Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “sBOOM”

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.

18 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Propagation Analysis of the 3rd Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop Cases using sBOOM

The 3rd Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop was held on January 4-5, 2020 in conjunction with the AIAA SciTech conference. The workshop had 23 participants who represented 6 different countries and 18 unique organizations that included government, industry, and academia. The workshop was attended by over 50 individuals. The motivation for the workshop stems from the goal of obtaining supersonic commercial overland flight. In order to replace the current prohibition with a certification standard, an international effort is required to quantify the accuracy and reliability of prediction methods. The workshops also identify deficiencies in existing methods where further research should be focused. The workshop consisted of two days with the first day focused on near-field computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and the second day on propagation techniques. For the atmospheric propagation portion of the workshop, two required cases and one optional case were prescribed for the participants to exercise their propagation implementations. This paper presents and discusses the results that were obtained using the sonic boom propagation code sBOOM. Results show that sonic boom carpets could be much different under arbitrary atmospheric conditions as opposed to standard atmospheric conditions. Additionally, several unique features when using sBOOM are presented.

Sonic Boom↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Secondary Sonic Boom Ray Path Prediction using sBOOM

Sonic boom ray path equations are solved numerically to show the extent of secondary booms compared to primary sonic boom carpet. Secondary booms are shown to reach altitudes of ~125 km before turning toward the ground and impinging at lateral distances of ~50 km and beyond. Exact closed-form solutions of the ray paths and their partial derivatives with respect to certain relevant parameters are derived for the simplified case of windless atmospheres and compared against numerical solutions. Ray tube areas are computed using the Jacobian of a single ray as opposed to the traditional technique of using 4 rays that are temporally and azimuthally perturbed. The ray tube areas corresponding to secondary booms can get 1000 times larger than those from primary booms. The numerically computed ray tube areas are verified using exact expressions for the special case of windless atmospheres. Finally, pressure scaling due to ray tube area changes and atmospheric stratification is presented and the shortcomings associated with the current atmospheric interpolation techniques are discussed. It is determined that piece-wise linear interpolation of the atmospheric temperature may be inadequate and could lead to numerical noise in the prediction of secondary booms.

Sriram K Rallabhandi↗
NASA NTRS2017

USM3D Simulations for Second Sonic Boom Workshop

The NASA Tetrahedral Unstructured Software System with the USM3D flow solver was used to compute test cases for the Second AIAA Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop. The intent of this report is to document the USM3D results for SBPW2 test cases. The test cases included an axisymmetric equivalent area body, a JAXA wing body, a NASA low boom supersonic configuration modeled with flow through nacelles and engine boundary conditions. All simulations were conducted for a free stream Mach number of 1.6, zero degrees angle of attack, and a Reynolds number of 5.7 million per meter. Simulations were conducted on tetrahedral grids provided by the workshop committee, as well as a family of grids generated by an in-house approach for sonic boom analyses known as BoomGrid using current best practices. The near-field pressure signatures were extracted and propagated to the ground with the atmospheric propagation code, sBOOM. The USM3D near-field pressure signatures, corresponding sBOOM ground signatures, and loudness levels on the ground are compared with mean values from other workshop participants.

Elmiligui, Alaa↗
NASA NTRS2017

USM3D Simulations for Second Sonic Boom Workshop

The NASA Tetrahedral Unstructured Software System with the USM3D flow solver was used to compute the test cases for the Second AIAA Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop. The intent of this article is to document the USM3D results for SBPW2 test cases. The test cases included an axisymmetric equivalent area body, a JAXA wing body, a NASA low boom supersonic configuration modeled with flow-through nacelles and engine boundary conditions. All simulations were conducted for a free stream Mach number of 1.6, zero degrees angle of attack, and a Reynolds number of 5.7 million per meter. Simulations were conducted on the tetrahedral grids provided by the workshop committee, as well as a family of grids generated by an in-house approach for sonic boom analyses known as BoomGrid using current best practices. The near-field pressure signatures were extracted and propagated to the ground with the atmospheric propagation code, sBOOM. The USM3D near-field pressure signatures, corresponding sBOOM ground signatures, and loudness levels on the ground are compared with mean values from other workshop participants.

Elmiligui, Alaa↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Structured Overset and Unstructured Grid Simulations for the Third AIAA Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop

Predictions using the Launch Ascent and Vehicle Aerodynamics (LAVA) Unstructured and Structured Curvilinear solvers for the Biconvex and C608 geometries are compared in support of the 3rd AIAA Sonic Boom Prediction workshop. Description of the mesh generation techniques and numerical methods are provided along with a comparison of nearfield and far-field predictions with available experimental data as well as other workshop sub-missions. Strong consistency was observed between the Biconvex and C608 nearfield predictions across the two solvers used for this study, as well as validation and verification data. Additionally, near-field and farfield ground signature results using a combination of a truncated computational fluid dynamics (CFD) domain coupled to a mid-field space marching method and propagated to the ground using sBOOM will be discussed. This approach is shown to provide an efficient way to propagate near-field pressure signatures to the ground with the same accuracy as the near-field CFD coupled to sBOOM, but at less computational cost.

CST↗
NASA NTRS2015

Advanced Concept Studies for Supersonic Commercial Transports Entering Service in the 2018-2020 Period Phase 2

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (LM), working in conjunction with General Electric Global Research (GE GR) and Stanford University, executed a 19 month program responsive to the NASA sponsored "N+2 Supersonic Validation: Advanced Concept Studies for Supersonic Commercial Transports Entering Service in the 2018-2020 Period" contract. The key technical objective of this effort was to validate integrated airframe and propulsion technologies and design methodologies necessary to realize a supersonic vehicle capable of meeting the N+2 environmental and performance goals. The N+2 program is aligned with NASA's Supersonic Project and is focused on providing system level solutions capable of overcoming the efficiency, environmental, and performance barriers to practical supersonic flight. The N+2 environmental and performance goals are outlined in the technical paper, AIAA-2014-2138 (Ref. 1) along with the validated N+2 Phase 2 results. Our Phase 2 efforts built upon our Phase 1 studies (Ref. 2) and successfully demonstrated the ability to design and test realistic configurations capable of shaped sonic booms over the width of the sonic boom carpet. Developing a shaped boom configuration capable of meeting the N+2 shaped boom targets is a key goal for the N+2 program. During the LM Phase 1 effort, LM successfully designed and tested a shaped boom trijet configuration (1021) capable of achieving 85 PLdB under track (forward and aft shock) and up to 28 deg off-track at Mach 1.6. In Phase 2 we developed a refined configuration (1044-2) that extended the under 85 PLdB sonic boom level over the entire carpet of 52 deg off-track at a cruise Mach number of 1.7. Further, the loudness level of the configuration throughout operational conditions calculates to an average of 79 PLdB. These calculations rely on propagation employing Burger's (sBOOM) rounding methodology, and there are indications that the configuration average loudness would actually be 75 PLdB. We also added significant fidelity to the design of the configuration in this phase by performing a low speed wind tunnel test at our LTWT facility in Palmdale, by more complete modelling of propulsion effects in our sonic boom analysis, and by refining our configuration packaging and performance assessments. Working with General Electric, LM performed an assessment of the impact of inlet and nozzle effects on the sonic boom signature of the LM N+2 configurations. Our results indicate that inlet/exhaust streamtube boundary conditions are adequate for conceptual design studies, but realistic propulsion modeling at similar stream-tube conditions does have a small but measurable impact on the sonic boom signature. Previous supersonic transport studies have identified aeroelastic effects as one of the major challenges associated with the long, slender vehicles particularly common with shaped boom aircraft (Ref. 3). Under the Phase 2 effort, we have developed a detailed structural analysis model to evaluate the impact of flexibility and structural considerations on the feasibility of future quiet supersonic transports. We looked in particular at dynamic structural modes and flutter as a failure that must be avoided. We found that for our N+2 design in particular, adequate flutter margin existed. Our flutter margin is large enough to cover uncertainties like large increases in engine weight and the margin is relatively easy to increase with additional stiffening mass. The lack of major aeroelastic problems probably derives somewhat from an early design bias. While shaped boom aircraft require long length, they are not required to be thin. We intentionally developed our structural depths to avoid major flexibility problems. So at the end of Phase 2, we have validated that aeroelastic problems are not necessarily endemic to shaped boom designs. Experimental validation of sonic boom design and analysis techniques was the primary objective of the N+2 Supersonic Validations contract; and in this Phase, LM participated in four high speed wind tunnel tests. The first so-called Parametric Test in the Ames 9x7 tunnel did an exhaustive look at variation effects of the parameters: humidity, total pressure, sample time, spatial averaging distance and number of measurement locations, and more. From the results we learned to obtain data faster and more accurately, and made test condition tolerances easy to meet (eliminating earlier 60 percent wasted time when condition tolerances could not be held). The next two tests used different tunnels. The Ames 11 ft tunnel was used to test lower Mach numbers of 1.2 and 1.4. There were several difficulties using this tunnel for the first time for sonic boom including having to shift the measurement Mach numbers to 1.15 and 1.3 to avoid flow problems. It is believed that the 11 ft could be used successfully to measure sonic boom but there are likely to be a number of test condition restrictions. The Glenn 8x6 ft tunnel was used next and the tunnel has a number of desirable features for sonic boom measurement. While the Ames 9x7 can only test Mach 1.55 to 2.55 and the 11 ft can only test Mach 1.3 and lower, the Glenn 8x6 can test continuously from Mach 0.3 to 2.0. Unfortunately test measurement accuracy was compromised by a reference pressure drift. Post-test analysis revealed that the drift occurred when Mach number drifted slightly. Test measurements indicated that if Mach number drift is eliminated, results from the 8x6 would be more accurate, especially at longer distances, than results from the 9x7. The fourth test in the 9x7, called LM4, used everything we learned to comprehensively and accurately measure our new 1044-02 configuration with a full-carpet shaped signature design. Productivity was 8 times greater than our Phase 1 LM3 test. Measurement accuracy and repeatability was excellent out to 42 in. However, measurements at greater distances require the rail in the aft position and become substantially less accurate. Further signature processing or measurement improvements are needed for beyond near-field signature validation.

Morgenstern, John↗
NASA NTRS2017

Adjoint-Based Mesh Adaptation for the Sonic Boom Signature Loudness

The mesh adaptation functionality of FUN3D is utilized to obtain a mesh optimized to calculate sonic boom ground signature loudness. During this process, the coupling between the discrete-adjoints of the computational fluid dynamics tool FUN3D and the atmospheric propagation tool sBOOM is exploited to form the error estimate. This new mesh adaptation methodology will allow generation of suitable meshes adapted to reduce the estimated errors in the ground loudness, which is an optimization metric employed in supersonic aircraft design. This new output-based adaptation could allow new insights into meshing for sonic boom analysis and design, and complements existing output-based adaptation techniques such as adaptation to reduce estimated errors in off-body pressure functional. This effort could also have implications for other coupled multidisciplinary adjoint capabilities (e.g., aeroelasticity) as well as inclusion of propagation specific parameters such as prevailing winds or non-standard atmospheric conditions. Results are discussed in the context of existing methods and appropriate conclusions are drawn as to the efficacy and efficiency of the developed capability.

Rallabhandi, Sriram K.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Cart3D Simulations for the Second AIAA Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop

Simulation results are presented for all test cases prescribed in the Second AIAA Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop. For each of the four nearfield test cases, we compute pressure signatures at specified distances and off-track angles, using an inviscid, embedded-boundary Cartesian-mesh flow solver with output-based mesh adaptation. The cases range in complexity from an axisymmetric body to a full low-boom aircraft configuration with a powered nacelle. For efficiency, boom carpets are decomposed into sets of independent meshes and computed in parallel. This also facilitates the use of more effective meshing strategies - each off-track angle is computed on a mesh with good azimuthal alignment, higher aspect ratio cells, and more tailored adaptation. The nearfield signatures generally exhibit good convergence with mesh refinement. We introduce a local error estimation procedure to highlight regions of the signatures most sensitive to mesh refinement. Results are also presented for the two propagation test cases, which investigate the effects of atmospheric profiles on ground noise. Propagation is handled with an augmented Burgers' equation method (NASA's sBOOM), and ground noise metrics are computed with LCASB.

Prediction↗
NASA NTRS2018

Sonic Boom Prediction and Mitigation using Three-Dimensional Earth Effects

As the industry progresses towards realizing a commercial supersonic aircraft, the push to reduce noise from sonic boom has intensified. This emphasizes the need to better understand and accurately model the underlying physics and seek ways to reduce modeling gaps in the calculation of sonic boom noise metrics. To answer this need, sonic boom prediction capability of the atmospheric propagation tool sBOOM is enhanced to include three-dimensional Earth effects during propagation. The discrete adjoint capability under three-dimensional effects is also enhanced to be helpful in design optimization. The differences in ground signatures, noise metrics, and carpet widths are compared against results obtained using flat Earth approximation and discussed. Finally, the developed capability is used in CFD based shape optimization to demonstrate the differences in aircraft outer mold line when ellipsoidal Earth effects during shape optimization for sonic boom mitigation.

Rallabhandi, Sriram K.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Uncertainty Quantification of CFD Model Assumptions Against Sonic Boom Noise Prediction of a Commercial Supersonic Transport

This paper presents the results of uncertainty modeling of sonic boom noise generation from commercial supersonic transport considering the Spalart-Allmaras (SA) turbulence modeling parameters as well as Mach number, angle of attack and altitude. Sample generation and analysis for this uncertainty model was performed by UQPCE, which is a software package developed at the NASA Langley Research Center. To build the uncertainty model, 42 cases of sonic boom noise calculation were performed. Computation of the ground noise can be briefly summarized in two steps. First, the near field pressure waveforms are sampled from CFD calculation using the NASA Langley’s FUN3D solver. Second, this information is passed to an atmospheric propagation code, sBOOM, which solves an augmented Burger’s equation and simulates how the near field waveforms will change while passing through the atmosphere. The ground signature is further processed to obtain the perceived loudness, PLdB. Having a high spatial resolution near the shockwave in the CFD calculation is critical in sonic boom noise prediction. Because the variation in the input parameters for the current uncertainty quantification (UQ) study is likely to lead to change in shock location, angle and strength, the grid adaptation for shock capturing is independently applied for each condition. The final mesh used in the CFD calculation consists of approximately 420 million cells. The pressure signatures are sampled at three, four and five body lengths away from the aircraft to make sure the three dimensional effects around the aircraft are resolved. The results of the UQ analysis shows that within the three aleatory variables, the angle of attack had the most impact against ground noise, followed by the altitude and the Mach number. Between the two SA model parameters, the Kármán constant (𝜅) was significantly more important than the turbulent Prandtl number (𝜎), but these two parameters were only marginally significant in the overall prediction variance in ground noise. The UQ procedure explained in this paper can be widely applied to other model parameters.

Uncertainty Quantification↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Uncertainty Quantification of CFD Model Assumptions Against Sonic Boom Noise Prediction of a Commercial Supersonic Transport

This paper presents the results of uncertainty modeling of sonic boom noise generation from commercial supersonic transport considering the Spalart-Allmaras (SA) turbulence modeling parameters as well as Mach number, angle of attack and altitude. Sample generation and analysis for this uncertainty model was performed by UQPCE, which is a software package developed at the NASA Langley Research Center. To build the uncertainty model, 42 cases of sonic boom noise calculation were performed. Computation of the ground noise can be briefly summarized in two steps. First, the near field pressure waveforms are sampled from CFD calculation using the NASA Langley’s FUN3D solver. Second, this information is passed to an atmospheric propagation code, sBOOM, which solves an augmented Burger’s equation and simulates how the near field waveforms will change while passing through the atmosphere. The ground signature is further processed to obtain the perceived loudness, PLdB. Having a high spatial resolution near the shock wave in the CFD calculation is critical in sonic boom noise prediction. Because the variation in the input parameters for the current uncertainty quantification (UQ) study is likely to lead to change in shock location, angle and strength, the grid adaptation for shock capturing is independently applied for each condition. The final mesh used in the CFD calculation consists of approximately 420 million cells. The pressure signatures are sampled at three, four and five body lengths away from the aircraft to make sure the three dimensional effects around the aircraft are resolved. The results of the UQ analysis shows that within the three aleatory variables, the angle of attack had the most impact against ground noise, followed by the altitude and the Mach number. Between the two SA model parameters, the Kármán constant (𝜅) was significantly more important than the turbulent Prandtl number (𝜎), but these two parameters were only marginally significant in the overall prediction variance in ground noise. The UQ procedure explained in this paper can be widely applied to other model parameters.

Uncertainty Quantifications↗
NASA NTRS2023

PCBoom Version 7.3 User's Guide

PCBoom is a suite of sonic boom propagation programs that applies full three-dimensional ray tracing based on geometrical acoustics. It predicts sonic boom ground waveforms (signatures) and footprints from supersonic flight vehicles performing arbitrary maneuvers using a variety of built-in or user supplied near-field vehicle source definitions. It also computes loudness metrics, ground signature locations, and sonic boom propagation times. The nomenclature "PC" in PCBoom denotes that the programs were historically targeted to run on a Personal Computer.

PCBoom↗