxation (LGSR). Computational test results for low-speed (incompressible flow over a backward-facing step at Mach 0.1), transonic flow (trailing edge flow in a transonic turbine cascade), and hypersonic flow (shock-on-shock interactions on a cylindrical leading edge at Mach 6.0) are presented. For the Mach 0.1 case, overall speedup factors of up to 17 (in terms of time-steps) and 15 (in terms of CPU time on a CRAY-YMP/8) are found in favor of the preconditioned GMRES solver, when compared with the LGSR solver. The corresponding speedup factors for the transonic flow case are 17 and 23, respectively. The hypersonic flow case shows slightly lower speedup factors of 9 and 13, respectively. The study of preconditioners conducted in this research reveals that a new LUSGS-type preconditioner is much more efficient than a conventional incomplete LU-type preconditioner.

Ajmani, Kumud↗
NASA NTRS1997

Visualization of Unsteady Computational Fluid Dynamics

The current compute environment that most researchers are using for the calculation of 3D unsteady Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) results is a super-computer class machine. The Massively Parallel Processors (MPP's) such as the 160 node IBM SP2 at NAS and clusters of workstations acting as a single MPP (like NAS's SGI Power-Challenge array and the J90 cluster) provide the required computation bandwidth for CFD calculations of transient problems. If we follow the traditional computational analysis steps for CFD (and we wish to construct an interactive visualizer) we need to be aware of the following: (1) Disk space requirements. A single snap-shot must contain at least the values (primitive variables) stored at the appropriate locations within the mesh. For most simple 3D Euler solvers that means 5 floating point words. Navier-Stokes solutions with turbulence models may contain 7 state-variables. (2) Disk speed vs. Computational speeds. The time required to read the complete solution of a saved time frame from disk is now longer than the compute time for a set number of iterations from an explicit solver. Depending, on the hardware and solver an iteration of an implicit code may also take less time than reading the solution from disk. If one examines the performance improvements in the last decade or two, it is easy to see that depending on disk performance (vs. CPU improvement) may not be the best method for enhancing interactivity. (3) Cluster and Parallel Machine I/O problems. Disk access time is much worse within current parallel machines and cluster of workstations that are acting in concert to solve a single problem. In this case we are not trying to read the volume of data, but are running the solver and the solver outputs the solution. These traditional network interfaces must be used for the file system. (4) Numerics of particle traces. Most visualization tools can work upon a single snap shot of the data but some visualization tools for transient problems require dealing with time.

Haimes, Robert↗
NASA NTRS1997

The Implicit and Explicit alpha-mu Schemes

Artificial numerical dissipation is an important issue in large Reynolds number computations. In such computations, the artificial dissipation inherent in traditional numerical schemes can overwhelm the physical dissipation and yield inaccurate results on meshes of practical size. In the present work, the space-time conservation element and solution element method is used to construct new and accurate numerical schemes such that artificial numerical dissipation will not overwhelm physical dissipation. Specifically, these schemes have the property that numerical dissipation vanishes when the physical viscosity goes to zero. These new schemes therefore accurately model the physical dissipation even when it is extremely small. The method of space-time conservation element and solution element, currently under development, is a nontraditional numerical method for solving conservation laws. The method is developed on the basis of local and global flux conservation in a space-time domain, in which space and time are treated in a unified manner. Explicit solvers for model and fluid dynamic conservation laws have previously been investigated. In this paper, we introduce a new concept in the design of implicit schemes, and use it to construct two highly accurate solvers for a convection-diffusion equation. The two schemes become identical in the pure convection case, and in the pure diffusion case. The implicit schemes are applicable over the whole Reynolds number range, from purely diffusive equations to purely inviscid (convective) equations. The stability and consistency of the schemes are analyzed, and some numerical results are presented. It is shown that, in the inviscid case, the new schemes become explicit and their amplification factors are identical to those of the Leapfrog scheme. On the other hand, in the pure diffusion case, their principal amplification factor becomes the amplification factor of the Crank-Nicolson scheme. We also construct an explicit solver with the treatment of diffusion being based on that in the implicit solvers. The explicit solver has only a CFL stability limitation on the Courant number, yet it retains the second-order spatial accuracy of the implicit schemes.

Chang, Sin-Chung↗
NASA NTRS1998

Parallel Implicit Algorithms for CFD

The main goal of this project was efficient distributed parallel and workstation cluster implementations of Newton-Krylov-Schwarz (NKS) solvers for implicit Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD.) "Newton" refers to a quadratically convergent nonlinear iteration using gradient information based on the true residual, "Krylov" to an inner linear iteration that accesses the Jacobian matrix only through highly parallelizable sparse matrix-vector products, and "Schwarz" to a domain decomposition form of preconditioning the inner Krylov iterations with primarily neighbor-only exchange of data between the processors. Prior experience has established that Newton-Krylov methods are competitive solvers in the CFD context and that Krylov-Schwarz methods port well to distributed memory computers. The combination of the techniques into Newton-Krylov-Schwarz was implemented on 2D and 3D unstructured Euler codes on the parallel testbeds that used to be at LaRC and on several other parallel computers operated by other agencies or made available by the vendors. Early implementations were made directly in Massively Parallel Integration (MPI) with parallel solvers we adapted from legacy NASA codes and enhanced for full NKS functionality. Later implementations were made in the framework of the PETSC library from Argonne National Laboratory, which now includes pseudo-transient continuation Newton-Krylov-Schwarz solver capability (as a result of demands we made upon PETSC during our early porting experiences). A secondary project pursued with funding from this contract was parallel implicit solvers in acoustics, specifically in the Helmholtz formulation. A 2D acoustic inverse problem has been solved in parallel within the PETSC framework.

Keyes, David E.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Practical Aerodynamic Design Optimization Based on the Navier-Stokes Equations and a Discrete Adjoint Method

Compressible and incompressible versions of a three-dimensional unstructured mesh Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes flow solver have been differentiated and resulting derivatives have been verified by comparisons with finite differences and a complex-variable approach. In this implementation, the turbulence model is fully coupled with the flow equations in order to achieve this consistency. The accuracy demonstrated in the current work represents the first time that such an approach has been successfully implemented. The accuracy of a number of simplifying approximations to the linearizations of the residual have been examined. A first-order approximation to the dependent variables in both the adjoint and design equations has been investigated. The effects of a "frozen" eddy viscosity and the ramifications of neglecting some mesh sensitivity terms were also examined. It has been found that none of the approximations yielded derivatives of acceptable accuracy and were often of incorrect sign. However, numerical experiments indicate that an incomplete convergence of the adjoint system often yield sufficiently accurate derivatives, thereby significantly lowering the time required for computing sensitivity information. The convergence rate of the adjoint solver relative to the flow solver has been examined. Inviscid adjoint solutions typically require one to four times the cost of a flow solution, while for turbulent adjoint computations, this ratio can reach as high as eight to ten. Numerical experiments have shown that the adjoint solver can stall before converging the solution to machine accuracy, particularly for viscous cases. A possible remedy for this phenomenon would be to include the complete higher-order linearization in the preconditioning step, or to employ a simple form of mesh sequencing to obtain better approximations to the solution through the use of coarser meshes. An efficient surface parameterization based on a free-form deformation technique has been utilized and the resulting codes have been integrated with an optimization package. Lastly, sample optimizations have been shown for inviscid and turbulent flow over an ONERA M6 wing. Drag reductions have been demonstrated by reducing shock strengths across the span of the wing. In order for large scale optimization to become routine, the benefits of parallel architectures should be exploited. Although the flow solver has been parallelized using compiler directives. The parallel efficiency is under 50 percent. Clearly, parallel versions of the codes will have an immediate impact on the ability to design realistic configurations on fine meshes, and this effort is currently underway.

Grossman, Bernard↗
NASA NTRS1999

Improvements to the Unstructured Mesh Generator MESH3D

The AIRPLANE process starts with an aircraft geometry stored in a CAD system. The surface is modeled with a mesh of triangles and then the flow solver produces pressures at surface points which may be integrated to find forces and moments. The biggest advantage is that the grid generation bottleneck of the CFD process is eliminated when an unstructured tetrahedral mesh is used. MESH3D is the key to turning around the first analysis of a CAD geometry in days instead of weeks. The flow solver part of AIRPLANE has proven to be robust and accurate over a decade of use at NASA. It has been extensively validated with experimental data and compares well with other Euler flow solvers. AIRPLANE has been applied to all the HSR geometries treated at Ames over the course of the HSR program in order to verify the accuracy of other flow solvers. The unstructured approach makes handling complete and complex geometries very simple because only the surface of the aircraft needs to be discretized, i.e. covered with triangles. The volume mesh is created automatically by MESH3D. AIRPLANE runs well on multiple platforms. Vectorization on the Cray Y-MP is reasonable for a code that uses indirect addressing. Massively parallel computers such as the IBM SP2, SGI Origin 2000, and the Cray T3E have been used with an MPI version of the flow solver and the code scales very well on these systems. AIRPLANE can run on a desktop computer as well. AIRPLANE has a future. The unstructured technologies developed as part of the HSR program are now targeting high Reynolds number viscous flow simulation. The pacing item in this effort is Navier-Stokes mesh generation.

Thomas, Scott D.↗
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.↗