Engineering topics

David J. Friedlander

Publications and source records attributed to David J. Friedlander.

3 records

NASA NTRS2023

Exploring the Langtry-Menter Transition Model for High Speed Applications Using FUN3D

A series of Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulations were performed using the FUN3D flow solver to explore the capabilities of the Langtry-Menter Shear-Stress Transport (LM-SST) transition model for predicting transition for aircraft inlet applications. Two geometries were simulated: a zeropressure-gradient flat plate and an axisymmetric cone exposed to hypersonic flow. In addition to the transition-sensitized LM-SST model investigations, simulations were run with the one-equation SpalartAllmaras (SA) and the two-equation Menter Shear-Stress Transport (SST-V) RANS models in fully turbulent mode to identify the natural RANS model transition behavior as a function of Mach number when executed in fully turbulent mode. The flat plate simulations showed that (1) the transition model was able to predict rapid transition at a freestream Mach number of 0.2, which is expected but (2) the predicted transition location moved downstream as the freestream Mach number was increased for the simulations that used the SST-V turbulence model. The latter is significant as it is usually assumed that one- and two-equation turbulence models will produce fully turbulent flow very near the boundary layer origin. The flat plate simulation freestream Mach number trend was confirmed with simulations using the Wind-US code, which also saw a similar trend when employing the SA turbulence model. For the axisymmetric cone simulations, the transition location was highly sensitive to the inflow turbulence levels. This is significant as the prediction of the transition location is crucial when trying to predict inlet performance, especially for hypersonic vehicle applications. It was also noted that the predicted transition location for the cone when using the SST-V turbulence model agreed well with the predicted transition location from the equivalent zero-pressure-gradient cold wall flat plate case.

Transition Model↗

NASA NTRS2023

Measurement Accuracy and Uncertainty Analysis of the X-59 Air Data Probe Calibration Test Entry One

The X-59 is being developed to demonstrate quiet sonic boom technology. Data was obtained via two test entries in the NASA Glenn Research Center’s 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel to calibrate the X-59’s nose air data probe. The first entry tested two theoretically identical probes with the intention of one of the probes becoming the primary X-59 nose air data probe flight hardware and the other becoming a backup. A measurement accuracy and uncertainty analysis was performed on data obtained from the first test entry. The analysis showed that the uncertainties in the probe pressures were nearly identical for the two probes, with an average difference of 2.51 x 10 -5 for the non-dimensional total pressure and 2.88 x 10 -5 for the non-dimensional static pressures. The analysis also showed that the uncertainty in the probe yaw and pitch angles were 0.00034° and 0.01416°, respectively. This gives confidence in the X-59’s flight air data system.

Air Data Probe↗

NASA NTRS2021

Comparing Commercial and Research Computational Fluid Dynamic Codes Using High-Order Workshop Benchmark Problems

The commercial computational fluid dynamic (CFD) code ANSYS Fluent and multiple research CFD codes (ez4d with uses the conservation element and solution element (CESE) method and codes that use the flux reconstruction (FR) method) were tested using three different benchmark problems from the International Workshop for High-Order CFD Methods. The benchmark problems included the transonic Ringleb flow, vortex transport by uniform flow, and laminar boundary layer on a flat plate. Simulation results from all three benchmark problems showed that the Fluent solutions had less error than the ez4d solutions for a given degree of freedom. As expected, both the Fluent and ez4d solutions had larger errors for a given degree of freedom than the simulations that used the FR method because both Fluent and ez4d utilized a second-order scheme whereas the FR codes utilized a fourth-order scheme.

CFD↗