NASA NTRS2008
Tandem cylinders are being studied because they model a variety of component level interactions of landing gear. The present effort is directed at the case of two identical cylinders with their centroids separated in the streamwise direction by 1.435 diameters. Experiments in the Basic Aerodynamic Research Tunnel and Quiet Flow Facility at NASA Langley Research Center have provided an extensive experimental database of the nearfield flow and radiated noise. The measurements were conducted at a Mach number of 0.1285 and Reynolds number of 1.66x10(exp 5) based on the cylinder diameter. A trip was used on the upstream cylinder to insure a fully turbulent flow separation and, hence, to simulate a major aspect of high Reynolds number flow. The parallel computational effort uses the three-dimensional Navier-Stokes solver CFL3D with a hybrid, zonal turbulence model that turns off the turbulence production term everywhere except in a narrow ring surrounding solid surfaces. The experiments exhibited an asymmetry in the surface pressure that was persistent despite attempts to eliminate it through small changes in the configuration. To model the asymmetry, the simulations were run with the cylinder configuration at a nonzero but small angle of attack. The computed results and experiments are in general agreement that vortex shedding for the spacing studied herein is weak relative to that observed at supercritical spacings. Although the shedding was subdued in the simulations, it was still more prominent than in the experiments. Overall, the simulation comparisons with measured near-field data and the radiated acoustics are reasonable, especially if one is concerned with capturing the trends relative to larger cylinder spacings. However, the flow details of the 1.435 diameter spacing have not been captured in full even though very fine grid computations have been performed. Some of the discrepancy may be associated with the simulation s inexact representation of the experimental configuration, but numerical and flow modeling errors are also likely contributors to the observed differences.