Aerodynamic Simulation. Viscous CFD Code Validation

Transcription

1 Aerodynamic Simulation using STAR-CCM+ Viscous CFD Code Validation 19 March 2013 CD-adapco STAR-CCM+ Code Validation Efforts Kenneth E. Xiques CRM Solutions 4092 Memorial Pkwy SW, Suite 200 Huntsville, AL 35803

2 Objectives Validate/Verify and Apply Cart3D, Loci/CHEM and STAR-CCM+ CFD codes Loci/CHEM is a research code developed by Mississippi State STAR-CCM+ is a Commercial code developed by CD-adapco Cart3D is a Cartesian Euler code developed by Nasa Ames Test geometry repair and grid generation capabilities Test range and power of Physics models Viscous modeling, Turbulence Models, Non-Newtonian Fluids Moving bodies (6 dof) Propulsion, Chemically Reacting Flows, Real Gas Determine level of required expertise for productivity Ease of use and practicality Test efficiency and accuracy in prediction of aerodynamics for complex geometries

3 Primary Questions Is prediction of aerodynamics over complex missile geometries using RANS CFD codes possible and practical in a production environment? What are the computational resource and manpower requirements to perform such analyses? Can Viscous CFD be performed efficiently and accurately within current resource constraints without relying on CFD specialists? Can STAR-CCM+ attack a broader range of problems than available with current in-house software? Would such analyses enhance the range and accuracy of CFD data produced at CRM for current customers?

4 Analysis Criteria Perform analysis in most general form without refinement based on CFD experience How much expertise does it require Determine the relative robustness and accuracy that can be achieved with relatively simple, canned approaches Establish standard practices and procedures for problem types Limit time, computer resources and expertise required to go from CAD to database delivery of analysis within the required accuracy constraints.

5 CRM Linux Cluster 600 Intel Cores, 7TB Disk Space, Redhat RHEL O/S 130 Dell 1955 Blades 2 Intel dual core Xeon processors 4 cores per blade 16 GB memory per blade 10 Dell M600 blades 2 Intel quad core Xeon processors 8 cores per blade 16 GB memory per blade 7 TB disk space in Raid x Dell PowerVault MD1000 Diskless configuration 3 x Dell 1950 file servers RedHat Enterprise Linux

6 Metis Geometry

7 Metis Computational Grid Plane Section

8 METIS Grid Mid-Body Plane Section

9 METIS Tail Grid

10 METIS Surface Mesh

11 METIS Surface Mesh - Feature Curves

12 METIS(d0) Mach Contours M=0.7, 0 deg aoa (Rho, KOM)

13 Gear Mach Contours with Mesh M=0.26, 0 deg aoa (Rho, KOM)

14 Gear Mach Contours M=0.26, 0 deg aoa (RHO,Lam)

15 Gear Mach Contours with Mesh (body) M=0.26, 0 deg aoa (Rho, Lam)

16 Scud B Jet Vane Effectiveness study

17 SCUD B Missile Geometry

18 SCUD B Missile Jet Vanes Geometry

19 Scud Run Matrix

20 SCUD B Surface Mesh

21 SCUD B Surface Mesh (nozzle)

22 SCUD B Surface Mesh (tail)

23 SCUD B Mach Contours M=3 STAR-CCM+

24 SCUD B Mach Contours M=3

25 SCUD B Mach Contours M=3 45 deg. plane

26 SCUD B Gauge Press (clipped) M=3 STAR-CCM+

27 A53D02 Missile Geometry

28 Nose Surface Mesh

29 Tail Surface Mesh

30 Fin Surface Mesh

31 Nose Grid

32 Tail Grid

33 Mach Contours Mach 0.9

34 Temp Contours Mach 0.9

35 Mach Contours - Mach 3

36 Temp Contours - Mach 3

37 Mach Contours - Mach 10

38 CFD Code Comparison for Drag

39 Finner Geometry

40 Nose Mesh

41 Tail Grid

42 Forebody Grid

43 Mach Contours Mach 0.9

44 Mach Contours Mach 0.9

45 Temp Contours Mach 0.9

46 Mach Contours Mach 2.03

47 Drag Coefficient Finner CFD Drag Data Star_Total 0.6 Star_BSE Star_Shear 0.4 LC_Total Mach

48 Finner Experimental Drag Data

49 FM3 Geometry

50 FM3 Computational Grid

51 FM3 Surface Grid Nose

52 FM3 Surface Grid Canard

53 FM3 Surface Grid Slot

54 FM3 Surface Grid Tail

55 FM3 Surface Grid Tail

56 FM3(d0) Mach Contours with Mesh M=2.0, 0 deg aoa (Rho, KOM)

57 FM3(d0) Temp Contours M=1.6, 0 deg aoa (Rho, KOM)

58 FM3(d15) Mach 1.6 Contours 3 deg aoa (Rho, KOM)

59 Drag Coefficient FM3(d0) CFD Drag Data POLYS TETS LC SHEAR P SHEAR T Mach

60 Drag Coefficient FM3(d15) CFD Drag Data POLYS TETS LC SHEAR P SHEAR T Mach

61 Conclusions STAR-CCM+ code is superior for CAD geometry repair, surface remeshing and initiating analysis (all codes tested were robust and accurate) The more difficult the geometry the greater the time advantage Can be mastered quickly by non-expert Grids can be used to feed other codes Requires sizable computational resources for most problems of interest Seamless switch to different Physics models and BC s Roe s scheme is unstable for Mach > 3 flows but very accurate for Mach < 3 AUSM+ scheme is very stable, robust and accurate Needs automated solution adaptation capability Superior solution monitoring and data reduction capabilities Important Physics models still under development

62 Future STAR-CCM+ Work Continue drag study Complete Missile run matrices using STAR-CCM+ Use Solution Adaptation Compare with available data Perform Moving body analyses for V/V work (Finner and Manpad) Compare with Available data Perform Heat Transfer Analyses (Blunt Body and Base Heating) Compare to Holden Data Perform Jet Interaction Problem (Binary Gas) Perform Jet Interaction Problem (Reacting Gas) Perform Store Separation Analysis (6-DOF) Acoustics Bombay Cavity (Acoustics, Store Separation, Fluid Structure) Landing Gear (fixed and Moving Body) Cavity Launch (Acoustics, Ventilation)