Menter, Florian | Search NASA

NASA NTRS1995

Hypersonic flows as related to the National Aerospace Plane

The object of Cooperative Agreement NCC2-452 was to identify, develop, and document reliable turbulence models for incorporation into CFD codes, which would then subsequently be incorporated into numerical design procedures for the NASP and any other hypersonic vehicles. In a two-pronged effort, consisting of an experimental and a theoretical approach, several key features of flows over complex vehicles were identified, and test bodies were designed which were composed of simple geometric shapes over which these flow features were measured. The experiments were conducted in the 3.5' Hypersonic Wind Tunnel at NASA Ames Research Center, at nominal Mach numbers from 7 to 8.3 and Re/m from 4.9 x 10(exp 6) to 5.8 x 10(exp 6). Boundary layers approaching the interaction region were 2.5 to 3.7 cm thick. Surface and flow field measurements were conducted, and the initial boundary conditions were experimentally documented.

Kussoy, Marvin↗

NASA NTRS1994

A comparison of turbulence models in computing multi-element airfoil flows

Four different turbulence models are used to compute the flow over a three-element airfoil configuration. These models are the one-equation Baldwin-Barth model, the one-equation Spalart-Allmaras model, a two-equation k-omega model, and a new one-equation Durbin-Mansour model. The flow is computed using the INS2D two-dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes solver. An overset Chimera grid approach is utilized. Grid resolution tests are presented, and manual solution-adaptation of the grid was performed. The performance of each of the models is evaluated for test cases involving different angles-of-attack, Reynolds numbers, and flap riggings. The resulting surface pressure coefficients, skin friction, velocity profiles, and lift, drag, and moment coefficients are compared with experimental data. The models produce very similar results in most cases. Excellent agreement between computational and experimental surface pressures was observed, but only moderately good agreement was seen in the velocity profile data. In general, the difference between the predictions of the different models was less than the difference between the computational and experimental data.

Rogers, Stuart E.↗