SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Spalart Allmaras Turbulence Model”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2018

Study of Laminar-Turbulent Transition Modeled by Amplification Factor Transport Within the LAVA Solver

The Amplification Factor Transport (AFT) transition model proposed by Coder and Maughmer is implemented in the unstructured and curvilinear Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) solvers of the Launch Ascent and Vehicle Aerodynamics (LAVA) platform. It is coupled to the Spalart-Allmaras (SA) turbulence model through a modified intermittency variable. As part of the model verification and validation phase, laminar-turbulent transition is studied over 2D flat plates, wind turbine and general aviation airfoils, as well as a 3D inclined prolate spheroid and the JAXA Standard Model (JSM). This work will analyze the sensitivity of the results to grid refinement, grid paradigm, flow conditions and numerical schemes. The numerical efficiency of the unstructured and curvilinear solvers will be compared and convergence acceleration techniques will be explored to address a broad range of aerodynamics applications.

Denison, M. F.↗

NASA NTRS2020

Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Computations of the NASA Juncture Flow Model Using FUN3D and OVERFLOW

Two Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes codes, FUN3D and OVERFLOW, are used to assess the capability of Spalart-Allmaras-based turbulence models to predict the flow over the NASA Juncture Flow model. Both free-air and in-tunnel simulations are performed. While the tunnel walls have some influence, it is found to be relatively minor in the juncture region of interest. Results from the two codes are found to be consistent with each other in attached flow regions, but results in the area of separation still show grid and code sensitivity, even on grids as large as 400 million unknowns. Nonetheless, it is possible to draw conclusions regarding the model capabilities. Without a quadratic constitutive relation, the linear model predicts a separation size that is too large. The inclusion of a nonlinear quadratic constitutive relation improves results significantly, but separation still occurs too far upstream. Prediction of turbulent normal stress differences play a key role in this flow. Although the nonlinear model makes better predictions in this regard, they could still be improved, particularly in the streamwise normal component near the wall.

C L Rumsey↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

High-Lift Common Research Model: RANS, HRLES and WMLES Perspectives for CLmax Prediction Using LAVA

A unified assessment of three turbulence treatments: Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes(RANS), Hybrid RANS/LES (HRLES) and Equilibrium Wall-Modelled Large Eddy Simulation(WMLES) is presented for the High-Lift Common Research Model (CRM-HL). For the free-air configuration, steady-state RANS simulations show very accurate drag polar predictions in the low-𝛼linear regime. However, strong grid sensitivity is reported near the maximum lift-state(𝐶𝐿max), with finer-grids showing larger errors and predicting erroneous flow topologies on the wing. Our RANS simulations show that several corrections for the Spalart-Allmaras (SA)turbulence model widely used in the community lead to more erroneous results compared to the baseline closure, without exception. Both scale-resolving methods (HRLES and WMLES)address these drawbacks and predict an outboard separation pattern on the main element that is in good agreement with the oil flow photographs taken from the QinetiQ wind tunnel experiments, when LES-appropriate grids and numerical discretizations are used. While RANS simulations with the baseline SA closure do not show any wing-root separation post𝐶𝐿max, both HRLES and WMLES show onset of corner flow separation with varying degrees of progression, along with a weak pitch break in the wing-contribution of the overall pitching moment. This post-𝐶𝐿max pitch break seen in the free-air simulations is weaker than the break observed in experiments, with a weaker break reported in WMLES for each iteration of grid-refinement. In-tunnel simulations using both SA-baseline RANS and WMLES show a much stronger post-𝐶𝐿max break with the WMLES predictions showing excellent agreement with the experiment in terms of both the flow-topology observed and the pressure-coefficients at various spanwise stations. Sensitivity to the tunnel wall boundary layer is characterized via comparisons between viscous and inviscid treatments for the tunnel walls. WMLES predictions show moderate sensitivity at the predicted inboard flow-state at 𝐶𝐿max along with the progression towards a post-𝐶𝐿max stall; however, this stalled state at 𝛼≈20◦(inside the tunnel) obtained with both tunnel wall treatments appears to be largely identical.

TTT↗

NASA NTRS1995

The applicability of turbulence models to aerodynamic and propulsion flowfields at McDonnell-Douglas Aerospace

The objective of this viewgraph presentation is to evaluate turbulence models for integrated aircraft components such as the forebody, wing, inlet, diffuser, nozzle, and afterbody. The one-equation models have replaced the algebraic models as the baseline turbulence models. The Spalart-Allmaras one-equation model consistently performs better than the Baldwin-Barth model, particularly in the log-layer and free shear layers. Also, the Sparlart-Allmaras model is not grid dependent like the Baldwin-Barth model. No general turbulence model exists for all engineering applications. The Spalart-Allmaras one-equation model and the Chien k-epsilon models are the preferred turbulence models. Although the two-equation models often better predict the flow field, they may take from two to five times the CPU time. Future directions are in further benchmarking the Menter blended k-w/k-epsilon and algorithmic improvements to reduce CPU time of the two-equation model.

Kral, Linda D.↗

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 NTRSDate not supplied

High-Lift Prediction Workshop 5: Summary of Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes Technology Focus Group Summary

The fifth High-Lift Prediction Workshop (HLPW-5), which involved the high-lift version of the NASA common research model in several configurations, assessed various computational fluid dynamics methods, including Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) and hybrid large-eddy simulations. This paper summarizes RANS solutions computed on fixed grids. Case 1, a verification case, considered a simple wing-body configuration and focused on grid convergence of lift, drag, and pitching moment coefficients. Case 2 is a configuration buildup case that focused on predicting the effects of increasing geometric complexity. For buildup configurations with slats, flaps, and a nacelle/pylon (configurations 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4), wind-tunnel data were provided by ONERA. Case 3 focused on the reference landing configuration at four Reynolds-number conditions. For Case 1, grid-converged RANS solutions were achieved using the standard Spalart-Allmaras (SA) turbulence model and the SA model with a quadratic constitutive relation and a rotation correction. Agreement between RANS solutions was observed for the simplest configuration 2.1 of Case 2 with the standard SA model. For other configurations, agreement between RANS solutions was hampered by insufficient iterative and grid convergence, especially at high angles of attack. In comparison with the experiment, RANS solutions qualitatively showed the correct configuration buildup trend but underpredicted lift and overpredicted both drag and pitching moment at high angles of attack.

Boris Diskin↗

DOE OSTI2025

Modeling and Simulation of Fuel Dispersal During the Loss-of-Coolant Accident

This document is the compilation of the milestone portion to a larger end of project NEUP report. The executive summary of the modeling portion is provided below: In the event of cladding rupture during a postulated LOCA in a pressurized water reactor, fuel particles, along with fission gases, can be expelled into the reactor core from the fractured fuel rod, a phenomenon referred to as fuel dispersal. The initial stage of fuel dispersal is strongly influenced by the high-pressure ejection of fuel fragments, the size and geometry of the ruptured cladding, and the depressurization history of the fuel rod during the postulated LOCA transient. Depending on the location of the burst orifice relative to the quench front, the dispersal event represents an intricate three-phase flow and heat transfer phenomenon, where high-temperature fuel particles carried by the fission gases interact with the coolant within the narrow subchannels of the fuel assemblies, inducing localized phase change. Given the unique multiphysics nature of this phenomena, the current study develops a dedicated computational framework to predict the mass distribution and cooling of dispersing fuel particles, facilitating post-accident assessment and management of the fuel assemblies. Considering the scale of nuclear reactor applications, a continuum three-fluid model is proposed for simulating the transport of solids within the reactor core. With high-temperature fuel fragments within the liquid media, nucleation sites inducing phase changes are dispersed within the flow domain. Coupled with the fact that the transient dispersal event occurs on different time scales than other three-phase flow applications, this study derives a time-averaged three-fluid flow model without losing generality. The assumptions regarding the continuum treatment of the solid phase and the modeling of fuel dispersal behavior are incorporated to simplify the governing equations and derive applicable closure relations. The computational validation of the model was conducted using adiabatic experimental results obtained from ongoing research at Oregon State University, focusing on characterizing fuel dispersal behavior during simulated LOCA conditions. Settlement characteristics of the solids, quantified by the probability distribution of equivalent particles, closely matched the probability density functions reported in experimental studies. The transport of fuel particles within a scaled 5 × 5 lattice of a pressurized-water reactor rod bundle geometry was modeled through a two-fluid Eulerian framework. The required boundary conditions were evaluated from the fuel performance code BISON in a postulated large-break LOCA scenario. The modeling framework considered solid fuel particles as granular matter, interacting with the gaseous dry steam phase and fission gases through the governing interfacial momentum exchange between the participating fluids. The simulation results provided the volume fraction of the solids obtained at the bottom surface of the enclosing tank geometry. Postulated LOCA leading to fuel dispersal phenomena involves the strong coupling between fuel thermomechanics, cladding deformation, thermal-hydraulics, and fuel particle transport. Incorporation of such a strong coupling in numerical simulation is performed by coupling the multiphysics solvers. In the case of fuel dispersal, a strong coupled simulation can be performed by coupling the BISON code for fuel performance, the TRACE code for system-level thermal hydraulics, and fuel particle transport in Multiphysics Object-Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE). For such intricate infrastructure, the MOOSE Framework eases the data transfer between codes. The recent version of MOOSE has incorporated the Navier-Stokes module for the fluid flow. An exploratory exercise was done to gain familiarity with finite volume capabilities in the MOOSE framework to incorporate the Spalart-Allmaras (SA) turbulence model. New finite-volume and auxiliary kernels were introduced to assemble the SA transport equation, compute turbulent viscosity, and evaluate wall distance and diagnostic turbulence terms, fully integrated with existing Navier-Stokes modules. A turbulent lid-driven cavity at a Reynolds number of approximately 10,000 is used for verification. MOOSE shows the robust solver convergence and produces the turbulent features. But it underpredicts the velocity profile and turbulent quantities, emphasizing the need to develop improved SA near-wall treatments (e.g., low-Re corrections or wall functions) as a key direction for future work.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

FUN3D Analyses in Support of the 1st AIAA Stability and Control Prediction Workshop

The 1st AIAA Stability and Control Prediction Workshop was created to establish best practices for the prediction of stability & control derivatives using computational fluid dynamics and assess the limitations of these computational methods when those best practices are applied. The inaugural workshop considers the ONERA version of the NASA/Boeing Common Research Model(CRM), which includes the wing, body, horizontal tail, and a vertical tail designed by ONERA. Wind tunnel tests have been conducted for this configuration with longitudinal tests having been previously published, in addition to unpublished data at small sideslip angles that will serve as ‘blind’ data for workshop data comparisons. Participants were provided a ‘family’ of unstructured grids for the full-span ONERA CRM model with the wind-tunnel sting included. This family of mixed-element grids consists of 5 levels of refinement (tiny, coarse, medium, fine, and extra fine) with surface and volume mesh scaling, resulting in a size range of 14.6 to 53.4 million nodes. In addition, a medium refinement mesh has been provided for the ONERA CRM configuration without a sting to evaluate the sting’s impact on static longitudinal stability characteristics. In addition to these workshop-provided grids, the present work also considers an equivalent ‘family’ of computational grids generated using Heldenmesh™, a rapid grid generation software by Helden Aerospace Corporation for creating high-quality, three-dimensional, mixed-element unstructured meshes. Because of the authors’ familiarity with this software, these additional grids were generated as a comparison to the workshop-provided grids and to better understand the implications of using volume-mirrored grids for stability and control predictions. The present work will contribute to the workshop with test case data generated using the NASA FUN3D code, a parallelized, unstructured, node-based, finite-volume discretization, Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes flow solver. Numerical simulations will be conducted using the Quadratic Constitutive Relationship (QCR) version of the Spalart-Allmaras (SA) turbulence model with negative turbulence variable provisions. Both steady and2nd-order, time-accurate simulation results are to be generated and compared for select test cases, as time permits, to investigate their impact on FUN3D predictions. The present work will consider the three primary workshop test cases: (1) grid convergence study, (2) Mach number effect on static stability, and (3) wind tunnel sting increments. Additionally, data will be provided for the two optional test cases, which include:(1) static stability derivative calculations and (2)sideslip angle sweeps. In each of the test cases, the vehicle is stationary, and the body is assumed to be rigid, where vehicle deformation has been accounted for in the model configuration geometry. For all test cases, longitudinal and lateral force and moment aerodynamic coefficients will be provided for the total configuration, in addition to a component-level breakdown that includes the port wing, starboard wing, fuselage, and tail.

CFD↗

DOE OSTI2023

High Efficiency 2-Bladed Utility Wind Turbine Enhanced by CoFlow Jet Active Flow Control

The aerodynamic performance and power output of a high efficiency Co-Flow Jet (CFJ) 2-bladed Wind Turbine is studied in this paper. CFJ is a Zero-Net-Mass-Flux (ZNMF) active flow control method that dramatically increases airfoil lift coefficient and suppresses flow separation at a low energy expenditure. The 3D Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations with one-equation Spalart-Allmaras (SA) turbulence model are solved to simulate the 3D flows of the wind turbines. The CFJ-Wind Turbine in this paper is modified from the NREL 3-bladed 3.4 MW reference wind turbine with the same RPM, blade length, distribution of chord, twist, and bending. The CFJ 2-bladed wind turbine utilizes the CFJ-NACA 64 series airfoils at most of the blade span from 31.88\% to the tip. The CFJ injection and suction slots are implemented along the full blade span to enhance the effectiveness and power output. The study shows that the 2-bladed CFJ turbine significantly increases power output compared with the 3-bladed baseline turbine at all wind speeds by 15.8\% at the wind speed of 9.8 m/s and by 25.9\% at 4 m/s respectively. The efficiency enhancement is substantially more at the low wind speed than at high wind speed. This would be very beneficial to increase the annual power output or capacity factor as wind turbines work at the speeds lower than the rated speed for most of the time. The results show that the flow field around the blade surface presents a significant enhanced suction peak near the blade leading edge, which results in a very high tangential force and thus increased wind turbine net power coefficient. Consistent with the previous study for the small NREL Phase VI research wind turbine, this paper demonstrates that CFJ 2-bladed wind turbine is an effective technology to extract more power from the wind at all speeds. This study is just an initial effort to demonstrate the advantage of the CFJ blade with no design optimization. It is believed that there is more potential to further enhance the efficiency improvement.

active flow control↗

NASA NTRS2001

Simulation of Supersonic Jet Noise with the Adaptation of Overflow CFD Code and Kirchhoff Surface Integral

An acoustic prediction capability for supersonic axisymmetric jets was developed on the basis of OVERFLOW Navier-Stokes CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) code of NASA Langley Research Center. Reynolds-averaged turbulent stresses in the flow field are modeled with the aid of Spalart-Allmaras one-equation turbulence model. Appropriate acoustic and outflow boundary conditions were implemented to compute time-dependent acoustic pressure in the nonlinear source-field. Based on the specification of acoustic pressure, its temporal and normal derivatives on the Kirchhoff surface, the near-field and the far-field sound pressure levels are computed via Kirchhoff surface integral, with the Kirchhoff surface chosen to enclose the nonlinear sound source region described by the CFD code. The methods are validated by a comparison of the predictions of sound pressure levels with the available data for an axisymmetric turbulent supersonic (Mach 2) perfectly expanded jet.

Kandula, Max↗

NASA NTRS2002

Simulation of Jet Noise with OVERFLOW CFD Code and Kirchhoff Surface Integral

Kandula, M.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Assessment of Turbulent Shock-Boundary Layer Interaction Computations Using the OVERFLOW Code

The performance of two popular turbulence models, the Spalart-Allmaras model and Menter s SST model, and one relatively new model, Olsen & Coakley s Lag model, are evaluated using the OVERFLOWcode. Turbulent shock-boundary layer interaction predictions are evaluated with three different experimental datasets: a series of 2D compression ramps at Mach 2.87, a series of 2D compression ramps at Mach 2.94, and an axisymmetric coneflare at Mach 11. The experimental datasets include flows with no separation, moderate separation, and significant separation, and use several different experimental measurement techniques (including laser doppler velocimetry (LDV), pitot-probe measurement, inclined hot-wire probe measurement, preston tube skin friction measurement, and surface pressure measurement). Additionally, the OVERFLOW solutions are compared to the solutions of a second CFD code, DPLR. The predictions for weak shock-boundary layer interactions are in reasonable agreement with the experimental data. For strong shock-boundary layer interactions, all of the turbulence models overpredict the separation size and fail to predict the correct skin friction recovery distribution. In most cases, surface pressure predictions show too much upstream influence, however including the tunnel side-wall boundary layers in the computation improves the separation predictions.

Oliver, A. B.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Validation of a Node-Centered Wall Function Model for the Unstructured Flow Code FUN3D

In this paper, the implementation of two wall function models in the Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) computational uid dynamics (CFD) code FUN3D is described. FUN3D is a node centered method for solving the three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations on unstructured computational grids. The first wall function model, based on the work of Knopp et al., is used in conjunction with the one-equation turbulence model of Spalart-Allmaras. The second wall function model, also based on the work of Knopp, is used in conjunction with the two-equation k-! turbulence model of Menter. The wall function models compute the wall momentum and energy flux, which are used to weakly enforce the wall velocity and pressure flux boundary conditions in the mean flow momentum and energy equations. These wall conditions are implemented in an implicit form where the contribution of the wall function model to the Jacobian are also included. The boundary conditions of the turbulence transport equations are enforced explicitly (strongly) on all solid boundaries. The use of the wall function models is demonstrated on four test cases: a at plate boundary layer, a subsonic di user, a 2D airfoil, and a 3D semi-span wing. Where possible, different near-wall viscous spacing tactics are examined. Iterative residual convergence was obtained in most cases. Solution results are compared with theoretical and experimental data for several variations of grid spacing. In general, very good comparisons with data were achieved.

Carlson, Jan-Renee↗

NASA NTRS2007

Simulation of a Periodic Jet in a Crossflow with a RANS Solver Using an Unstructured Grid

A second-order unstructured-grid code, developed and used primarily for steady aerodynamic simulations, is applied to the synthetic jet in a cross flow. The code, FUN3D, is a vertex-centered finite-volume method originally developed by Anderson[1, 2], and is currently supported by members of the Fast Adaptive Aerospace Tools team at NASA Langley. Used primarily for design[3] and analysis[4] of steady aerodynamic configurations, FUN3D incorporates a discrete adjoint capability, and supports parallel computations using MPI. A detailed description of the FUN3D code can be found in the references given above. The code is under continuous development and contains a variety of flux splitting algorithms for the inviscid terms, two methods for computing gradients, several turbulence models, and several solution methodologies; all in varying states of development. Only the most robust and reliable components, based on experiences with steady aerodynamic simulations, were employed in this work. As applied in this work, FUN3D solves the Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equations using the one equation turbulence model of Spalart and Allmaras[5]. The spatial discretization is formed on unstructured meshes using a vertex-centered approach. The inviscid terms are evaluated by a flux-difference splitting formulation using least-squares reconstruction and Roe-type approximate Riemann fluxes. Green-Gauss gradient evaluations are used for viscous and turbulence modeling terms. The discrete spatial operator is combined with a backward time operator which is then solved iteratively using point or line Gauss-Seidel and local time stepping in a pseudo time. For steady flows, the physical time step is set to infinity and the pseudo time step is ramped up with the iteration count. A second-order backward in time operator is used for time accurate flows with 20 to 50 steps in the pseudo time applied at each physical time step. For this effort, FUN3D was modified to support spatially varying boundary and initial conditions, and unsteady boundary conditions. Also, a specialized in/out flow boundary condition was implemented to model the action of the diaphragm. This boundary condition is described below in more detail. The grids were generated using the internally developed codes GridEX[6] for meshing the surfaces and inviscid regions of the domain, and for CAD access; and MesherX[7] for meshing the viscous regions. Grid spacing in on the surfaces and in the inviscid regions are indirectly controlled by specifying sources. The viscous layers are generated using an advancing layer technique. MeshersX allows the user to control the spatial variation of the first step off the surface, growth rates, and the termination criterion by providing small problem dependent subroutines.

Atkins, H. L.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Pressure Loss Predictions of the Reactor Simulator Subsystem at NASA Glenn Research Center

Testing of the Fission Power System (FPS) Technology Demonstration Unit (TDU) is being conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center. The TDU consists of three subsystems: the reactor simulator (RxSim), the Stirling Power Conversion Unit (PCU), and the heat exchanger manifold (HXM). An annular linear induction pump (ALIP) is used to drive the working fluid. A preliminary version of the TDU system (which excludes the PCU for now) is referred to as the "RxSim subsystem" and was used to conduct flow tests in Vacuum Facility 6 (VF 6). In parallel, a computational model of the RxSim subsystem was created based on the computer-aided-design (CAD) model and was used to predict loop pressure losses over a range of mass flows. This was done to assess the ability of the pump to meet the design intent mass flow demand. Measured data indicates that the pump can produce 2.333 kg/sec of flow, which is enough to supply the RxSim subsystem with a nominal flow of 1.75 kg/sec. Computational predictions indicated that the pump could provide 2.157 kg/sec (using the Spalart-Allmaras (S‒A) turbulence model) and 2.223 kg/sec (using the k- turbulence model). The computational error of the predictions for the available mass flow is ‒0.176 kg/sec (with the S-A turbulence model) and -0.110 kg/sec (with the k- turbulence model) when compared to measured data.

Mass Flow↗

DOE OSTI2023

Airfoil Computational Fluid Dynamics - 2k shapes, 25 AoA's, 3 Re numbers

This dataset contains aerodynamic quantities - including flow field values (momentum, energy, and vorticity) and summary values (coefficients of lift, drag, and momentum) - for 1,830 airfoil shapes computed using the HAM2D CFD (computational fluid dynamics) model. The airfoil shapes were designed using the separable shape tensor parameterization that encodes two-dimensional shapes as elements of the Grassmann manifold. This data-driven approach learns two independent spaces of parameter from a collection of sample airfoils. The first captures large-scale, linear perturbations, and the second defines small-scale, higher-order perturbations. For this dataset, we used the G2Aero database of over 19,000 airfoil shapes to learn a parameter space that captured a wide array of shape characteristics. We sampled airfoil designs over both parameter spaces to explore the full range of possible shape variations. The aerodynamic quantities for the generated airfoil were obtained using the HAM2D code, which is a finite-volume Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) flow solver. We employ a fifth-order WENO scheme for spatial reconstruction with Roe's flux difference scheme for inviscid flux and second-order central differencing for viscous flux. A preconditioned GMRES method is applied for implicit integration. The Spalart-Allmaras 1-eq turbulence model is used for the turbulence closure, and the Medida-Baeder 2-eq transition model is applied to account for the effects of laminar turbulent transition. The airfoil grid is generated with a total of 400 points on the airfoil surface, the initial wall-normal spacing of y+ = 1, and an outer boundary located at 300 chord lengths away from the wall. The CFD simulations are performed at a freestream Mach number of 0.1, for or three different Reynolds' numbers (3M, 6M, and 9M), and for 25 angles of attack from -4 deg. to 20 deg. with 1 degree increments. Across all these various parameters, this dataset includes the results from over 250,000 CFD simulations. The simulations were performed using the Bridges-2 system at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center in February 2023 as part of the INTEGRATE project funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy, in the U.S. Department of Energy. The data was collected, reformatted, and preprocessed for this OEDI submission in July 2023 under the Foundational AI for Wind Energy project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Wind Energy Technologies Office. This dataset is intended to serve as a benchmark against which new artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) tools may be tested. Baseline AI/ML methods for analyzing this dataset have been implemented, and a link to their repository containing those models has been provided. The .h5 data file structure can be found in the GitHub Repository resource under explore_airfoil_2k_data.ipynb.

2k↗

DOE OSTI2023

Airfoil Computational Fluid Dynamics - 9k shapes, 2 AoA's

This dataset contains aerodynamic quantities - including flow field values (momentum, energy, and vorticity) and summary values (coefficients of lift, drag, and momentum) - for 8,996 airfoil shapes, computed using the HAM2D CFD (computational fluid dynamics) model. The airfoil shapes were designed using the separable shape tensor parameterization that encodes two-dimensional shapes as elements of the Grassmann manifold. This data-driven approach learns two independent spaces of parameter from a collection of sample airfoils. The first captures large-scale, linear perturbations, and the second defines small-scale, higher-order perturbations. For this data, we used the G2Aero database of over 19,000 airfoil shapes to learn a parameter space that captured a wide array of shape characteristics. We fixed the linear deformations to be the mean over the database and sampled new shapes over a four-dimensional parameter space of higher-order perturbation. This sampling approaches allows for isolated analysis of non-linear airfoil shape deformations while holding other aspects (e.g., airfoil thickness) approximately constant. The aerodynamic quantities for the generated airfoil were obtained using the HAM2D code, which is a finite-volume Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) flow solver. We employ a fifth-order WENO scheme for spatial reconstruction with Roe's flux difference scheme for inviscid flux and second-order central differencing for viscous flux. A preconditioned GMRES method is applied for implicit integration. The Spalart-Allmaras 1-eq turbulence model is used for the turbulence closure, and the Medida-Baeder 2-eq transition model is applied to account for the effects of laminar turbulent transition. The airfoil grid is generated with a total of 400 points on the airfoil surface, the initial wall-normal spacing of y+ = 1, and an outer boundary located at 300 chord lengths away from the wall. The CFD simulations are performed at a freestream Mach number of 0.1, Reynolds number of 9M, and at two angles of attack, 4 deg. and 12 deg. The simulations were performed using the Bridges-2 system at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center in February 2023 as part of the INTEGRATE project funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy in the U.S. Department of Energy. The data was collected, reformatted, and preprocessed for this OEDI submission in July 2023 under the Foundational AI for Wind Energy project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Wind Energy Technologies Office. This dataset is intended to serve as a benchmark against which new artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) tools may be tested. Baseline AI/ML methods for analyzing this dataset have been implemented, and a link to their repository containing those models has been provided. The .h5 data file structure can be found in the GitHub Repository resource under explore_airfoil_9k_data.ipynb.

9k↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

USM3D-ME Solutions for RANS Test Suite of High-Fidelity CFD Verification Workshop 2024

USM3D-ME solutions for the High-Fidelity CFD Verification Workshop 2024 are presented. Solutions are computed for the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes equations using the Spalart-Allmaras one equation turbulence model, SA-neg-QCR2000-R, that is enhanced with a nonlinear correction to the turbulence stresses and a correction for flow rotation. USM3D-ME solutions have been computed for the three verification cases, namely, a Joukowski airfoil, a subsonic three-dimensional flow around an extruded NACA 0012 wing in tunnel, and subsonic flow around a high-lift wing-body configuration. Iterative convergence of USM3D-ME solutions on several grids within various grid families is demonstrated. Grid convergence of integrated forces, pitching moment and sectional variations of surface pressure and skin friction are also presented.

CFD↗