Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 1 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Automatic Transition Prediction and Application to 3D Wing Configurations Current.

Published byNoah McKenzie Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 1 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Automatic Transition Prediction and Application to 3D Wing Configurations Current."— Presentation transcript:

1 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 1 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Automatic Transition Prediction and Application to 3D Wing Configurations Current status of development and validation

2 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 2 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Outline Introduction Transition Prescription Transition Prediction Modeling of Transitional Flow Transition Prediction Strategy Preliminary Results: ONERA M6 wing Outlook Outline

3 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 3 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein - prescription - prediction - transitional flow modeling - automatic, autonomous Introduction aerospace industry requirement: RANS based CFD tool with transition handling → different approaches: RANS solver + stability code + e N method RANS solver + boundary layer code + stability code + e N method RANS solver + boundary layer code + e N database method RANS solver + transition closure model or transition/turbulence model

4 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 4 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein - prescription - prediction - transitional flow modeling - automatic, autonomous Introduction aerospace industry requirement: RANS based CFD tool with transition handling → different approaches: RANS solver + stability code + e N method RANS solver + boundary layer code + stability code + e N method RANS solver + boundary layer code + e N database method RANS solver + transition closure model or transition/turbulence model

5 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 5 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Structured approach: FLOWer + laminar BL method for swept, tapered wings + + e N database methods for TS and CF instabilities FLOWer 3D RANS, compressible, steady/unsteady structured body-fitted multi-block meshes finite volume method, cell-vertex scheme explicit Runge-Kutta time integration multi-grid acceleration mainly eddy viscosity models, Boussinesq Introduction transition prediction module

6 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 6 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein - automatic partitioning of flow field into laminar and turbulent regions - individual laminar zone for each element - different numerical treatment of laminar and turbulent grid points, e.g.  t = 0 in laminar zones Prescription Transition Prescription

7 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 7 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein - transition line on ONERA M6 wing, 4 points on upper and lower side Prescription P T upp (sec = 1) P T upp (sec = 2) P T upp (sec = 3) P T upp (sec = 4)

8 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 8 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein - RANS solver  shall predict transition points automatically! - stability database  shall yield accurate values of transition points! - e N database method  needs highly accurate BL data!  BL adaptation in NS grid  very time consuming, coupling with grid generator:NO!  laminar BL method  fast, cheap, easy to couple:YES! - restrictions:  linear stability theory  parallel flow assumption - independent of mesh topology, grid structure, 2D or 3D - integration paths: grid lines of the structured grid Prediction Transition Prediction

9 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 9 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein - algebraic models for the transition length l tr  Re l tr = 5.2 ( Re s tr ) 3/4 downstream of RANS laminar separation point  Re l tr = 2.3 ( Re   (s tr ) ) 3/2 downstream of BL laminar separation point  Re l tr = 4.6 ( Re   (s tr ) ) 3/2 downstream of TS instability - intermittency function  (s) = 1 – exp ( - 0.412 [ 3.36 (s - s tr )/l tr ] 2 ) s: arc length starting at the stagnation point Modeling displacement thickness Modeling of transitional flow

10 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 10 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Transition prediction strategy Strategy - coupling structure

11 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 11 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein set s tr u and s tr l far downstream compute flowfield check for RANS laminar separation  set separation points as new s tr u,l c l  const. in cycles  call transition module  use outcome of e N -databases or BL laminar separation point as new transition point set new s tr u,l underrelaxed  s tr u,l = s tr u,l , 1.0 <  < 1.5 convergence check   s tr u,l <  noyes STOP Strategy - algorithm

12 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 12 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Results -ONERA M6 wing: single-element semi-span:A = 3.8 swept:  LE = 30°  TE = 15.8° tapered: = 0.562 - based on ONERA D airfoil (symmetric), perpendicular to 40%-line - “designed for studies of three-dimensional flows from low to transonic speeds at high Reynolds numbers“ Preliminary Results

13 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 13 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Results feasibility: 1 block-grid, 384,000 points M  = 0.84, Re  = 2.0  10 6,  = - 4.0° turbulence model: Baldwin-Lomax critical N-factors: N cr TS = 4.0, N cr CF = 2.0, arbitrariliy set

14 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 14 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Results Validation, 1 st test: 1 block-grid, 800,000 points M  = 0.84, Re  = 11.72  10 6,  = 3.06° → classic CFD validation test case Tu  = 0.2% → N = 6.485 using Mack’s relationship WT: S2MA, Modane Center turbulence model: Baldwin-Lomax, Spalart-Allmaras with Edwards mod. (SAE), Wilcox k-  critical N-factors: N cr TS = N cr CF = 6.485 transition prediction in 3 wing sections near  = z/b = 0.1, 0.5, 0.9

15 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 15 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Results surface pressure and transition lines influence of TMs extremely low all transition points due to CF instabilities, except: BL,  = 0.1, lower side → lam. sep.

16 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 16 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Results c p -distributions at  = 0.2, 0.44, 0.65, 0,9 almost no difference to fully turbulent re- sults accuracy of results comparable to those of others (e.g. lite- rature, TAU code)

17 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 17 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Results Validation, 2 st test: 1 block-grid, 800,000 points M  = 0.262, Re  = 3.5  10 6,  = 0°, 5°, 10°, 15° Tu  = 0.2% → N = 6.485 using Mack’s relationship WT: S2Ch, Chalais-Meudon transition detection in experiment: sublimation of acenaphtene turbulence model: SAE critical N-factors: N cr TS = N cr CF = 6.485 transition prediction in 4 wing sections near  = 0.1, 0.44, 0.5, 0.9 upper side lower side

18 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 18 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Results transition locations from experiment at  = 0.44 lower side upper side  = 0.44 upper side lower side  = 0.44 ls TS ls exp.

19 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 19 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Results transition lines for  = 5° and exp. transition locations at  = 0.44 Has acenaphtene triggered transition on the lower side? Is N cr CF correct? TS CF outcome of the database methods  = 0.44 on lower side

20 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 20 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Results max. N-factor curves for  = 5° at  = 0.44 on lower side from a linear stability code (from H.W. Stock using COAST (?) code): TSCF x T exp. N cr CF  3.2 In other cases, e.g. ONERA D infinite swept, N cr CF  6.0 was found.

21 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 21 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Results *) G. Redecker, G. Wichmann, ‘Forward Sweep – A Favorable Concept for a Laminar Flow Wing‘, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 28, No. 2, 1991, p. 97-103 What is wrong? 1. Error in coding of the 3d coupling procedure? → compute infinite swept wing flow for ONERA D airfoil using sweep angle at x T low (  = 0.44)  fails due to problems with BL code: BL code does not converge  another problem to be solved! 2. Is sweep angle correct? → account for effective sweep angle  eff =  +  = arcsin (U T /U  ) *) due to influence of changing absolute wing thickness ratio U T : velocity in the attachment line tested: 1°    6°  c p around stagnation point must be reduced to prevent BL code crash  are database results affected?  another problem to be solved!  = 4°, 5°, 6°  = 0° CF TS

22 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 22 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Results What is wrong? 3. Is CF database method erroneous? → ONERA D infinite swept successfully analyzed by ISM (TU-BS) with same program for M  = 0.23, Re  = 2.4  10 6,  n = 4°,  = 60° using BL data from TAU code  Results from CF database method are almost the same as those from linear stability code COAST.  Is the functioning of the CF database method case dependent? 4. Are the grid lines of the structured grid a too bad approximation of the streamline? 5. Is the selected test case a reliable validation test case?

23 DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 23 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Outlook clarification/solution of the problems: convergence problems of BL code automatic determination and consideration of  eff in the iteration loop automatic reduction and adaption of c p around stagnation point guarantee that CF databse results are do not depend on manipulation of c p reproduction of the results of the ONERA D infinite swept case coupling with linear stability code LILO (G. Schrauf) empirical criteria for: - attachment line transition - bypass transition - transition in laminar separation bubbles

Download ppt "DLR, Göttingen > 8. Nov. 2005 Folie 1 > 12. STAB-Workshop > A. Krumbein Automatic Transition Prediction and Application to 3D Wing Configurations Current."

Similar presentations

Aerodynamic Characteristics of Airfoils and wings

Aerodynamic Characteristics of Airfoils and wings
Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics

Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics
Instructor: André Bakker

Instructor: André Bakker
Outline Overview of Pipe Flow CFD Process ANSYS Workbench

Outline Overview of Pipe Flow CFD Process ANSYS Workbench
CFD II w/Dr. Farouk By: Travis Peyton7/18/2015 Modifications to the SIMPLE Method for Non-Orthogonal, Non-Staggered Grids in k- E Turbulence Flow Model.

CFD II w/Dr. Farouk By: Travis Peyton7/18/2015 Modifications to the SIMPLE Method for Non-Orthogonal, Non-Staggered Grids in k- E Turbulence Flow Model.
Andreas Krumbein > 30 January 2007 MIRACLE Final Meeting, ONERA Châtillon, Folie 1 Navier-Stokes High-Lift Airfoil Computations with Automatic Transition.

Andreas Krumbein > 30 January 2007 MIRACLE Final Meeting, ONERA Châtillon, Folie 1 Navier-Stokes High-Lift Airfoil Computations with Automatic Transition.
Transition locations on the LEISA high lift airfoil S.Reuß

Transition locations on the LEISA high lift airfoil S.Reuß
1 Pressure-based Solver for Incompressible and Compressible Flows with Cavitation Sunho Park 1, Shin Hyung Rhee 1, and Byeong Rog Shin 2 1 Seoul National.

1 Pressure-based Solver for Incompressible and Compressible Flows with Cavitation Sunho Park 1, Shin Hyung Rhee 1, and Byeong Rog Shin 2 1 Seoul National.
External Convection: Laminar Flat Plate

External Convection: Laminar Flat Plate
MAE 5130: VISCOUS FLOWS Introduction to Boundary Layers

MAE 5130: VISCOUS FLOWS Introduction to Boundary Layers
Adaptation Workshop > 21.06.2006 Folie 1 > TAU Adaptation on EC145 > Britta Schöning TAU Adaptation for EC145 Helicopter Fuselage Britta Schöning DLR –

Adaptation Workshop > Folie 1 > TAU Adaptation on EC145 > Britta Schöning TAU Adaptation for EC145 Helicopter Fuselage Britta Schöning DLR –
Advanced CFD Analysis of Aerodynamics Using CFX

Advanced CFD Analysis of Aerodynamics Using CFX
Coupled Fluid-Structural Solver CFD incompressible flow solver has been coupled with a FEA code to analyze dynamic fluid-structure coupling phenomena CFD.

Coupled Fluid-Structural Solver CFD incompressible flow solver has been coupled with a FEA code to analyze dynamic fluid-structure coupling phenomena CFD.
1 Internal Seminar, November 14 th 2007. Effects of non conformal mesh on LES S. Rolfo The University of Manchester, M60 1QD, UK School of Mechanical,

1 Internal Seminar, November 14 th Effects of non conformal mesh on LES S. Rolfo The University of Manchester, M60 1QD, UK School of Mechanical,
Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester Aspects of Transitional flow for External Applications A review presented by.

Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester Aspects of Transitional flow for External Applications A review presented by.
Flow Over Immersed Bodies

Flow Over Immersed Bodies
Steady Aeroelastic Computations to Predict the Flying Shape of Sails Sriram Antony Jameson Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics Stanford University First.

Steady Aeroelastic Computations to Predict the Flying Shape of Sails Sriram Antony Jameson Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics Stanford University First.
Lecture 7 Exact solutions

Lecture 7 Exact solutions
© 2011 Autodesk Freely licensed for use by educational institutions. Reuse and changes require a note indicating that content has been modified from the.

© 2011 Autodesk Freely licensed for use by educational institutions. Reuse and changes require a note indicating that content has been modified from the.
1 CFD Analysis Process. 2 1.Formulate the Flow Problem 2.Model the Geometry 3.Model the Flow (Computational) Domain 4.Generate the Grid 5.Specify the.

1 CFD Analysis Process. 2 1.Formulate the Flow Problem 2.Model the Geometry 3.Model the Flow (Computational) Domain 4.Generate the Grid 5.Specify the.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google