Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “AePW”

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.

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

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Langley Research Center Contributions to the 3rd AePW High-Speed Working Group - HyMAX Computational Aeroelastic Predictions

This presentation is given at the 3rd AePW High-Speed Working Group co-located at the AIAA 2023 SciTech Conference. It is a computation study of the UNSW Canberra HyMAX hypersonic flexible plate experiment. The computations are performed with the FUN3D aeroelastic CFD code. Analysis of a 2 and 10 degree turning angle cases are done. The Mach number is 5.8. The unsteady pressures and displacements and damping of the structure are presented.

Hypersonics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

3rd Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW-3) Flight Test Working Group

- Introduction - Background - X-56 Body Freedom Flutter Mechanism - Challenges in X-56 Flutter Modeling - Flight Test Working Group Challenge - Individual Presentations - Steve Massey - Jos Aalbers - Jared Grauer - Jeffrey Ouellette - Combined Results - Discussion

Jeffrey Ouellette↗
NASA NTRS2013

Experimental Data from the Benchmark SuperCritical Wing Wind Tunnel Test on an Oscillating Turntable

The Benchmark SuperCritical Wing (BSCW) wind tunnel model served as a semi-blind testcase for the 2012 AIAA Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW). The BSCW was chosen as a testcase due to its geometric simplicity and flow physics complexity. The data sets examined include unforced system information and forced pitching oscillations. The aerodynamic challenges presented by this AePW testcase include a strong shock that was observed to be unsteady for even the unforced system cases, shock-induced separation and trailing edge separation. The current paper quantifies these characteristics at the AePW test condition and at a suggested benchmarking test condition. General characteristics of the model's behavior are examined for the entire available data set.

Heeg, Jennifer↗
NASA NTRS2011

Preliminary Computational Analysis of the (HIRENASD) Configuration in Preparation for the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

This paper presents preliminary computational aeroelastic analysis results generated in preparation for the first Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW). These results were produced using FUN3D software developed at NASA Langley and are compared against the experimental data generated during the HIgh REynolds Number Aero- Structural Dynamics (HIRENASD) Project. The HIRENASD wind-tunnel model was tested in the European Transonic Windtunnel in 2006 by Aachen University0s Department of Mechanics with funding from the German Research Foundation. The computational effort discussed here was performed (1) to obtain a preliminary assessment of the ability of the FUN3D code to accurately compute physical quantities experimentally measured on the HIRENASD model and (2) to translate the lessons learned from the FUN3D analysis of HIRENASD into a set of initial guidelines for the first AePW, which includes test cases for the HIRENASD model and its experimental data set. This paper compares the computational and experimental results obtained at Mach 0.8 for a Reynolds number of 7 million based on chord, corresponding to the HIRENASD test conditions No. 132 and No. 159. Aerodynamic loads and static aeroelastic displacements are compared at two levels of the grid resolution. Harmonic perturbation numerical results are compared with the experimental data using the magnitude and phase relationship between pressure coefficients and displacement. A dynamic aeroelastic numerical calculation is presented at one wind-tunnel condition in the form of the time history of the generalized displacements. Additional FUN3D validation results are also presented for the AGARD 445.6 wing data set. This wing was tested in the Transonic Dynamics Tunnel and is commonly used in the preliminary benchmarking of computational aeroelastic software.

Chwalowski, Pawel↗
NASA NTRS2013

Structural Dynamics Modeling of HIRENASD in Support of the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

An Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW) was held in April 2012 using three aeroelasticity case study wind tunnel tests for assessing the capabilities of various codes in making aeroelasticity predictions. One of these case studies was known as the HIRENASD model that was tested in the European Transonic Wind Tunnel (ETW). This paper summarizes the development of a standardized enhanced analytical HIRENASD structural model for use in the AePW effort. The modifications to the HIRENASD finite element model were validated by comparing modal frequencies, evaluating modal assurance criteria, comparing leading edge, trailing edge and twist of the wing with experiment and by performing steady and unsteady CFD analyses for one of the test conditions on the same grid, and identical processing of results.

Wieseman, Carol↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Atmospheric Boundary-Layer and Flutter Computations Using CFD Model of the Transonic Dynamics Tunnel

This paper presents two Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) models of the flow in the NASA Langley Research Center Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT). The TDT is a continuous-flow, closed circuit wind tunnel with a 16- by 16-foot slotted test section with cropped corners. The tunnel was originally built as the 19-ft Pressure Tunnel in 1938, but it was converted to the current transonic tunnel in the 1950s, with capabilities to use either air or heavy gas as the test medium. The first computational model describes the generation of an atmospheric-boundary-layer (ABL) profile inside the tunnel. An ABL, which includes both a wind profile and turbulence content, is one of the aerodynamic characteristics affecting the occurrence of wind-induced oscillations for a launch vehicle sitting on a pad. The challenging part of this analysis was modeling the turbulent flow inside the tunnel. This is due to the special ABL-generating hardware that was installed at the entrance of the TDT test section in order to change the downstream velocity profile and to introduce velocity fluctuations into the flow. The second CFD model builds on the computational aeroelastic results that were generated in support of the second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW) for the NASA Benchmark Supercritical Wing (BSCW) configuration. During the AePW, the wing-only configuration (classical free-air model) was analyzed. In the current study, the flutter computations were conducted on the configuration as it was mounted in the TDT during the experiment. This includes the wing attached to the splitter plate that was attached to the wind-tunnel walls. The preliminary results show that the wind-tunnel walls marginally affect flutter prediction.

Pawel Chwalowski↗
NASA NTRS2012

A Summary of Data and Findings from the First Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

This paper summarizes data and findings from the first Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW) held in April, 2012. The workshop has been designed as a series of technical interchange meetings to assess the state of the art of computational methods for predicting unsteady flowfields and static and dynamic aeroelastic response. The goals are to provide an impartial forum to evaluate the effectiveness of existing computer codes and modeling techniques to simulate aeroelastic problems, and to identify computational and experimental areas needing additional research and development. For this initial workshop, three subject configurations have been chosen from existing wind tunnel data sets where there is pertinent experimental data available for comparison. Participant researchers analyzed one or more of the subject configurations and results from all of these computations were compared at the workshop. Keywords: Unsteady Aerodynamics, Aeroelasticity, Computational Fluid Dynamics, Transonic Flow, Separated Flow.

Schuster, David M.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Analysis of Test Case Computations and Experiments for the First Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

This paper compares computational and experimental data from the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW) held in April 2012. This workshop was designed as a series of technical interchange meetings to assess the state of the art of computational methods for predicting unsteady flowfields and static and dynamic aeroelastic response. The goals are to provide an impartial forum to evaluate the effectiveness of existing computer codes and modeling techniques to simulate aeroelastic problems and to identify computational and experimental areas needing additional research and development. Three subject configurations were chosen from existing wind-tunnel data sets where there is pertinent experimental data available for comparison. Participant researchers analyzed one or more of the subject configurations, and results from all of these computations were compared at the workshop.

Schuster, David M.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Overview of the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

The AIAA Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW) was held in April, 2012, bringing together communities of aeroelasticians and computational fluid dynamicists. The objective in conducting this workshop on aeroelastic prediction was to assess state-of-the-art computational aeroelasticity methods as practical tools for the prediction of static and dynamic aeroelastic phenomena. No comprehensive aeroelastic benchmarking validation standard currently exists, greatly hindering validation and state-of-the-art assessment objectives. The workshop was a step towards assessing the state of the art in computational aeroelasticity. This was an opportunity to discuss and evaluate the effectiveness of existing computer codes and modeling techniques for unsteady flow, and to identify computational and experimental areas needing additional research and development. Three configurations served as the basis for the workshop, providing different levels of geometric and flow field complexity. All cases considered involved supercritical airfoils at transonic conditions. The flow fields contained oscillating shocks and in some cases, regions of separation. The computational tools principally employed Reynolds-Averaged Navier Stokes solutions. The successes and failures of the computations and the experiments are examined in this paper.

Heeg, Jennifer↗
NASA NTRS2014

Unsteady Aerodynamic Validation Experiences From the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

The AIAA Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW) was held in April 2012, bringing together communities of aeroelasticians, computational fluid dynamicists and experimentalists. The extended objective was to assess the state of the art in computational aeroelastic methods as practical tools for the prediction of static and dynamic aeroelastic phenomena. As a step in this process, workshop participants analyzed unsteady aerodynamic and weakly-coupled aeroelastic cases. Forced oscillation and unforced system experiments and computations have been compared for three configurations. This paper emphasizes interpretation of the experimental data, computational results and their comparisons from the perspective of validation of unsteady system predictions. The issues examined in detail are variability introduced by input choices for the computations, post-processing, and static aeroelastic modeling. The final issue addressed is interpreting unsteady information that is present in experimental data that is assumed to be steady, and the resulting consequences on the comparison data sets.

Heeg, Jennifer↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-13635-DND

Objectives of AePW: Assess state-of-the-art Computational Aeroelasticity (CAe) methods as practical tools for the prediction of static and dynamic aeroelastic phenomena and responses on relevant geometries. - Perform comparative computational studies on selected test cases - Identify errors & uncertainties in computational aeroelastic methods - Identify gaps in existing aeroelastic databases - Provide roadmap of path forward (additional existing data sets, new experimental data sets, and analytical methods developments).

Walt Silva↗
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↗