0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Numerical Analysis of Flow Over the NASA Common Research Model Using the Academic Computational Fluid Dynamics Code Galatea

[+] Author and Article Information
Georgios N. Lygidakis

School of Production Engineering
and Management,
Technical University of Crete,
University Campus,
Chania GR-73100, Greece
e-mail: glygidakis@isc.tuc.gr

Ioannis K. Nikolos

Mem. ASME
School of Production Engineering
and Management,
Technical University of Crete,
University Campus,
Chania GR-73100, Greece
e-mail: jnikolo@dpem.tuc.gr

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received October 17, 2014; final manuscript received January 27, 2015; published online March 19, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Riccardo Mereu.

J. Fluids Eng 137(7), 071103 (Jul 01, 2015) (18 pages) Paper No: FE-14-1602; doi: 10.1115/1.4029730 History: Received October 17, 2014; Revised January 27, 2015; Online March 19, 2015

A recently developed academic computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code, named Galatea, is used for the computational study of fully turbulent flow over the NASA common research model (CRM) in a wing-body configuration with and without horizontal tail. A brief description of code's methodology is included, while attention is mainly directed toward the accurate and efficient prediction of pressure distribution on wings' surfaces as well as of computation of lift and drag forces against different angles of attack, using an h-refinement approach and a parallel agglomeration multigrid scheme. The obtained numerical results compare close with both the experimental wind tunnel data and those of reference solvers.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Contributions depicted with solid lines, of different types of elements to the control volume of a node P (Eq. (5))

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Contributions of tetrahedral, prismatic, and different types of elements to the edge-dual volume of edge PQ depicted with a dashed line (Eq. (6))

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Partitioning of a 2D grid prior (top) and after (bottom) the construction of the overlapping region

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Initial (top) and agglomerated (bottom) control volume grids, representing the computational domain over a rectangular wing with a NACA0012 airfoil

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Mesh density at the external surface of the flow domain, on the symmetry plane and on aircraft surface (WB aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Mesh density on the wing surface prior (top) and after (bottom) h-refinement (WB aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Predicted dimensionless pressure contours on the surface of the aircraft and Mach number contours on the symmetry plane and on a wing section at 37% span (WB aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Pressure coefficient distribution at wing spanwise section 13.06% (WB aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Pressure coefficient distribution at wing spanwise section 28.28% (WB aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Pressure coefficient distribution at wing spanwise section 39.71% (WB aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Pressure coefficient distribution at wing spanwise section 50.24% (WB aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Pressure coefficient distribution at wing spanwise section 72.68% (WB aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Pressure coefficient distribution at wing spanwise section 95.00% (WB aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Density (top) and turbulent kinetic energy (bottom) convergence history per multigrid cycles for three different limiting functions (WB aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Mach number contours on a section at 70% of the wing span (WB aircraft) obtained with limiters of Van Albada–Van Leer (top) and Min-mod (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Pressure coefficient distributions at wing spanwise section 50.24% obtained with limiters of Van Albada–Van Leer and Min-mod (WB aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Pressure coefficient distributions at wing spanwise section 72.68% obtained with limiters of Van Albada–Van Leer and Min-mod (WB aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Density (top) and turbulent kinetic energy (bottom) convergence history per wall clock computation time for nodal-averaging and element-based scheme (WB aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Lift coefficient for different values of angle of attack (top) and idealized drag coefficient (bottom) for WB aircraft

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Far view of the initial and three directionally agglomerated control volume grids (WB aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Close-up view on the symmetry plane of the initial and the three directionally agglomerated control volume grids (WB aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Density convergence history per iterations/cycles (top) and time (bottom) for WB aircraft case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Turbulent kinetic energy convergence history per iterations/cycles (top) and time (bottom) for WB aircraft case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Mesh density (top) and dimensionless pressure distribution (bottom) on the surface of the aircraft (WBHT aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Pressure coefficient distribution at wing spanwise section 13.06% (WBHT aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Pressure coefficient distribution at wing spanwise section 28.28% (WBHT aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Pressure coefficient distribution at wing spanwise section 39.71% (WBHT aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Pressure coefficient distribution at wing spanwise section 50.24% (WBHT aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Pressure coefficient distribution at wing spanwise section 72.68% (WBHT aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

Pressure coefficient distribution at wing spanwise section 84.56% (WBHT aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 31

Pressure coefficient distribution at wing spanwise section 95.00% (WBHT aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 32

Pressure coefficient distribution at horizontal-tail spanwise section 18.00% (WBHT aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 33

Pressure coefficient distribution at horizontal-tail spanwise section 30.00% (WBHT aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 34

Pressure coefficient distribution at horizontal-tail spanwise section 50.00% (WBHT aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 35

Pressure coefficient distribution at horizontal-tail spanwise section 70.00% (WBHT aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 36

Pressure coefficient distribution at horizontal-tail spanwise section 90.00% (WBHT aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 37

Pressure coefficient distribution at horizontal-tail spanwise section 95.00% (WBHT aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 38

Pressure coefficient distribution at horizontal-tail spanwise section 99.00% (WBHT aircraft)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 39

Lift coefficient per different values of angle of attack (top) and idealized drag coefficient (bottom) for WBHT aircraft

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 40

Shock-including flow on the main wing (top) and fully attached one on the horizontal tail (bottom) for the WBHT aircraft with 4 deg angle of attack

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In