Mesh Generation and Deformation Algorithm for Aeroelasticity Simulations

Cizmas, Paul G. A.; Gargoloff, Joaquin

doi:10.2514/1.30896

Cited by 33 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is interesting to look at the analysis and formulation of robust mesh motion techniques implemented by Mavriplis et al [3][4][5]. The spring analogy [6][7][8][9] compares the mesh to a system of tensional and/or torsional springs whereby a displacement of the boundary forces the movement of interior nodes in order for the system to stay in equilibrium. Although the exclusive use of tensional springs is usually enough, the addition of torsional springs is advisable to minimize the chances of getting distorted meshes, but this comes at the expense of a greater computational cost.…”

Section: Background a Existing Unsteady Cfd Meshing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

23rd AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference

Ederra¹,

Rendall²,

Gaitonde³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms A spacetime framework is presented to solve unsteady aerodynamics problems as an alternative to conventional approaches for complex problems involving large deformation or topological change such as store separation, slat and flap deployment or spoiler deflection. It avoids complex CFD meshing methods, such as Chimera, by the use of a finite-volume approach both in space and time. The use of a central-difference scheme in the time direction yields non-physical transient solutions as a consequence of pressure waves travelling backwards in time. Therefore, an upwind formulation is provided and validated against one-dimensional test cases: a semi-infinite piston and a finite piston with a sharp change in direction. Also a hybrid formulation is given and several two-dimensional unsteady aerodynamics cases are computed with all three formulations and compared, demonstrating that the use of an upwind time stencil yields more representative physical solutions and improves the rate of convergence. In particular, the following problems are presented: a pitching NACA-0012 (periodic); a simple flap deflection; a spoiler deployment; a full landing case with a combination of slat, flap and spoiler deployments along with ground effect; and a case where aerofoils fly in opposite directions at subsonic and supersonic speeds.

show abstract

Section: Background a Existing Unsteady Cfd Meshing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

23rd AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference

Ederra¹,

Rendall²,

Gaitonde³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, cheaper but high quality alternative mesh motion schemes have been sought. For example, Melville [17,18] developed a method based on connectivity to moving surfaces, and applied it to overset meshes for aeroelastic simulations, Allen [19] presented a universal grid type-independent approach based on connectivity, which maintains orthogonality by accounting for surface rotations, and Cizmas and Gargoloff [20] also presented a scheme accounting for surface rotations. Liu et al [21] have recently presented a cheap and very effective method, based on Delaunay mapping, although this does not account for surface rotations.…”

Section: Mesh Motionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficient mesh motion using radial basis functions with data reduction algorithms

Rendall

Allen

2009

Journal of Computational Physics

244

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, CFD simulations are still computationally expensive and rather sensitive to the specific model settings; they often require a significant amount of pre-and post-processing efforts as well as specialist experience to prevent numerical instability and grid singularity [62] (which is a prerequisite for robust and reliable implementations of fully-automatic parametrised MDO routines) and thus grant correct convergence to physically and mathematically sound results, to be confirmed by either rigorous analytical validation or trusted experimental evidence [63]. Indeed, coupling CFD with complex structural solvers [64][65] is still a challenge [66][67].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%