Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Steven J Massey

Publications and source records attributed to Steven J Massey.

8 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2007

PAB3D Simulations for the CAWAPI F-16XL

Numerical simulations of the flow around F-16XL are performed as a contribution to the Cranked Arrow Wing Aerodynamic Project International (CAWAPI) using the PAB3D CFD code. Two turbulence models are used in the calculations: a standard k-! model, and the Shih-Zhu-Lumley (SZL) algebraic stress model. Seven flight conditions are simulated for the flow around the F-16XL where the free stream Mach number varies from 0.242 to 0.97. The range of angles of attack varies from 0° to 20°. Computational results, surface static pressure, boundary layer velocity profiles, and skin friction are presented and compared with flight data. Numerical results are generally in good agreement with flight data, considering that only one grid resolution is utilized for the different flight conditions simulated in this study. The ASM results are closer to the flight data than the k-ε model results. The ASM predicted a stronger primary vortex, however, the origin of the vortex and footprint is approximately the same as in the k-ε predictions.

Flight Data↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Progress on Transonic Flutter and Shock Buffet Computationsin Support of the Third Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

This paper reports on the progress of the NASA Langley team contributions to the third Aeroelastic Pre-diction Workshop’s (AePW-3) High Angle Working Group (HAWG). The primary objectives of HAWG is to predict the fluter dynamic pressure of the NASA Benchmark Supercritical Wing (BSCW) configuration at Mach 0.8 and 5◦angle of attack. The secondary objective is to determine if a shock-buffet onset is present at or near that flow condition. The computational results are obtained using FUN3D, an unstructured grid Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes solver developed at the NASA Langley Research Center. The preliminary analysis results show a computationally-obtained flutter dynamic pressure of approximately 120 psf. Initial results describing unforced BSCW unsteady flow environment at flutter condition are also presented.

Pawel Chwalowski↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Progress on Flutter Analysis of the X-56A for the Third Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

An aeroelastic analysis is presented for the X-56A test case of the upcoming third aeroelastic prediction workshop. Results using the FUN3D linearized frequency-domain solver are shown for four different structural models corresponding to increasing fuel loads. The present study is blind since only redacted and normalized flight test data have been published. However, trends in body-freedom flutter mode frequencies and damping with respect to fuel load are seen to agree well with previously published redacted flight test data.

Steven J Massey↗
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↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Summary of Results from the Third Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop Flight Test Working Group

This paper summarizes results of the Flight Test Working Group presented at the third Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop held in January 2023. The Flight Test Working Group was looking at the application of flutter prediction tools of a complete aircraft and comparing those predictions to flight-test data. The teams generated a total of six different predictions of the body freedom flutter exhibited by the X-56A experimental aircraft with flexible wings. The computational predictions of frequency and damping are compared with the flight-test data. All of the methods gave similar predictions of the flutter speed, but were all about 10 to 20 knots higher than the measured flutter speed. Additionally, the different generalized aerodynamic forces and the aerodynamic work from the computational tools are compared to illustrate the differences in the methods. Looking at the aerodynamic work done by the flutter mode, suggests that the pitch motion is dissipating less energy and the plunge motion is adding more in the methods which better predict the flutter. However, with only six different predictions it was not possible to develop more definitive conclusions.

Jeffrey Ouellette↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Summary of Results from the Third Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop Flight Test Working Group

This paper summarizes results of the Flight Test Working Group presented at the third Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop held in January 2023. The Flight Test Working Group was looking at the application of flutter prediction tools of a complete aircraft and comparing those predictions to flight-test data. The teams generated a total of six different predictions of the body freedom flutter exhibited by the X-56A experimental aircraft with flexible wings. The computational predictions of frequency and damping are compared with the flight-test data. All of the methods gave similar predictions of the flutter speed, but were all about 10 to 20 knots higher than the measured flutter speed. Additionally, the different generalized aerodynamic forces and the aerodynamic work from the computational tools are compared to illustrate the differences in the methods. Looking at the aerodynamic work done by the flutter mode, suggests that the pitch motion is dissipating less energy and the plunge motion is adding more in the methods which better predict the flutter. However, with only six different predictions it was not possible to develop more definitive conclusions.

Jeffrey Ouellette↗