Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Joseph H Morrison

Publications and source records attributed to Joseph H Morrison.

13 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2017

Statistical Analysis of CFD Solutions from the 6th AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop

A graphical framework is used for statistical analysis of the results from an extensive N-version test of a collection of Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes computational fluid dynamics codes. The solutions were obtained by code developers and users from North America, Europe, Asia, and South America using both common and custom grid sequences as well as multiple turbulence models for the June 2016 6th AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop sponsored by the AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Technical Committee. The aerodynamic configuration for this workshop was the Common Research Model subsonic transport wing-body previously used for both the 4th and 5th Drag Prediction Workshops. This work continues the statistical analysis begun in the earlier workshops and compares the results from the grid convergence study of the most recent workshop with previous workshops.

Statistical analysis↗
NASA NTRS2014

Observations on CFD Verification and Validation from the AIAA Drag Prediction Workshops

The authors provide observations from the AIAA Drag Prediction Workshops that have spanned over a decade and from a recent validation experiment at NASA Langley. These workshops provide an assessment of the predictive capability of forces and moments, focused on drag, for transonic transports. It is very difficult to manage the consistency of results in a workshop setting to perform verification and validation at the scientific level, but it may be sufficient to assess it at the level of practice. Observations thus far: 1) due to simplifications in the workshop test cases, wind tunnel data are not necessarily the “correct” results that CFD should match, 2) an average of core CFD data are not necessarily a better estimate of the true solution as it is merely an average of other solutions and has many coupled sources of variation, 3) outlier solutions should be investigated and understood, and 4) the DPW series does not have the systematic build up and definition on both the computational and experimental side that is required for detailed verification and validation. Several observations regarding the importance of the grid, effects of physical modeling, benefits of open forums, and guidance for validation experiments are discussed. The increased variation in results when predicting regions of flow separation and increased variation due to interaction effects, e.g., fuselage and horizontal tail, point out the need for validation data sets for these important flow phenomena. Experiences with a recent validation experiment at NASA Langley are included to provide guidance on validation experiments.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗
NASA NTRS2013

Statistical Analysis of CFD Solutions From the Fifth AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop

A graphical framework is used for statistical analysis of the results from an extensive N-version test of a collection of Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes computational fluid dynamics codes. The solutions were obtained by code developers and users from North America, Europe, Asia, and South America using a common grid sequence and multiple turbulence models for the June 2012 fifth Drag Prediction Workshop sponsored by the AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Technical Committee. The aerodynamic configuration for this workshop was the Common Research Model subsonic transport wing-body previously used for the 4th Drag Prediction Workshop. This work continues the statistical analysis begun in the earlier workshops and compares the results from the grid convergence study of the most recent workshop with previous workshops.

Statistical analysis↗
NASA NTRS2010

Statistical Analysis of CFD Solutions from the Fourth AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop

A graphical framework is used for statistical analysis of the results from an extensive N-version test of a collection of Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes computational fluid dynamics codes. The solutions were obtained by code developers and users from the U.S., Europe, Asia, and Russia using a variety of grid systems and turbulence models for the June 2009 4th Drag Prediction Workshop sponsored by the AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Technical Committee. The aerodynamic configuration for this workshop was a new subsonic transport model, the Common Research Model, designed using a modern approach for the wing and included a horizontal tail. The fourth workshop focused on the prediction of both absolute and incremental drag levels for wing-body and wing-body-horizontal tail configurations. This work continues the statistical analysis begun in the earlier workshops and compares the results from the grid convergence study of the most recent workshop with earlier workshops using the statistical framework.

Statistical analysis↗
NASA NTRS2007

Statistical Analysis of the AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop CFD Solutions

The first AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop (DPW), held in June 2001, evaluated the results from an extensive N-version test of a collection of Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes CFD codes. The code-to-code scatter was more than an order of magnitude larger than desired for design and experimental validation of cruise conditions for a subsonic transport configuration. The second AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop, held in June 2003, emphasized the determination of installed pylon-nacelle drag increments and grid refinement studies. The code-to-code scatter was significantly reduced compared to the first DPW, but still larger than desired. However, grid refinement studies showed no significant improvement in code-to-code scatter with increasing grid refinement. The third AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop, held in June 2006, focused on the determination of installed side-of-body fairing drag increments and grid refinement studies for clean attached flow on wing alone configurations and for separated flow on the DLR-F6 subsonic transport model. This report compares the transonic cruise prediction results of the second and third workshops using statistical analysis.

Joseph H Morrison↗
NASA NTRS2007

Statistical Analysis of CFD Solutions from the Third AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop

The first AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop, held in June 2001, evaluated the results from an extensive N-version test of a collection of Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes CFD codes. The code-to-code scatter was more than an order of magnitude larger than desired for design and experimental validation of cruise conditions for a subsonic transport configuration. The second AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop, held in June 2003, emphasized the determination of installed pylon-nacelle drag increments and grid refinement studies. The code-to-code scatter was significantly reduced compared to the first DPW, but still larger than desired. However, grid refinement studies showed no significant improvement in code-to-code scatter with increasing grid refinement. The third Drag Prediction Workshop focused on the determination of installed side-of-body fairing drag increments and grid refinement studies for clean attached flow on wing alone configurations and for separated flow on the DLR-F6 subsonic transport model. This work evaluated the effect of grid refinement on the code-to-code scatter for the clean attached flow test cases and the separated flow test cases.

Statistical analysis↗
NASA NTRS2004

Study of CFD Variation on Transport Configurations from the Second Drag-Prediction Workshop

This paper describes and analyzes a series of nearly 90 CFD test cases performed as a contribution to the second Drag Prediction Workshop, held in association with the AIAA in June 2003. Two configurations are included: DLR-F6 wing-body and wing-body-nacelle-pylon. The ability of CFD to predict the drag, lift, and pitching moment from experiment-including the "delta" arising from the addition of the nacelle and pylon-is assessed. In general, at a fixed angle of attack CFD overpredicts lift, but predicts the delta C (sub L) reasonably well. At low lift levels (C (sub L) less than 0.3)), delta C (sub D) is 20-30 drag counts (30-45%) high. At the target lift coefficient of C(sub L) = 0.5, delta C (sub D) is overpredicted by between 11-16 counts. However, the primary contribution of this paper is mot so much the assessment of CFD against experiment, but rather a detailed assessment and analysis of CFD variation. The series of test cases are designed to determine the sensitivity/variability of CFD to a variety of factors, including grid, turbulence model, transition code, and viscous model. Using medium-level grids (6-11 million points) at the target lift coefficient, the maximum variation in drag due to different grids is 5-11 drag counts, due to code is 5-10 counts, due to turbulence model is 7-15 counts, due to transition is 10-11 counts, and due to viscous model is 4-5 counts. Other specific variations are described in the paper.

Christopher L Rumsey↗
NASA NTRS1998

Numerical Study of Turbulence Model Predictions for the MD 30P/30N and NHLP-2D Three-Element Highlift Configurations

This report details calculations for the McDonnell-Douglas 30P/30N and the NHLP-2D three-element highlift configurations. Calculations were performed with the Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes code ISAAC to study the effects of various numerical issues on high lift predictions. These issues include the effect of numerical accuracy on the advection terms of the turbulence equations, Navier-Stokes versus the thin-layer Navier-Stokes approximation, an alternative formulation of the production term, and the performance of several turbulence models. The effect of the transition location on the NHLP-2D flow solution was investigated. Two empirical transition models were used to estimate the transition location.

Turbulence modeling↗
NASA NTRS1992

A compressible Navier-Stokes solver with two-equation and Reynolds stress turbulence closure models

This report outlines the development of a general purpose aerodynamic solver for compressible turbulent flows. Turbulent closure is achieved using either two equation or Reynolds stress transportation equations. The applicable equation set consists of Favre-averaged conservation equations for the mass, momentum and total energy, and transport equations for the turbulent stresses and turbulent dissipation rate. In order to develop a scheme with good shock capturing capabilities, good accuracy and general geometric capabilities, a multi-block cell centered finite volume approach is used. Viscous fluxes are discretized using a finite volume representation of a central difference operator and the source terms are treated as an integral over the control volume. The methodology is validated by testing the algorithm on both two and three dimensional flows. Both the two equation and Reynolds stress models are used on a two dimensional 10 degree compression ramp at Mach 3, and the two equation model is used on the three dimensional flow over a cone at angle of attack at Mach 3.5. With the development of this algorithm, it is now possible to compute complex, compressible high speed flow fields using both two equation and Reynolds stress turbulent closure models, with the capability of eventually evaluating their predictive performance.

Navier-Stoke solver↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-14038-DND

The next decade at NASA will see development of the Space Launch System heavy-lift vehicle and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle to expand human presence beyond low Earth orbit. Aeronautics will see the development of environmentally responsible aviation technology. Development of technology required for these vehicles will require improved multi0disciplinary simulation capabilities. The talk will describe the development of the computational fluid dynamics and computational aeroacoustics applications to meet these simulation needs. Some results will be presented for scaling a computational fluid dynamics solver on NASA's Pleiades and ORNL's Jaguar.

Joseph H Morrison↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-27686-DND

Accurate flight prediction methods are critical for all aspects of vehicle performance, handling characteristics, and structural integrity. The first NASA/Industry/DoD workshop on wind tunnel/flight correlation was held in 1981, when discrepancies arising from Reynolds number effects, aeroelastic effects, and tunnel wall and sting interference effects posed significant barriers to experimentally-based prediction methods in use at that time. Significant advances in ground-based experimental capabilities and facilities, CFD methods, and flight test technology in the next 20 years significantly improved the tools available for predictions. In addition, numerous new production and experimental military and civil aircraft completed flight testing, offering an unprecedented experience base and data for assessing the accuracy of current prediction methods and practices. Thus, the first Flight Prediction Workshop (FPW) was held in 2002. The objective of the 2002 workshop and the current 3 day workshop for technical specialists is to provide a forum for the exchange of: experiences and lessons learned, critical assessments of the state of the art, and recommendations for further developments in flight prediction methodology. Information and opinions provided by the workshop will be incorporated in R&T planning for future government activities in aerodynamics, aeroelasticity, aeroacoustics, propulsion/air frame integration, etc.

Joseph H Morrison↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

AVT-297 Development of a Framework for Validation of Computational Tools

Design of aerospace vehicles relies on system models. These models rely on validation data to ensure accurate representation of the system. This paper provides an introduction to the problem and an overview of a NATO STO Activity, AVT-297, which developed a framework to determine validation experiments required to support system level models. The goals of the research group were to develop a process to identify a validation database for intended uses of a vehicle system, demonstrate the process on vehicles and document the process. Applying this process to multiple intended uses and collecting this set of validation databases identifies a set of validation experiments that could be applied to the design of multiple vehicles, further reducing the cost and time to develop air and naval vehicles. Four subgroup teams focused on different aspects of the validation database process: two focused on different aspects of a missile, and two focused on different aspects of a fixed-wing mobility transport class vehicle. This resulted in three different processes to decompose the multi-disciplinary problem to identify critical validation data. All four of the teams demonstrated their process on a sample problem demonstrating the benefit of the process.

Validation↗