Airbus, ONERA, and DLR Results from the Second AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop

Brodersen, Olaf; Rakowitz, M.; Amant, Stephane; Larrieu, Pascal; Destarac, Daniel; Sutcliffe, Mark

doi:10.2514/1.8662

Cited by 36 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The freestream conditions are M = 0.85, C L = 0.5, and Re = [5,20] million. However, in this exercise, another Medium grid is developed such that equivalent Y + spacings at the viscous surfaces are maintained between Reynolds-number conditions.…”

Section: Case 3: Reynolds-number Study (Optional)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the F6 geometry is similar to that of the F4, its pockets of flow separation at the design condition are more severe; these occur predominantly at the wing/body and wing/pylon juncture regions. Again, this workshop was documented with a summary paper, 15, 16 a statistical analysis, 17 an invited reflections paper 18 on the workshop series, and numerous participant papers [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] in two special sessions of the 2004 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting in Reno, NV. A conclusion of DPW-II was that the separated flow regions made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions with respect to grid convergence and drag prediction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Summary of the Fourth AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop

Vassberg

Tinoco

Mani

et al. 2010

28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference

Self Cite

184

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results from the Fourth AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop (DPW-IV) are summarized. The workshop focused on the prediction of both absolute and differential drag levels for wing-body and wing-body-horizontal-tail configurations that are representative of transonic transport aircraft. Numerical calculations are performed using industry-relevant test cases that include liftspecific flight conditions, trimmed drag polars, downwash variations, dragrises and Reynoldsnumber effects. Drag, lift and pitching moment predictions from numerous Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes computational fluid dynamics methods are presented. Solutions are performed on structured, unstructured and hybrid grid systems. The structured-grid sets include pointmatched multi-block meshes and over-set grid systems. The unstructured and hybrid grid sets are comprised of tetrahedral, pyramid, prismatic, and hexahedral elements. Effort is made to provide a high-quality and parametrically consistent family of grids for each grid type about each configuration under study. The wing-body-horizontal families are comprised of a coarse, medium and fine grid; an optional extra-fine grid augments several of the grid families. These mesh sequences are utilized to determine asymptotic grid-convergence characteristics of the solution sets, and to estimate grid-converged absolute drag levels of the wing-body-horizontal configuration using Richardson extrapolation.

show abstract

Section: Case 3: Reynolds-number Study (Optional)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Summary of the Fourth AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop

Vassberg

Tinoco

Mani

et al. 2010

28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference

Self Cite

184

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the F6 geometry is similar to that of the F4, its pockets of flow separation at the design condition are more severe; these occur predominantly at the wing/body and wing/pylon juncture regions. Again, this workshop was documented with a summary paper, 14, 15 a statistical analysis, 16 an invited reflections paper 17 on the workshop series, and numerous participant papers [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] in two special sessions of the 2004 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting in Reno, NV. A conclusion of DPW-II was that the separated flow regions made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions with respect to grid convergence and drag prediction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of NTF Experimental Data with CFD Predictions from the Third AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop

Vassberg

Tinoco

Mani

et al. 2008

26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently acquired experimental data for the DLR-F6 wing-body transonic transport configuration from the National Transonic Facility (NTF) are compared with the database of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) predictions generated for the Third AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop (DPW-III). The NTF data were collected after the DPW-III, which was conducted with blind test cases. These data include both absolute drag levels and increments associated with this wing-body geometry. The baseline DLR-F6 wing-body geometry is also augmented with a side-of-body fairing which eliminates the flow separation in this juncture region. A comparison between computed and experimentally observed sizes of the side-ofbody flow-separation bubble is included. The CFD results for the drag polars and separation bubble sizes are computed on grids which represent current engineering best practices for drag predictions. In addition to these data, a more rigorous attempt to predict absolute drag at the design point is provided. Here, a series of three grid densities are utilized to establish an asymptotic trend of computed drag with respect to grid convergence. This trend is then extrapolated to estimate a grid-converged absolute drag level.

show abstract

“…9-13 DLR's Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology is supporting DPW as a committee member and participant. [14][15][16][17][18] Starting from DPW-IV, the NASA Common Research Model (CRM) 19 civil transport aircraft configuration, Figure 4, designed by NASA's Subsonic Fixed Wing Technical Working Group and by Vassberg et al,20 has been used as the reference geometry. Geometrical and experimental data of the model are also found on the NASA CRM web site.…”

Section: Application To the Nasa Common Research Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%