Miguel Visbal Computational Aero-Physics Branch Air Force Research Laboratory WPAFB, OH

1 / 15

# Miguel Visbal Computational Aero-Physics Branch Air Force Research Laboratory WPAFB, OH - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Case 3.3 Summary Transitional Flow Over the SD7003 Airfoil 1 st International Workshop on High-Order CFD Methods 7-8 Jan 2012, Nashville, TN. Miguel Visbal Computational Aero-Physics Branch Air Force Research Laboratory WPAFB, OH. Case 3.3 Description.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

## Miguel Visbal Computational Aero-Physics Branch Air Force Research Laboratory WPAFB, OH

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
1. Case 3.3 SummaryTransitional Flow Over the SD7003 Airfoil1st International Workshop on High-Order CFD Methods7-8 Jan 2012, Nashville, TN • Miguel Visbal • Computational Aero-Physics Branch • Air Force Research Laboratory • WPAFB, OH

2. Case 3.3 Description Transitional flow over a SD7003 airfoil wing section • Aimed at characterizing the accuracy and performance of high-order solvers for the prediction of complex unsteady transitional flows Geometry details: • Selig SD7003 airfoil • 8.5% max thickness • 1.45% max camber at x/c = 0.35 • Trailingedgerounded with small circulararc with r/c = 0.0004. • Homogeneous spanwise direction with periodic boundaries, s/c=0.2. • Rec =60,000 • Mach no. = 0.1 • a = 4, 8 deg

3. 6th-Order 2nd-Order 2ND-order 6TH-order Reynolds Stress (u’ v’ ) Case 3.3 Challenges experiments shown to be highly sensitive to FST laminar shear layer spanwise instabilities K-H instabilities time-averaged flow LSB

4. Case 3.3 Contributors

5. AFRL & CENAERO Comparisonload histories, α = 4° 6th-order compact 4th-order DG

6. AFRL & CENAERO Comparisonmean flow, α = 4° pressure u-velocity 6th-order compact 4th-order DG

7. AFRL & CENAERO ComparisonSkin friction and pressure coefficient, α = 4° AFRL, 6th –order compact CENAERO, 4th-order DG

8. AFRL & CENAERO ComparisonVelocity and mean-squared fluctuations, α = 4° AFRL, 6th –order compact CENAERO, 4th-order DG <u> <u’2>

9. AFRL & ISU ComparisonQ-criterion, α = 8° ISU, 3rd-order SD AFRL, 6th –order compact

10. AFRL & ISU Comparisonα = 8° AFRL, 6th –order compact ISU, 3rd-order SD <u>

11. computational resources

12. Effect of grid resolutionSkin friction and pressure coefficient AFRL, 6th-order, α = 8°

13. Effect of filter coefficientSkin friction and pressure coefficient AFRL, 6th-order, α = 8°

14. ILES vs. SGS-based LESSkin friction and pressure coefficient AFRL, 6th-order, α = 8°

15. Summary • I would like to acknowledge contributors. This is a non-trivial case requiring substantial computational resources • So far results are only qualitatively consistent across schemes • Quantitative discrepancies in separation, reattachment and transition locations, as well as in aerodynamic loads need to be accounted for • Future recommendations • additional contributions desirable • Common structured grid • Limit to one angle of attack • Fix outer boundary location, time to gather statistics, etc…. • Grid resolution studies required (computationally intensive)