Current Practice Unstructured Grid CFD Results For 3rd AIAA High . - NASA

5m ago
3 Views
1 Downloads
1.45 MB
19 Pages
Last View : 22d ago
Last Download : 7d ago
Upload by : Axel Lin
Transcription

Engineering, Test & TechnologyBoeing Research & TechnologyCurrent Practice UnstructuredGrid CFD Results for 3rd AIAAHigh Lift Prediction WorkshopAndrew Cary, Mohamed Yousef, Mori Mani, and Pei LiBoeing Research and TechnologyJanuary 12, 2018Copyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyOverview Completed series of simulations based on High Lift PredictionWorkshop 3 cases to assess flow solvers, committee-providedgrids, and turbulence models Specific focus on JAXA Standard Model without pylon (Case 2a) Emphasis is on comparing CFD results, not comparison to experiment CFD Solvers: BCFD, CFD , GGNS Grids: JAXA (D), ANSA (E), VGRID (C) Turbulence Models: Spalart-Allmaras (SA), SA-QCR, SA-RC-QCR Principal results: Different CFD codes on same/similar meshes with same turbulencemodel generate similar results Mesh and turbulence model differences lead to different results Once significant flow separation occurs, families of pseudo-solutionattractors appear that are associated with flow separation from differentslat bracketsCopyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyJSM Case overview (case 2a)Slat bracketsMach 0.172Rec 1.93Mc 529.2 mmCopyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyMesh Comparison - SurfaceComparable faces, despitedifferent resolutionTighter cornerresolutionJAXA Grid (D)Grid SeriesGrid TypeC1 - VGRIDD – JAXAE – ANSAE2 - ANSA (fine)TetrahedraMixed ElementMixed ElementMixed ElementCopyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.ANSA Grid (E)Number ofVolume Cells96.6M120M107M165MNumber ofVolume .81MNumber ofHex/Prism cellsN/A81.3M79.5M129M

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyMesh Comparison - VolumeFiner off-bodyresolutionJAXA Grid (D)Grid SeriesGrid TypeC1 - VGRIDD – JAXAE – ANSAE2 - ANSA (fine)TetrahedraMixed ElementMixed ElementMixed ElementCopyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.ANSA Grid (E)Number ofVolume Cells96.6M120M107M165MNumber ofVolume .81MNumber ofHex/Prism cellsN/A81.3M79.5M129M

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyVolume Mesh StatisticsCumulative cellsPrism Cells Bins of wall distance (geometric growth)Cells colored by aspect ratio (green division is AR 2)35% cells are within y approx. 5080% cells are within 5% MAC of bodyCopyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyMesh Comparison – Volume MetricsJAXA Grid (D)ANSA Grid (E) ANSA grid packs more cells in lower part of boundary layer ANSA grid has less overall resolution between 5% and 25% chord,but more resolution at about 1 chord Image does not reflect spacing/distribution on surfaceCopyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyLift Coefficient: Result Consistency Results with same grid andturbulence model generallyconsistent JAXA (SA-RC-QCR) resultsshow strong consistency acrossflow solvers, users ANSA results show largerE2spread for both SA-QCR andSA-RC-QCR; primarilyassociated with slat bracketseparation Solutions cluster based onlocation of slat bracketseparations (annotation)Copyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.Mesh: JAXA, ANSA, VGRID, EPICSolver: BCFD, CFD , GGNSTurbulence Model:SA,SA-QCR,SA-RC-QCR

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyLift Coefficient: SA-RC-QCR Recommended variation ofSA turbulence model Results sensitive to meshbut reflect different pseudosolution attractorsE2Copyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.Mesh: JAXA, ANSA, VGRID, EPICSolver: BCFD, CFD , GGNSTurbulence Model:SA,SA-QCR,SA-RC-QCR

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyLift Coefficient: Grid Sensitivity ANSA mesh appears more sensitive to turbulence model thanJAXA mesh Solution variation with iteration less than symbol size; typically 3-5orders of magnitude residual convergenceCopyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyLift Coefficient – Overall Comparison General agreement untilsignificant flow separation Consistent trends for given mesh(multiple flow solvers andturbulence models) JAXA grid particularly tightlyclustered Adapted mesh results similar untilfinal angle of attack Large spread near key areas(CLmax, AoAmax) limitsengineering usefulness in theseregionsRelative difference from experimental data to facilitate comparisonCopyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.Mesh: JAXA, ANSA, VGRID, EPICSolver: BCFD, CFD , GGNSTurbulence Model:SA,SA-QCR,SA-RC-QCR

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyPseudo-Solution Robustness (soln interp)ANSA, CL 2.61JAXA, CL 2.76ANSA, CL 2.52Restarted from JAXA BCFD SA-QCR, 18.58 Interpolate JAXA solution onto ANSA grid and reconvergeCopyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyPseudo-Solution Robustness (change CFL)BCFD, JAXA grid, SA-QCR Changing CFL number switches pseudo-solution sometimes(indication of strength of attractor) Need flow solver convergence to assess grid, turbulence model,but what if multiple solutions?Copyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyTime-Accurate Simulation ImpactInstantaneousSolutionTime-AveragedSolution Start time-accurate DDES solutionon JAXA grid, SA-QCR, 20.59 Time-averaged solution shows noseparation Lift comparable to RANSRANS SolutionCopyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyTime-Accurate Simulation Pressure DistributionInboardOutboard Inboard pressure cut (A-A) compare well to RANS; show littlevariation Outboard pressure cut (H-H) shows average flow is attached;improved comparison to experimental measurementCopyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologySummary Effort focused on current technology flow solvers with committeeprovided meshes and standard turbulence models Generally good agreement among solvers for same grid andturbulence model Grid convergence has not been assessed Significant amount of grid very close to aircraft JAXA committee-provided grid shows less variation in results thanANSA grid, but had less off-body resolution Solver identifies multiple pseudo-solutions that can sometimes beperturbed to different attractors Interpolation of new solutions Change CFL number Running time accurate may lead to improved comparison toexperimentCopyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2014 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyC-VGRID meshCopyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Boeing Research & Technology Aeromechanics TechnologyEPIC meshCopyright 2017 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Emphasis is on comparing CFD results, not comparison to experiment CFD Solvers: BCFD, CFD , GGNS Grids: JAXA (D), ANSA (E), VGRID (C) Turbulence Models: Spalart-Allmaras (SA), SA-QCR, SA-RC-QCR Principal results: Different CFD codes on same/similar meshes with same turbulence model generate similar results

Related Documents:

refrigerator & freezer . service manual (cfd units) model: cfd-1rr . cfd-2rr . cfd-3rr . cfd-1ff . cfd-2ff . cfd-3ff . 1 table of contents

430 allocation to elianto cfd o&m 20,577.32 440 allocation to trillium west cfd o&m 27,267.00 450 allocation to west park cfd o&m 70,008.22 460 allocation to festival ranch cfd o&m 177,790.54 480 allocation to tartesso west cfd o&m 27,809.17 481 allocation to anthem sun valley cfd o&

CFD Analysis Process 1. Formulate the Flow Problem 2. Model the Geometry 3. Model the Flow (Computational) Domain 4. Generate the Grid 5. Specify the Boundary Conditions 6. Specify the Initial Conditions 7. Set up the CFD Simulation 8. Conduct the CFD Simulation 9. Examine and Process the CFD Results 10. F

The CFD software used i s Fluent 5.5. Comparison between the predicted and simulated airflow rate is suggested as a validation method of the implemented CFD code, while the common practice is to compare CFD outputs to wind tunnel or full-scale . Both implemented CFD and Network models are briefly explained below. This followed by the .

–Turbulence modeling Wilcox k-w Kok k-w BSL, SST k-w Explicit Algebraic Reynolds Stress Model (EARSM) extensions –Transition prescription . Grid Alpha CFD Cl CFD WB Fine Cl exp 0.49º 0.4984 Alpha exp. Medium 0º 0.4935 Coarse 0º 0.4947 Grid Alpha CFD Cl CFD WBPN.

A.2 Initial Interactive CFD Analysis Figure 2: Initial CFD. Our forward trained network provides a spatial CFD analysis prediction within a few seconds and is visualised in our CAD software. A.3 Thresholded and Modified CFD Analysis Figure 3: Threshold. The CFD is thresholded to localise on

performing CFD for the past 16 years and is familiar with most commercial CFD packages. Sean is the lead author for the tutorial and is responsible for the following sections: General Procedures for CFD Analyses Modeling Turbulence Example 3 - CFD Analysis

pen or colored pencil. Then, grid the paper or illustration board you will draw onto. If you double your grid to a 1” grid for your final it will be 16” x 20”. Grid your final with pencil. You may use any size grid (the smaller the grid the more detail), but your final will be between 16” x 20” to 18” x 24. The grid should be 1 to 1.

V European Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics ECCOMAS CFD 2010 J. C. F. Pereira and A. Sequeira (Eds) Lisbon, Portugal, 14–17 June 2010 OCTREE BASED UNSTRUCTURED GRID COARSENING METHOD FOR 3D MULTIGRID APPLICATIONS Emel MAHMUTYAZICIOGLU *, İsmail H. TUNCER †, and Haluk

downstream of the grid. The CFD results and experimental data presented in the paper provide validation of the single-phase flow modeling methodology. Two-phase flow CFD models are being developed to investigate two-phase conditions in PWR fuel assemblies, and these can be presented at a future CFD Workshop. 1. INTRODUCTION

misleading results. The single and 2-phase models in the CFD tool need to be validated with the test data applicable to the PWR fuel design. To support validation, the CFD model results were compared to LDV data from 5x5 rod bundle tests for a spacer grid design. The CFD predictions were then compared to 5x5 rod bundle single phase mixing data

drag rise Mach number, obtained from the CFD solutions of 18 different participants using different codes, grid types, and turbulence models, showed a large variation, which revealed the general issue of accuracy and credibility in CFD simulations. The objective of this work is to illustrate different sources of uncertainty in CFD simu-

Falk Steelflex Morse/Browning Grid-Flex Dodge Grid-Lign Kop-Flex Kop-Grid Falk Steelflex Morse/Browning Grid-Flex Dodge Grid-Lign Kop-Flex Kop-Grid 1020 1020T10 GF2020H 1020T10 1020H 1020T20 GF2020V 1020T20 1020V 1030 10

The vGPU types supported by GRID K1 and K2 are defined in the Table 1. Card No. of Physical GPUs Virtual GPU Types Intended Use Case Max Resolution No. of vGPUs per GPU No. of vGPUs per Card GRID K1 4 GRID K140Q Workstation 2560x1600 4 16 GRID K100 VDI 1920x1200 8 32 GRID K2 2 GRID K260Q Workstation 2560x1600 2 4

with grid increments of 202.5, 67.5, 22.5, 7.5 and 2.5 meters. Each grid has 90 horizontal grid points and 60 vertical grid points, except for the coarsest grid which has 70 vertical grid points. The Rayleigh friction layer is included at the uppermost 10 levels of the coarsest grid. The lateral boundaries are periodic. A schematic of the .

GPU Status Structural Mechanics Fluid Dynamics ANSYS Mechanical AFEA Abaqus/Standard (beta) LS-DYNA implicit Marc RADIOSS implicit PAM-CRASH implicit MD Nastran NX Nastran LS-DYNA Abaqus/Explicit 6 Electromagnetics AcuSolve Moldflow Culises (OpenFOAM) Particleworks CFD-ACE FloEFD Abaqus/CFD FLUENT/CFX STAR-CCM CFD LS-DYNA CFD Nexxim EMPro .

developing experimental and computational databases for improving CC prediction capability. In general, CFD validation is defined by determining how well the CFD model predicts the performance and flow physics when used for its intended purposes.iv The level of CFD validation can be

AUTODYN LS-Dyna CFD AcuSolve CFD CGNS Cobalt CONVERGE CFD FAST FIDAP FIRE Flow-3D GASP/GUST KIVA FEA ABAQUS I-DEAS LS-DYNA MP-Salsa MSC.Dytran MSC.Nastran MSC.Marc MSC.PATRAN NX Nastran PERMAS BIF/BOF RADIOSS NASTAR OpenFOAM Overflow PAM-FLOW Plot3D PowerFLOW RADIOSS-CFD

CFD and Process Engineering Conclusions CFD is well established and important for analysis of hydraulic components. There is growing appreciation that CFD can be a powerful tool for analysis of the imp

Signs with blue circles but no red border mostly give positive instruction. One-way traffic (note: compare circular ‘Ahead only’ sign) Ahead only Turn left ahead (right if symbol reversed) Turn left (right if symbol reversed) Keep left (right if symbol reversed) Route to be used by pedal cycles only Segregated pedal cycle and pedestrian route Minimum speed End of minimum speed Mini .