Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Chang, K. C.

Publications and source records attributed to Chang, K. C..

Aeroelastic Analysis of Aircraft: Wing and Wing/Fuselage Configurations

A previously developed interface method for coupling aerodynamics and structures is used to evaluate the aeroelastic effects for an advanced transport wing at cruise and under-cruise conditions. The calculated results are compared with wind tunnel test data. The capability of the interface method is also investigated for an MD-90 wing/fuselage configuration. In addition, an aircraft trim analysis is described and applied to wing configurations. The accuracy of turbulence models based on the algebraic eddy viscosity formulation of Cebeci and Smith is studied for airfoil flows at low Mach numbers by using methods based on the solutions of the boundary-layer and Navier-Stokes equations.

Chen, H. H.↗

A General Interface Method for Aeroelastic Analysis of Aircraft

The aeroelastic analysis of an aircraft requires an accurate and efficient procedure to couple aerodynamics and structures. The procedure needs an interface method to bridge the gap between the aerodynamic and structural models in order to transform loads and displacements. Such an interface method is described in this report. This interface method transforms loads computed by any aerodynamic code to a structural finite element (FE) model and converts the displacements from the FE model to the aerodynamic model. The approach is based on FE technology in which virtual work is employed to transform the aerodynamic pressures into FE nodal forces. The displacements at the FE nodes are then converted back to aerodynamic grid points on the aircraft surface through the reciprocal theorem in structural engineering. The method allows both high and crude fidelities of both models and does not require an intermediate modeling. In addition, the method performs the conversion of loads and displacements directly between individual aerodynamic grid point and its corresponding structural finite element and, hence, is very efficient for large aircraft models. This report also describes the application of this aero-structure interface method to a simple wing and an MD-90 wing. The results show that the aeroelastic effect is very important. For the simple wing, both linear and nonlinear approaches are used. In the linear approach, the deformation of the structural model is considered small, and the loads from the deformed aerodynamic model are applied to the original geometry of the structure. In the nonlinear approach, the geometry of the structure and its stiffness matrix are updated in every iteration and the increments of loads from the previous iteration are applied to the new structural geometry in order to compute the displacement increments. Additional studies to apply the aero-structure interaction procedure to more complicated geometry will be conducted in the second phase of the present contract.

Tzong, T.↗

Further comparisons of interactive boundary-layer and thin-layer Navier-Stokes procedures

Calculations of the flows over NACA 4412 and GA(W)-2 airfoils with low-speed flow and over NACA 0012 and RAE 2822 airfoils with transonic flow are reported. They were obtained by solving potential flow and boundary-layer equations, and by solving thin-layer Navier-Stokes equations. The results cover a range of angles of attack up to and including stall and allow the evaluation of the numerical and physical features of the two solution methods. The agreement with measurements is acceptable except between the results of the thin Navier-Stokes equations and measurements in subsonic flow at high angles of attack. The interactive boundary-layer method is considerably more efficient requiring considerably less computer time and storage.

Chang, K. C.↗

A comparison of interactive boundary-layer and thin-layer Navier-Stokes procedures

Numerical procedures for solving the thin-shear-layer Navier-Stokes equations and for the interaction of solutions to inviscid and boundary-layer equations are described and evaluated. To allow appraisal of the numerical and fluid dynamic abilities of the two schemes, they have been applied to one airfoil as a function of angle of attack at two slightly different Reynolds numbers. The NACA 0012 airfoil has been chosen because it allows comparison with measured lift, drag, and moment and with surface-pressure distributions. Calculations have been performed with algebraic eddy-viscosity formulations, and they include consideration of transition. The results are presented in a form that allows easy appraisal of the accuracy of both procedures and of the relative costs. The interactive procedure is computationally efficient but restrictive relative to the thin-layer Navier-Stokes procedure. The latter procedure does a better job of predicting drag than does the former. In both procedures, the location of transition is crucial for accurate or detailed computations, particularly at high angles of attack. When the upstream influence of pressure field through the shear layer is important, the thin-layer Navier-Stokes procedure has an edge over the interactive procedure.

Mehta, U.↗

Relative advantages of thin-layer Navier-Stokes and interactive boundary-layer procedures

Numerical procedures for solving the thin-shear-layer Navier-Stokes equations and for the interaction of solutions to inviscid and boundary-layer equations are described and evaluated. To allow appraisal of the numerical and fluid dynamic abilities of the two schemes, they have been applied to one airfoil as a function of angle of attack at two slightly different Reynolds numbers. The NACA 0012 airfoil has been chosen because it allows comparison with measured lift, drag, and moment and with surface-pressure distributions. Calculations have been performed with algebraic eddy-viscosity formulations, and they include consideration of transition. The results are presented in a form that allows easy appraisal of the accuracy of both procedures and of the relative costs. The interactive procedure is computationally efficient but restrictive relative to the thin-layer Navier-Stokes procedure. The latter procedure does a better job of predicting drag than does the former. In both procedures, the location of transition is crucial for accurate or detailed computations, particularly at high angles of attack. When the upstream influence of pressure field through the shear layer is important, the thin-layer Navier-Stokes procedure has an edge over the interactive procedure.

Mehta, U.↗