Advertisement

Comparative Study on the Prediction of Aerodynamic Characteristics of Aircraft with Turbulence Models

  • Yujin Jang
  • Jinbum Huh
  • Namhun Lee
  • Seungsoo Lee
  • Youngmin Park
Original Paper

Abstract

The RANS equations are widely used to analyze complex flows over aircraft. The equations require a turbulence model for turbulent flow analyses. A suitable turbulence must be selected for accurate predictions of aircraft aerodynamic characteristics. In this study, numerical analyses of three-dimensional aircraft are performed to compare the results of various turbulence models for the prediction of aircraft aerodynamic characteristics. A 3-D RANS solver, MSAPv, is used for the aerodynamic analysis. The four turbulence models compared are the Sparlart–Allmaras (SA) model, Coakley’s \(q-\omega \) model, Huang and Coakley’s \(k-\varepsilon \) model, and Menter’s \(k-\omega \) SST model. Four aircrafts are considered: an ARA-M100, DLR-F6 wing–body, DLR-F6 wing–body–nacelle–pylon from the second drag prediction workshop, and a high wing aircraft with nacelles. The CFD results are compared with experimental data and other published computational results. The details of separation patterns, shock positions, and \(C_{p}\) distributions are discussed to find the characteristics of the turbulence models.

Keywords

Turbulence models Separation pattern Shock position Drag prediction 

List of symbols

u

Velocity component in the x direction

v

Velocity component in the y direction

w

Velocity component in the z direction

\(\rho \)

Density

p

Pressure

\(C_{L}\)

Lift coefficient

\(C_{D}\)

Drag coefficient

\(\hbox {Re}\)

Reynolds number

\(\alpha \)

Angle of attack

\(\eta \)

Normalized span location

k

Turbulent kinetic energy

q

Turbulent velocity scale

\(\omega \)

Specific dissipation rate

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI) and Inha University.

References

  1. 1.
    Kral LD (1998) Recent experience with different turbulence models applied to the calculation of flow over aircraft components. Prog Aerosp Sci 34:481–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marconi F, Siclari M, Carpenter R (1994) Comparison of TLNS3D computations with test data for a transport wing/simple body configuration, AIAA paper 94-2237Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kwak E, Lee N, Lee S, Park S (2012) Performance evaluation of two-equation turbulence models for 3D wing-body configuration. Int J Aeronaut Space Sci 13(3):307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    https://aiaa-dpw.larc.nasa.gov/. Accessed 1 Mar 2018
  5. 5.
    Lee S, Choi D (2006) On coupling the reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations with two-equation turbulence model equations. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 50(2):165–197CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spalart PR, Allmaras SR (1992) A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, AIAA Paper 92-0439Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coakley TJ (1983) Turbulence modeling methods for the compressible Navier–Stokes equations, AIAA Paper 83-1693Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang PG, Coakley TJ (1992) An implicit Navier–Stokes code for turbulent flow modeling, AIAA Paper 92-0547Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Menter FR (1994) Two-equation Eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 32(8):1598–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roe PL (1981) Approximate Riemann solvers, parameter vectors, and difference schemes. J Comput Phys 43(2):357–372MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Leer B (1974) Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. II. Monotonicity and conservation combined in a second-order scheme. J Comput Phys 14(4):361–370CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    http://cfl3d.larc.nasa.gov/. Accessed 1 Mar 2018
  13. 13.
    Carr MP, Pallister KC (1984) Pressure distributions measured on research wing M100 mounted on an axisymmetric body, AGARD AR-138 addendumGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tinoco E, Su T (2004) Drag prediction with the Zeus/CFL3D system, AIAA Paper 2004-0552Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park Y (2012) CFD and wind tunnel results of WTET configuration, KARI-CADT-ELN-2012-002Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Epstein B, Rubin T, Séror S (2002) An accurate multiblock ENO driven Navier–Stokes solver for complex aerodynamic configurations, ICAS 2002 CongressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yujin Jang
    • 1
  • Jinbum Huh
    • 2
  • Namhun Lee
    • 3
  • Seungsoo Lee
    • 4
  • Youngmin Park
    • 5
  1. 1.Hanwha Defense SystemChangwonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Electronic Warfare Research CenterGwangju Institute of Science and TechnologyGwangjuRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Hanwha Defense SystemChangwonRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Department of Aerospace EngineeringINHA UniversityIncheonRepublic of Korea
  5. 5.Korea Aerospace Research InstituteDaejeonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations