CEAS Aeronautical Journal

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 361–372 | Cite as

Using wing model deformation for improvement of CFD results of ESWIRP project

  • Petr VrchotaEmail author
  • Aleš Prachař
Original Paper


The NASA Common Research Model has been used for evaluation of the effect of the deformation of the model on aerodynamic forces and local flowfield. Large differences were observed during comparison of the results of the rigid model and experimental data obtained during ESWIRP project at European Transonic Windtunnel. On-line mesh deformation using 20 modes in total was used during coupled CFD simulations to improve the accuracy of the numerical results. The results from these simulations showed that adding the wing deformation into the computational fluid dynamics simulation improved the accuracy of obtained aerodynamic coefficients and also the local flowfield. The results from the coupled CFD simulation with on-line mesh deformation of the semispan model are the focus of this paper.


Modal analysis Static aeroelasticity NASA common research model Aerodynamics CFD 

List of symbols


Drag coefficient


Lift coefficient


Pitching moment coefficient


Pressure coefficient


Computational Fluid Dynamics


Explicit Algebraic Reynolds-Stress Model


Finite-element method


Mach number


Particle Image Velocimetry


Reynolds number (based on reference chord length)


(unsteady) Reynolds–Averaged Navier–Stokes


Dimensionless wall distance


Normal coordinate


Angle of attack


Normalized spanwise position


Variation in the total value


Twist angle



Computational resources were provided by the MetaCentrum under the program LM2010005 and the CERIT-SC under the program Centre CERIT Scientific Cloud, part of the Operational Program Research and Development for Innovations, Reg. no. CZ.1.05/3.2.00/08.0144. This work was supported by The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports from the Large Infrastructures for Research, Experimental Development and Innovations project “IT4Innovations National Supercomputing Center LM2015070”. The authors wish to thank to our colleagues, Ondřej Vích and Miroslav Šmíd, for providing results of modal analysis, and to Pavel Hospodář for postprocessing of some of the results.


  1. 1.
    Illi, S., Fingskes, Ch., Lutz, T. Kraemer, E.: Transonic tail buffet simulations for the common research model. In: Proceedings of the 31st AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Fluid Dynamics and Co-Located Conferences. (AIAA 2013–2510)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ESWIRP project website:
  3. 3.
    Vassberg, J. C., DeHaan, M. A., Rivers, M. B., Wahls, M. S.: Development of a common research model for applied CFD validation studies. AIAA Paper 2008–6919, (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ETW website:
  5. 5.
    Konrath, R.: High-speed PIV applied to wake of NASA CRM model in ETW under high re-number stall conditions for sub- and transonic speeds. AIAA Paper 2015-1095, (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lutz, T., Gansel, P., Waldmann, A., Zimmermann, D.-M., Schulte am Hulse, S.: Time-resolved prediction and measurement of the wake past the CRM at high reynolds number stall conditions. In: Proceedings of the 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. Kissimmee, Florida. (AIAA 2015-1094)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lutz, T., Gansel, P., Godart, J.-L., Gorbushin, A., Konrath, R., Rivers, M.: Going for experimental and numerical unsteady wake analyses combined with wall interference assessment by using the NASA CRM model in ETW. In: Proceedings of the 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition Grapevine (Dallas/Ft. Worth Region), TexasGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rivers, M. B., Dittberner, A.: Experimental investigations of the NASA common research model in the NASA langley national transonic facility and the NASA ames 11-ft Transonic Wind Tunnel (Invited). AIAA Paper 2011-1126, (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rivers, M. B., Hunter, C. A., Campbell, R. L.: Further investigation of the support system effects and wing twist on the NASA common research model. AIAA Paper 2012-3209, (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eberhardt, S., Benedict, K., Hedges, L., Robinson, A.: Inclusion of aeroelastic twist into the CFD analysis of the twin-engine NASA common research model. AIAA Paper 2014-0251, (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hantrais-Gervois, J.-L., Destarac, D.: Drag polar invariance with flexibility. J. Aircr. 52(3), 997–1001 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yasue, K., Ueno, M.: Model deformation corrections of NASA common research model using computational fluid dynamics. J. Aircr. 53(4), 951–961 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cartieri, A., Hue, D., Chanzy, Q., Atinault, O.: Experimental investigations on the common research model at ONERA-S1MA—Comparison with DPW numerical results. In: Proceedings of the 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA SciTech Forum. AIAA 2017-0964,
  14. 14.
    Keye, S., and Rudnik, R.: Validation of wing deformation simulations for the NASA CRM model using fluid–structure interaction computations. AIAA Paper 2015-0619, (2015).
  15. 15.
    Keye, S., Brodersen, O., Rivers, M.B.: Investigation of aeroelastic effects on the NASA common research model. J. Aircr. 51(4), 1323–1330 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Combes, T.P., Malik, A.S., Bramesfeld, G., McQuilling, M.W.: Efficient fluid-structure interaction method for conceptual design of flexible, fixed-wing micro-air-vehicle wings. AIAA J. 53(6), 1442–1454 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rizzi, A., Tomac, M., Jirasek, A., Cavagna, L., Riccobene, L., Ricci, S.: Computation of aeroelastic effect on F-16XL at flight conditions FC70 and FC25. J. Aircr. 54(2), 409–416 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Tyssel, L.: Hybrid grid generation for complex 3D Geometries. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on numeric grid generation in computational field simulation, Whistler, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 184–196, (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tyssel, L.: Experiences of grid generation and steady/unsteady viscous computations for complex geometries. In: Proceedings of the 26th ICAS Congress, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eliasson, P.: EDGE, a Navier–Stokes solver for unstructured grids. In: Proceedings to Finite Volume for Complex Applications III., ISTE Ltd., London, pp. 527–534, (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wallin, S., Johansson, A.V.: An explicit algebraic reynolds stress model of incompressible and compressible flows. J. Fluid Mech. 43(9), 89–132 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Balakrishna, S., Acheson, M.: Analysis of NASA common research model dynamic data. AIAA Paper 2011-112, (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    NASA common research model website:
  26. 26.
    Smith, J.: Aeroelastic fucntionality in edge, initial implementation and validation, FOI-R-1485-SE, (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vrchota, P., Prachar, A.: Improvement of CFD aerodynamic characteristics using modal deformation. In: Proceedings of the 55th Israel annual conference on aerospace sciences, Tel Aviv & Haifa, Israel, (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schimanski, D., Quest, J.: Tools and techniques for high reynolds number testing status and recent improvements at ETW, AIAA Paper 2003-0755, (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Levy, D., Laflin, K., Vassberg, J., Tinoco, E., Mani, M., Rider, B., Brodersen, O., Crippa, S., Rumsey, C., Wahls, R., Morrison, J., Mavriplis, D., Murayama, M.: Summary of data from the fifth AIAA CFD drag prediction workshop. AIAA Paper 2013-0046, (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kohzai, M., Ueno, M., Koga, S., Sudani, N.: Wall and support interference corrections of NASA common research model wind tunnel test in JAXA. AIAA Paper 2013-0963, (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Quix, H., Semmelmann, J.: Model deformation measurement capabilities at ETW. AIAA Paper 2015-2562, (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aerospace Research and Test Establishment (VZLU)PragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations