Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Jeffrey Slotnick

Publications and source records attributed to Jeffrey Slotnick.

7 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2023

HLPW-4: Wall-Modeled LES and Lattice-Boltzmann Technology Focus Group Workshop Summary

A summary of the nine submissions to the Wall-Modeled LES and Lattice-Boltzmann(WMLESLB) Technical Focus Group (TFG) at the 4th High lift Prediction Workshop is provided. The focus of this TFG was to assess the current capabilities of WMLES and LB methods on a complex high-lift configuration across a wide range of angles-of-attack. Analysis of the submitted data suggests that>250𝑀spatial degrees of freedom are needed to accurately predict pitching moments at high angles-of-attack due to large pressure gradients present on the outboard slat and main element for 𝛼 >17◦(corrected for free-air). While some scatter is reported in pitching moment coefficient at the low-angles of attack (𝛼 <11◦) - excellent agreement is observed between submissions near the 𝐶𝐿,max state. Objective superiority of WMLES methods over RANS can be seen in terms of lack of excess outboard separation; a majority of the WMLES and LB submissions predict wedge-shaped separation patterns consistent with the experimental oil flow. The in-tunnel simulations show excellent agreement with the experiment in terms of a) integrated loads, b) surface flow-topology, and c) mechanism for the onset of inboard stall. Further evidence is provided to demonstrate both qualitative and quantitative superiority of the WMLES submissions over RANS.

TTT↗
NASA NTRS2021

A Guide for Aircraft Certification by Analysis

Analysis-based means of compliance for airplane and engine certification, commonly known as "Certification by Analysis" (CbA), provides a strong motivation for the development and maturation of current and future flight and engine modeling technology. The many benefits of CbA include streamlined product certification testing programs at lower cost while maintaining equivalent levels of safety. Flight and engine testing represent a substantial cost to airplane and engine development programs. This report provides a far-reaching vision for CbA and presents a research roadmap for computational technology development to enable CbA.

certification by analysis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

HLPW-4/GMGW-3: Wall-Modeled LES and Lattice-Boltzmann Technology Focus Group Workshop Summary

A summary of the nine submissions to the Wall-Modeled LES and Lattice-Boltzmann(WMLESLB) Technical Focus Group (TFG) at the 4th High lift Prediction Workshop is provided. The focus of this TFG was to assess the current capabilities of WMLES and Lattice-Boltzmann methods on a complex high-lift configuration across a wide range of angles of attack. Preliminary analysis of the submitted data suggests that>250𝑀spatial degrees of freedom are needed to accurately predict pitching moments at high angles of attack due to large pressure gradients present on the outboard slat and main element for𝛼 >17◦(corrected for free-air).While some scatter is reported in pitching moments at the low-angles of attack (𝛼 <11◦) - likely caused by differences in flap separation possibly due to low Reynolds number effects - excellent agreement is observed between the submissions near the𝐶𝐿,max state. Objective superiority over steady state RANS can be seen in terms of lack of excess outboard separation; a majority of the good quality WMLES and LB submissions predict wedge-shaped separation patterns consistent with the experimental oil flow. Differences in the onset of stall mechanism in the free-air configuration for𝛼 >20◦is reported with two distinct topologies observed. Topology A is characterized by the onset of corner-flow separation which progressively grows to produce a pitch break in free-air with an angle of attack increase from𝛼=20.55◦to𝛼=21.47◦+𝜖where𝜖is a small perturbation (varying between submissions and likely to be within±0.3◦). Topology Bis characterized by boundary layer weakness emanating from the inboard side of the wing-pylon juncture substantially larger than any weakness in the wing-body juncture (due to corner-flow);submissions in this category do not show any tendency for occurrence of a pitch break for the free-air configuration within the vicinity of𝛼=21.47◦. The in-tunnel simulations submitted by3 participants using different discretizations, grids and closure models show excellent agreement with the experiment in terms of a) integrated loads, b) surface flow-topology, and c) mechanism for the onset of inboard stall. Further evidence is provided to demonstrate both qualitative and quantitative superiority of all 3 WMLES submissions over a single steady state RANS submission to the workshop.

TTT↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Shock-Buffet Prediction Report in Support of the High Angle Working Group at the Third Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

This paper presents a summary of the computational shock-buffet results associated with the third Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW-3) High-Angle Working Group. The computational results are compared against experimental data collected during the Oscillating Turn Table (OTT) Benchmark Supercritical Wing (BSCW) test campaign conducted in NASA Langley Research Center Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT) in early 2000. In addition to experimental forced oscillation data, unsteady pressure data was collected at a single spanwise station at transonic Mach numbers, several values of dynamic pressure, and fixed angles of attack. It is acknowledged that the current experimental data are limited, but future experiments are planned to obtain pressure data at two wingspan stations in addition to unsteady Pressure Sensitive Paint (uPSP). With that, the computational results presented here are considered to be semi-blind. The results are presented in the form of time-varying pressure coefficients, running-mean values of the pressure coefficients, Power Spectral Density (PSD) and Strouhal number computations. The results are split into two parts. In the first part, the computational results obtained by each team using their flow solvers and grids are compared. In the second part, a single computational tool was used to compute unsteady pressure on participant-generated grids. In addition, a description of each participating team’s software and methods is included.

Pawel Chwalowski↗