1 / 24

Outline

Andreas Krumbein German Aerospace Center Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Numerical Methods. Navier-Stokes High-Lift Airfoil Computations with Automatic Transition Prediction using the DLR TAU Code. Outline. Outline. Introduction Transition Prediction Coupling Structure

thomas-beck
Download Presentation

Outline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation 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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Andreas KrumbeinGerman Aerospace CenterInstitute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Numerical Methods Navier-Stokes High-Lift Airfoil Computations with Automatic Transition Prediction using the DLR TAU Code

  2. Outline Outline • Introduction • Transition Prediction Coupling Structure • Test Case: 2D A310 take-off configuration • Computational Results • Conclusion • Outlook

  3. Introduction Introduction • Aircraft industry and research requirements: • RANS based CFD tool with transition handling • Better numerical simulation results • Capturing of otherwise unconsidered physical phenomena • At first: impact on lift and drag • Characteristics • Transition prescription • Transition prediction • Modelling of transitional flow areas • Automatic: no intervention of the user • Autonomous: necessary user information as little as possible

  4. Introduction Introduction • Reduction of modelling based uncertainties • Accuracy of results from fully turbulent flow or flow with prescribed transition often not satisfactory • Improved simulation of the interaction between transition locations and separation • At first in FLOWer code • 3d multi-element wing configurations • Later in TAU code • 3d multi-element wing configurations • Fuselages and nacelles • TAU transition prediction module developed by Institute of Fluid Mechanics, Technical University of Braunschweig in German research initiative MEGADESIGN

  5. Introduction • Different approaches: • RANS solver + stability code + eN method • RANS solver + boundary layer code + stability code + eN method • RANS solver + boundary layer code + eN database method(s) • RANS solver + transition closure model or transition/turbulence model

  6. Introduction • Different approaches: • RANS solver + stability code + eN method • RANS solver + boundary layer code + stability code + eN method • RANS solver + boundary layer code + eN database method(s) • RANS solver + transition closure model or transition/turbulence model

  7. Introduction • Different approaches: • RANS solver + stability code + eN method • RANS solver + boundary layer code + stability code + eN method • RANS solver + boundary layer code + fully automated stability code + eN method • RANS solver + boundary layer code + eN database method(s) • RANS solver + transition closure model or transition/turbulence model

  8. Coupling Structure cycle = kcyc Transition Prediction Coupling Structure FLOWer

  9. Coupling Structure cycle = kcyc Transition Prediction Coupling Structure FLOWer & TAU

  10. Coupling Structure cycle = kcyc cycle = kcyc Transition Prediction Coupling Structure FLOWer & TAU TAU

  11. Coupling Structure • Transition Prediction Module of TAU: • RANS infrastructure part: BL data from RANS grid (BL mode 2)  Transition inside separation bubble possible  High mesh density necessary • External codes: • Laminar boundary-layer method COCO(G. Schrauf) for swept, tapered wings (BL mode 1)  Transition inside separation bubble NOT possible  Laminar separation approximates transition if transition downstream of laminar separation point • eN database-methods for TS and CF instabilities (PD mode 1) • Local, linear stability code LILO(G. Schrauf)(PD mode 2) • 2d, 2.5d (infinite swept) + 3d wings + 3d fuselages/nacelles (only BL mode 2) • Single + multi-element configurations • N factor integration along: • Line-in-Flight cuts • Inviscid streamlines • Attachment line transition & by-pass transition not yet covered

  12. Coupling Structure • Transition Prescription: • Automatic partitioning into laminar and turbulent zones individually for each element • Laminar points: St,p  0 PTupp(sec = 2) PTupp(sec = 1) PTupp(sec = 3) PTupp(sec = 4)

  13. Coupling Structure no yes STOP • Algorithm: set stru and strl far downstream compute flowfield check for RANS laminar separation  set separation points as new stru,l clconst. in cycles call transition module  use outcome of prediction method (PD modes 1&2) or BL laminar separation point (BL mode 1) set new stru,l underrelaxed  stru,l = stru,ld, 1.0 < d < 1.5 convergence check Dstru,l < e

  14. FLOWer results upper side lower side • Transition lines for 11 wing sections h = 0.000, 0.110, 0.220, 0.325, 0.420, 0.800, 0.860, 0.900, 0.930, 0.960, 0.975 • Calibration of both critical N factors for lower side and a = 5°: NCFcr = 5.157 → h = 0.42 NTScr = 4.75→ h = 0.96 • ONERA M6 wing • a = 0°, 5°, 10°, 15° • Re = 3.5106 • M = 0.262 upper side lower side taken from *) TS ls a = 0° a = 0° ls a = 5° a = 5° a = 15° a = 15° TS TS all ls *)Schmitt, V., Cousteix, J., “Étude de la couche limite tridimensionelle sur une aile en flèche,” ONERA Rapport Technique N° 14/1713 AN, Châtillon, France, July 1975 CF all ls all CF

  15. FLOWer results • TC 214 from EUROLIFT II • Re = 1.35 mio., M = 0.174, SAE, eN database methods a = 14°, upper side predicted a = 14°, lower side predicted

  16. FLOWer results TS TS TS TS CF TS CF CF CF • TC 214 from EUROLIFT II • Re = 1.35 mio., M = 0.174, SAE, eN database methods a = 14°, upper side predicted a = 14°, lower side predicted

  17. FLOWer results • Comparison ofcp-distributions: h = 0.20, 0.38, 0.66, 0.88 a = 14.0°

  18. Test Case • 2d A310 take-off configuration • M = 0.221, Re = 6.11 x 106, a = 21.4° • grid 1: 22,000 points grid 2: 122,000 points, noses refined • SAE turbulence model • prediction on upper sides, lower sides fully laminar, NTS 8.85 (F1) • exp. Transition locations  slat: 15% & flap: 34.5% kink on main upper side  19% • different mode combinations: a) BL mode 1 & PD mode 1  BL code & TS database method b) BL mode 1 & PD mode 2  BL code & stability code c) BL mode 2 & PD mode 2  BL in TAU & stability code Test Case

  19. TAU results Surface pressure grid 1 grid 2 a.) & b.) results identical  all lam. seps. a.) & b.) results identical  all lam. seps. c.) no convergence  grid too coarse c.) all from stability code

  20. TAU results Skin friction grid 1 grid 2 a.) & b.) no separation bubbles a.) & b.) very small sep. bubble on slat c.) no convergence c.) much larger slat bubble & flap improved

  21. TAU results Skin friction grid 2 slat very small bubble transition locations: error reduced by 40% flap large bubble

  22. TAU results Transition locations and separation grid 2 grid 2

  23. TAU results Transition locations and separation grid 2 grid 2

  24. Conclusion/Outlook • TAU transition prediction module works fast and reliable for 2d multi-element configurations • Transition inside laminar separation bubbles can be detected with high accuracy when appropriate prediction approach is used • Therefor, high grid densities are required • much more testing necessary: • more test cases needed with TS transition (e.g. CAST 10, A310 landing) • full aircraft WB+HTP+VTP (wing with full-span flap without slit) • WB high-lift configuration with full-span slat and flap from EUROLIFT II • transition criteria: - transition in lam. sep. bubbles - attachment line transition - by-pass transition • development of a stream-line oriented bl code with transverse pressure gradientCOCO-3d → replaces COCO in 2007 • unsteady transition prediction method based on eN method • alternative approaches based on transport equations in future DLR T&T-project RETTINA done by TU-BS

More Related