0
Research Papers

Modeling of Oscillating Control Surfaces Using Overset-Grid-Based Navier–Stokes Equations Solver

[+] Author and Article Information
Guru P. Guruswamy

Computational Physics Branch,
NASA Advanced Supercomputing Division,
Ames Research Center,
Moffett Field, CA 94035
e-mail: guru.p.guruswamy@nasa.gov

Contributed by the Dynamic Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL. Manuscript received January 15, 2016; final manuscript received September 28, 2016; published online January 10, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Ming Xin.This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control 139(3), 031005 (Jan 10, 2017) (8 pages) Paper No: DS-16-1030; doi: 10.1115/1.4034945 History: Received January 15, 2016; Revised September 28, 2016

A modular procedure is presented to simulate moving control surfaces within an overset grid environment using the Navier–Stokes equations. Gaps are modeled by locally shearing the wing grids instead of using separate grids to model gaps. Grid movements for control surfaces are defined through a separate module, which is driven by an external grid generation tool. Results are demonstrated for a wing with a part-span control surface. Grids for the test case are determined from detailed grid sensitivity studies based on both nonoscillating and oscillating cases. Steady and, for the first time, unsteady pressures from overset grid computations are validated with wind tunnel data. This paper addresses the current needs of high-fidelity flow modeling to design advanced active-controls.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Carey, B. , 2012, “ BAE Systems Develops Aircraft Active Controls Stick,” Aviation International News (AIN) Online, Midland Park, NJ, accessed July 10, 2012, http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2012-07-10/bae-systems-develops-civil-aircraft-active-control-stick
Lau, B. , Obriecht, N. , Gasow, T. , Hagerty, B. , Cheng, K. , and Sim, B. , 2010, “ Boeing-SMART Test Report for DARPA Helicopter Quieting Program,” NASA Report No. TM 2010-216404.
Mukhopadhyay, V. , 1998, “ Transonic Flutter Suppression Control Law Design, Analysis and Wind Tunnel Test Results,” Second International Conference on Nonlinear Problems in Aviation and Aerospace, Daytona Beach, FL, Apr., pp. 45–51.
Guruswamy, G. P. , 1989, “ An Integrated Approach for Active Coupling of Structures and Fluids,” AIAA J., 27(6), pp. 788–793. [CrossRef]
Poling, D. R. , Dadone, L. , and Telionis, D. P. , 1989, “ Blade-Vortex Interaction,” AIAA J., 27(6), pp. 694–699. [CrossRef]
Obayashi, S. , and Guruswamy, G. P. , 1994, “ Navier–Stokes Computations for Oscillating Control Surfaces,” J. Aircr., 31(3), pp. 631–636. [CrossRef]
Klopfer, G. H. , and Obayashi, S. , 1993, “ Virtual Zone Navier–Stokes Computations for Oscillating Control Surfaces,” AIAA Paper No. 93-3363.
Yeh, D. T. , 1995, “ Aeroelastic Analysis of a Hinged-Flap and Control Surface Effectiveness Using the Navier–Stokes Equations,” AIAA Paper No. 95-02263.
Liggett, N. , and Smith, M. , 2013, “ Study of Gap Physics of Airfoils With Unsteady Flaps,” J. Aircr., 50(2), pp. 643–650. [CrossRef]
Liu, L. , Padthe, A. , Friedmann, P. P. , Quon, E. , and Smith, M. , 2011, “ Unsteady Aerodynamics of an Airfoil/Flap Combination on a Helicopter Rotor Using CFD and Approximate Methods,” J. Am. Helicopter Soc., 56(3), p. 032003. [CrossRef]
Mishra, A. , Sitaraman, J. , Baeder, J. D. , and Opoku, D. G. , 2007, “ Computational Investigation of Trailing Edge Flap for Control of Vibration,” AIAA Paper No. 2007-4290.
Jain, R. , Yeo, H. , and Chopra, I. , 2013, “ Investigation of Trailing-Edge Flap Gap Effects on Rotor Performance Using High-Fidelity Analysis,” J. Aircr., 50(1), pp. 140–150. [CrossRef]
Potsdam, M. , Fulton, M. V. , and Dimanlig, A. , 2011, “ Multidisciplinary CFD/CSD Analysis of the SMART Active Flap Rotor,” 66th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Phoenix, AZ, May 11–13.
Nichols, R. H. , Tramel, R. W. , and Buning, P. G. , 2006, “ Solver and Turbulence Model Upgrades to OVERFLOW2 for Unsteady and High-Speed Applications,” AIAA Paper No. 2006-2824.
Obayashi, S. , Chiu, I. , and Guruswamy, G. P. , 1995, “ Navier–Stokes Computations on Full-Span Wing-Body Configuration With Oscillating Control Surfaces,” AIAA J., 32(6), pp. 1227–1233.
Bennett, R. M. , Eckstrom, C. V. , Rivera, J. A. , Farmer, M. G. , and Durham, M. H. , 1991, “ The Benchmark Aeroelastic Models Program—Description and Highlights of Initial Results,” NASA Report No. TM-107582.
Schuster, D. M. , Chwalowski, P. , Heeg, J. , and Wieseman, C. , 2013, “ Analysis of Test Case Computations and Experiments for the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop,” AIAA Paper No. 2013-0788.
Peyret, R. , and Viviand, H. , 1975, “ Computation of Viscous Compressible Flows Based on Navier–Stokes Equations,” Report No. AGARD-AG-212.
Beam, R. M. , and Warming, R. F. , 1978, “ An Implicit Factored Scheme for the Compressible Navier–Stokes Equations,” AIAA J., 16(4), pp. 393–402. [CrossRef]
Spalart, P. R. , 1988, “ Direct Simulation of a Turbulent Boundary Layer Up to Rθ = 1410,” J. Fluid Mech., 187, pp. 61–98. [CrossRef]
Guruswamy, G. P. , 2013, “ Computations on Wings With Full-Span Oscillating Control Surfaces Using Navier–Stokes Equations,” NASA Report No. TM-2013-216601.
Chan, W. M. , 2011, “ Developments in Strategies and Software Tools for Overset Structured Grid Generation and Connectivity,” AIAA Paper No. 2011-3051.
Message Passing Interface, 1994, “ MPI, A Message-Passing Interface Standard,” University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
Guruswamy, G. P. , 2000, “ HiMAP: A Portable Super Modular Multilevel Parallel Multidisciplinary Process for Large Scale Analysis,” Adv. Eng. Software, 31(8–9), pp. 617–620. [CrossRef]
Chapman, B. , Jost, G. , and van der Pas, R. , 2008, Using OpenMP, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Noack, M. , 2015, “Behind the Scenes at NASA's Computer Powerhouse,” Mountain View Voice, Mountain View, CA.
Guruswamy, G. P. , 2011, “ Large-Scale Computations for Stability Analysis of Launch Vehicles Using Cluster Computers,” J. Spacecr. Rockets, 48(4), pp. 584–588. [CrossRef]
Guruswamy, G. P. , 2013, “ Time-Accurate Aeroelastic Computations of a Full Helicopter Model Using the Navier-Stokes Equations,” Int. J. Aerosp. Innovations, 5(3–4), pp. 73–82. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Typical sheared grid for part-span control surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic diagram of the wind tunnel model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) Grid topology-near body and a portion of box grid, (b) near-body wing and cap grids, and (c) grid at gap

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Convergence residual at M = 0.77, α = 4.0, δ0 = 5.0 deg, and Re_c = 3.82 × 106

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Convergence steady for Cl, Cm, and Cd at M = 0.77, α = 4.0, δ0 = 5.0 deg, and Re_c = 3.82 × 106

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Effect of normal spacing at surface on Cl, Cm, and Cd at M = 0.77, α = 4.0 deg, and δ0 = 5.0 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Effect of normal grid SF on Cl, Cm, and Cd at M = 0.77, α = 4.0, and δ0 = 5.0 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Effects of chordwise spacing on Cl, Cm, and Cd at M = 0.77, α = 4.0, and δ0 = 5.0 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Effect of outer boundary location spacing on Cl, Cm, and Cd at M = 0.77, α = 4.0, δ0 = 5.0 deg, and Re_c = 3.82 × 106

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Response of unsteady Cl, Cm, and Cd at M = 0.77, α = 4.0 deg, δ0 = 0.0 deg, δβ = 5.0 deg, k = 0.22, and Re_c = 3.82 × 106

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Effect of number of Newton subiterations on magnitude and phase angles of unsteady Cl for M = 0.77, α = 4.0 deg, δ0 = 0.0 deg, δβ = 5.0 deg, k = 0.22, and Re_c = 3.82 × 106

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Effect of outer boundary location on magnitude and phase angles of unsteady Cl for M = 0.77, α = 4.0 deg, δ0 = 0.0 deg, δβ = 5.0 deg, k = 0.22, and Re_c = 3.82 × 106

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison between computed and measured steady Cp for M = 0.77, α = 0.0, and δ0 = 5.0 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison between computed and measured values of steady Cp for M = 0.77, α = 4.0, δ0 = 5.0 deg, and Re_c = 3.83 × 106

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison between computed and measured values of in-phase and out-of-phase components of upper-surface oscillatory pressures for M = 0.77, α = 0.0 deg, k = 0.1083, δ0 = 0.0, δβ = 2.0 deg, and Re_c = 3.96 × 106

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison between computed and measured values of in-phase and out-of-phase components of upper-surface oscillatory pressures for M = 0.77, α = 4.01 deg, k = 0.2166, δ0 = 0.0, δβ = 3.86 deg, and Re_c = 3.86 × 106

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Snapshots at the peak control-surface amplitude for M = 0.77, α = 4.01 deg, k = 0.2166, δ0 = 0.0, δβ = 3.86 deg, and Re_c = 3.86 × 106. (a) Surface pressure, (b) spanwise velocity contours at control surface, and (c) chordwise density contours at midspan of control surface.

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