Search NASASearch

Engineering topics

Karen A. Deere

Publications and source records attributed to Karen A. Deere.

Computational Techniques to Generate Space Launch System Aerodynamic Databases

This document describes the reasoning and trade studies used to evaluate tools for constructing the aerodynamic lineload databases for the liftoff and transition phases of flight for the Space Launch System. Three computational fluid dynamics codes (USM3D, FUN3D, Kestrel) were investigated with various turbulence models, as well as detached eddy simulation variants for the launch vehicle in free air and in proximity to the tower. Decisions were made mostly based on results from brief developmental studies performed in response to specific, unforeseen challenges that were encountered in the analysis of a given configuration. The need to develop databases in a timely manner, as well as accurately capture the expected leeward-wake flowfield characteristics, led to the selection of the Kestrel flow solver with its delayed detached eddy simulation method, the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model, and the adaptive mesh refinement capability in the off-body Cartesian grid region.

Karen A. Deere

Computational Analysis of the X-57 Maxwell Airplane, the Landing Configuration with High-Lift Blowing and Aileron Deflections (Preliminary Fuselage)

The X-57 Maxwell is an all-electric airplane with a distributed electric propulsion system used for a high-lift system at takeoff and landing conditions. The Kestrel and USM3D flow solvers were used at NASA Langley to investigate the performance of the X-57 Maxwell in the development of an aerodynamic database. The configuration investigated in this paper had a 30° flap deflection, and in addition the pilot’s right aileron were deflected and undeflected in different cases. The solutions were computed at an airspeed of 58 KEAS, for an altitude of 6000 feet, and a flight Reynolds number of 0.588e+06 per foot. To evaluate the high-lift distributed electric propulsion system without aileron deflections, the solutions were computed for an angle-of-attack sweep from −2° to 20°, with the high-lift propellers blowing and the cruise propellers excluded from the simulation. To investigate the aileron effectiveness, the solutions were computed at angles of attack of −2° and 14°, for aileron deflections from −25° to 18° with the high-lift propellers blowing and the cruise propellers windmilling at idle-power. The high-lift propellers and the idle-power cruise propellers were modeled with an actuator disk. Results show negligible differences in lift, drag and pitching moment whether the idle-powered cruise propellers were included or excluded from the simulation. In general, the Kestrel and USM3D codes compared well for lift, drag and pitching moment for the landing configuration with no aileron control. The Kestrel code, using the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model with the rotation corrections terms, predicted an increasing lift coefficient up to maximum lift coefficient of 4.65 at a 15° angle of attack. The USM3D code, using the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model turbulence model with the Quadratic Constitutive Relation predicted an increasing lift coefficient up to maximum lift coefficient of 4.5 at a 12° angle of attack, with the lift remaining constant through a 14◦ angle of attack. A possible difference in lift coefficient between the codes for high angles of attack may result from the different available options used with the standard Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model. The Kestrel code predicted more drag across the range of angle of attack than the USM3D code. The codes compared well for pitching moment coefficient across the range of angle of attack. The Kestrel and USM3D codes compared well for aileron effectiveness at a 2° angle of attack. The Kestrel code predicts better aileron effectiveness than USM3D at a 14° angle of attack. There is more flow separation in the region outboard of the last high-lift nacelle for the USM3D solutions at a 14° angle of attack, which diminishes the ability of the aileron to be effective.

X-57 Maxwell Airplane

Computational Analysis of the X-57 Maxwell Airplane at Unpowered Conditions (Preliminary Fuselage)

The X-57 Maxwell is an all-electric airplane that implements a distributed electric propulsion system to demonstrate that high-efficiency electric propulsion can be integrated with aerodynamics to increase the performance of an airplane. To this end, distributed electric fans were installed on the wing to provide increased flow over the wing at the low takeoff and landing speeds of the X-57. The low-speed lift augmentation allows for a reduction in wing area for cruise optimization. The X-57 wing area was reduced to 42 percent of the wing area of the baseline aircraft, a Tecnam P2006T. With this reduced wing area and the electric propulsion system, it is estimated that the X-57 will cruise on less than one-third the total energy compared to the baseline aircraft. To meet the cruise performance goal at a Mach number of 0.233 at an altitude of 8000 feet, the X-57 has a cruise lift coefficient of 0.7516 and needs to have a cruise drag coefficient of 0.05423 or less. The USM3D computational solver was used to investigate the X-57 performance, without the distributed electric propulsion high-lift system operating. The unpowered X-57 performance is of interest to quantify if the X-57 can meet the cruise drag performance goal, and to document the lift performance of the very small wing at takeoff and landing conditions. The primary configurations investigated in this paper include the cruise configuration with no flap deflection, a takeoff configuration with a 10◦ flap deflection, and a landing configuration with a 30◦ flap deflection. The conditions for the cruise configuration were a flight unit Reynolds number of 1.32E+06 per foot, an altitude of 8000 feet, a Mach number of 0.233, and angles of attack from −2° to 24° . At the cruise lift coefficient of 0.7516, the computed drag coefficient is 0.05275. This computed drag is less than the drag coefficient of 0.05423 that is required to meet the X-57 airplane performance goal. However, the computational airplane is a completely smooth geometry and does not account for protuberance drag, nor the drag from steps and gaps in the actual X-57 airplane. Therefore, based upon the CFD drag calculation there is a 10-percent margin to account for some of the differences between the as-built metal fuselage and empennage construction, and the smooth computational geometry. The computed cruise drag also does not account for an induced drag reduction due to the wing-tip propellers and a drag reduction due to laminar flow achieved on the wing. The computed lift to drag ratio is 14.14 at the cruise lift coefficient of 0.7516, and the maximum computed lift to drag ratio is 15.8. The maximum lift coefficient for the cruise configuration was 2.13 at an angle of attack of 15°. The conditions for the takeoff configuration with a 10° flap deflection were a flight unit Reynolds number of 0.986E+06 per foot, an altitude of 2500 feet, a Mach number of 0.149, and angles of attack from −2° to 22°. The maximum lift coefficient for the takeoff configuration was 2.21 at an angle of attack of 16°. The conditions for the landing configuration with a 30° flap deflection were a flight unit Reynolds number of 0.922E+06 per foot, an altitude of 2500 feet, a Mach number of 0.139, and angles of attack from −2° to 24°. The maximum lift coefficient for the landing configuration was 2.58 and occurred at two angles of attack, 10° and 14°. Based on the unpowered maximum lift coefficient of 2.58 for the 30° flap deflection, along with computations of the distributed electric propulsion lift augmentation (not shown in this paper), the X-57 Maxwell is estimated to meet its powered landing goal of a maximum lift coefficient of 4.0.

X-57 Maxwell Airplane

Computational Analysis on the Effects of High-lift Propellers and Wingtip Cruise Propellers on X-57 Airplane

This study presents the computational study of the effects of high-lift system and wingtip-mounted cruise propellers on the flow physics and forces and moments of the X-57 Mod III/Mod IV configuration. Results were compared against previously published data on the powered-off configuration to determine the performance benefit. Simulations were performed using four different computational fluid dynamics solvers: STAR-CCM+, Launch Ascent Vehicle Aerodynamics, Kestrel, and USM3D. The high-lift system was shown to increase lift and lift-curve slope of the airplane. Additionally, the high-lift system was shown to increase the maximum lift coefficient and improve flow separation behavior at high anglesof-attack. Wingtip-mounted cruise propellers were shown to decrease the drag of the airplane. Simulation results showed that the drag decreased with increased thrust generated by the wingtip cruise propellers. The primary factor of the decrease in drag was a result of reduction in pressure drag of the wing. At the thrust setting of 230.1 lbf, results showed a reduction of 49-drag counts.

Seung Y. Yoo