Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 Introduction
Low aspect ratio rectangular flat wings are in
general used in missiles. Some of the missiles Fig. 1. General description of the flow field
which are donated with these wings fly and [10].
maneuver at high angles of attacks. General
description of the flow field is shown in Figure In the present study the experiments of van
9 10
1. Flow separates at the sharp leading edge and Westerhoven et. al . and Kavsaoğlu are taken
forms the leading edge bubble. There are also as test cases for comparison of the results. The
two side edge vortices which are similar to the geometry of the flat wing is shown in Fig. 5. In
leading edge vortices of Delta wings. In general a previous study, single block Navier Stokes
missile aerodynamics and high angle of attack analysis of these flowfields was obtained11.
aerodynamics are dominated with vortical and Single block structured grids face the grid
separated flows. Various publications by skewness problem around the sharp corners
AGARD provide a large selection of research which may reduce the accuracy of the solutions.
results in this field [1-6]. Low aspect ratio A sample single block grid around a sharp
rectangular flat wings were studied much less corner is seen in Fig. 6. In the present study
1
Durmuş, Kavsaoğlu
multi block approach is tested by using a zonal, 4 Experimental Data For Comparison
parallel, Navier Stokes solver12.
The test cases are selected from the
2 Navier Stokes Equations experimental data at the von Karman Institute
(VKI) [9, 10]. Test models are low aspect ratio,
The thin layer Navier Stokes Equations written rectangular flat plates with small thickness and
in curvilinear coordinates in strong conservation sharp edges. Model aspect ratios (AR) are 0.5,
form are given in equation 1. 0.67, 1.0 and 1.5. For AR=1.0, the low speed
model dimensions are 100mm*100mm*5mm
and the high speed force model dimensions are
Qτ + Eξ + Fη + Gζ =
1
(
S1 + S 2η + S3ζ
Re ξ
) (1)
80mm*80mm*2mm. The high speed pressure
model dimensions are 100m*100mm. Front and
Here Q is the dependent variable vector, side edges of the models are sharp. The top
T
Q = J −1 ρ, ρu, ρv , ρw, e , J is the surfaces of the models are not deflected at the
transformation Jacobian, E, F, G are the inviscid edges and connect to the lower surfaces with
flux vectors, S1, S 2 , S3 are the thin layer 15° angle. In Figure 2, the top and side view
drawings of the model used for high speed oil
viscous flux vectors in each curvilinear
flow measurements are shown.
direction, and Re is the Reynolds number.
3 Solution Algorithm
and surface pressure distribution measurements. The first zone is above the flat plate and extends
Low speed tests were carried out in the VKI low in the range of -3.0 ≤ x/c ≤ 4.0, 0.0 ≤ y/c ≤ 3.5 and
speed, open circuit wind tunnel of the suction 0.0 ≤ z/c < 3.0. The second zone is below the flat
type, designated L-2A. This tunnel has a 0.3 m plate and extends in the range of -3.0 ≤ x/c ≤ 4.0,
diameter circular test section. Maximum tunnel 0.0 ≤ y/c ≤ 3.5 and -3.0 < z/c ≤ 0.0. The flat plate
velocity is 40 m/sec and the Reynolds number lies in the z=0.0 plane and it extends in the
based on the model chord length is about 2*105. range 0.0 ≤ x/c ≤ 1.0 and 0.0 ≤ y/c ≤ 0.5. Two
At low speeds, oil flow visualizations were grids are produced, one for the first zone (top)
performed at different angles of attack varying and the other one for the second zone (bottom).
from 0° to 40°. High speed subsonic tests were They are named as BLOCK1 and BLOCK2.
carried out in the VKI S-1 wind tunnel. This is a These grid blocks are seen in Figure 3.
closed circuit transonic / supersonic wind tunnel
with 0.4 m * 0.4 m test section. Subsonic tests
are performed in the transonic test section with Z
slotted horizontal walls. High speed tests Y X
include surface pressure distribution
measurements, force and moment measurements
and a few oil flow measurements. Mach number
range was 0.4-0.9. Reynolds numbers varied
between 1.63*105 and 2.62*105.
2
3
Durmuş, Kavsaoğlu
there are 61 points in ξ direction and 35 points applied. At the upper and lower flat plate
in η direction. The first grid distance in surfaces the no slip conditions are applied
ζ direction from the flat plate surface is ∆z / c = (z/c=0.0). At the interface between upper and
lower blocks, excluding the flat plate, the
0.0001. A three dimensional hyperbolic grid
matched surface boundary conditions are
generation code [17] is used to produce this
applied [12].
grid. In ζ direction, four different stretching
ratios are used in four different regions to obtain
desired grid densities. These regions are
1
0.0 ≤ z/c ≤ 0.1, 0.1 ≤ z/c ≤ 0.5, 0.5 ≤ z/c ≤ 1.0, and Y
7 Computational Details
Y X
0.25
not show flow separation at the center-plane [11]. These may be the reasons for slower
(y/c=0.0). This was not in agreement with the convergence of the present cases.
experimental data. Although the solution was
not converged sufficiently, after the first 21,000
iterations, it was decided to assume laminar The following results are obtained after the first
flow up to x/c=0.75 and turbulent flow for 30,000 iterations of the test cases described in
x/c > 0.75. This was the reason for the small Table. 1. Therefore they are not fully converged
increase, particularly observable, in the upper results. Computations are continuing and more
block (BLOCK1) convergence history. For the accurate results are expected to be obtained at
first 21000 iterations the CFL number was taken the time of the ICAS 2002 conference.
as 10.0 and after this it was reduced to 5.0.
10-5
BLOCK1-L2
BLOCK2-L2
RESIDUAL
-6
10
10
-7 Fig. 7 A typical convergence history with a
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
ITERATIONS single block grid with 107,457 points, α = 7.5°,
Mach = 0.54, Re = 3*105, CFL=1.0 [11].
5
Durmuş, Kavsaoğlu
CP: -3.50 -3.27 -3.04 -2.80 -2.57 -2.34 -2.11 -1.88 -1.64 -1.41 -1.18 -0.95 -0.71 -0.48 -0.25
0.5
0.4
0.3
Y
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fig. 9 Experimentally obtained top surface In Figures 12 through 19 the computed and
streamlines α=15°, Mach≅0.1, Re=2.0*105 [10]. experimentally obtained surface pressures are
The flow is from left to right. compared. As explained before, due to better
prediction of the side edge vortices, the side
edge pressures agree better with the
experimental data. On the other hand, due to
6
MULTI BLOCK NAVIER STOKES SOLUTIONS OF LOW ASPECT
RATIO RECTANGULAR FLAT WINGS IN COMPRESSIBLE FLOW
-0.8 -0.8
-0.3 -0.3
-0.2 -0.2
0 0.4 0 0.4
X X
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.6 0.6
Y 0.2 Y 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
Numerical Experimental
Cp Cp
-0.9 -0.9
-0.8 -0.8
-0.7
-0.6 -0.6
-0.3
α=7.5°, Mach = 0.87, Re = 3.0*105.
-0.3
-0.2 -0.2
0 0.4 0 0.4
X X
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.6 0.6
Y 0.2 Y 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
Numerical Experimental
-0.9 -0.9
-0.6 -0.6
-0.5 -0.5
-0.4 -0.4
-0.3 -0.3
-0.2 -0.2
Cp -0.1 0.2
Cp -0.1 0.2
-0.6 -0.6
-0.5 -0.5
-0.4 -0.4
-0.3 -0.3
Fig. 15 Comparison of computational and
-0.2 -0.2
experimental [9] surface pressures. CASE: P4,
α=13.5°, Mach = 0.85, Re = 3.0*105.
-0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.2
0 0.4 0 0.4
X X
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.6 0.6
Y 0.2 Y 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
Numerical Experimental
7
Durmuş, Kavsaoğlu
-0.8
-0.6 -0.7
Cp
-0.3 -0.3
-0.2
-0.2
-0.1
-0.1
0
0 0.1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0 0.25 0.5 0.75
x/c x/c
-0.9
-0.7
-0.8
-0.6 -0.7
y=0.44 (P1 num.) y=0.44 (P3 num.)
y=0.44 (P1 exp.) y=0.44 (P3 exp.)
-0.6
-0.5
-0.5
Cp
Cp
-0.4
-0.4
-0.3 -0.3
-0.2 -0.2
-0.1
-0.1
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75
0 x/c
0 0.25 0.5 0.75
x/c
8
MULTI BLOCK NAVIER STOKES SOLUTIONS OF LOW ASPECT
RATIO RECTANGULAR FLAT WINGS IN COMPRESSIBLE FLOW
In Fig. 20 the computed normal force the results will be more accurate. The results
coefficients are compared with the experimental presented here were obtained after the first
data for Mach=0.54. Normal force is obtained 30,000 iterations of the different cases. Only
by the integration of surface pressures from the about one order of magnitude convergence was
top and bottom surfaces. Before reaching a achieved after the first 30,000 iterations. The
conclusion, more normal force predictions need side edge vortices and pressures of the top
to be performed at different Mach numbers and surface were predicted well. On the other hand,
angles of attack using better converged the prediction of the size of the leading edge
solutions. bubble was insufficient which resulted in the
less accurate prediction of the centerline
pressures. It is expected that by the growing
number of iterations a more converged solution
1.0 will be obtained and the leading edge separation
0.9 bubble will also be predicted better.
Experiment
0.8 Computation
0.7
0.6
0.5
Cz
0.4
References
0.3
9
Durmuş, Kavsaoğlu
10