Advertisement

Comparison of the full-potential and Euler formulations for computing transonic airfoil flows

  • J. Flores
  • J. Barton
  • T. Holst
  • T. Pulliam
Contributed Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Physics book series (LNP, volume 218)

Abstract

A study involving four transonic airfoil computer codes, two FP and two Euler, has been performed. The major conclusions of the study are as follows: (1) the FP codes are faster than the Euler codes by about an order of magnitude based on CPU time on the Cray XMP; (2) the FP formulation loses accuracy as transonic flow develops, but entropy corrections yield FP solutions comparable to those of the Euler; (3) grid coarseness and type can be significant in affecting both accuracy and convergence characteristics; (4) the FP formulation must be more tightly converged than the Euler formulation for comparable levels of accuracy in the lift coefficient; and (5) in general, good accuracy for adequate meshes can be obtained with both formulations, irrespective of the solution method.

Keywords

AIAA Paper Lift Coefficient Grid Refinement Transonic Flow Euler Formulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Holst, T. L., “A Fast, Conservative Algorithm for Solving the Transonic FullPotential Equation,” AIAA J., Vol. 18, No. 12, Dec. 1980, pp. 1431–1439.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dougherty, F. C., Hoist, T. L., Gundy, K. L., and Thomas, S. D., “TAIR — A Transonic Airfoil Analysis Computer Code,” NASA TM-81296, May 1981.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jameson, A., “Acceleration of Transonic Potential Flow Calculations on Arbitrary Meshes by the Multiple Grid Method,” AIAA Paper 79-1458, July 1979.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steger, J., “Implicit Finite-Difference Simulation of Flow about Arbitrary Two-Dimensional Geometries,” J. Comp. Phys., Vol. 16, 1978, pp. 679–686.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pulliam, T. H., “Implicit Finite-Difference Methods for the Euler Equations,” Advances in Computational Transonics, Ed. W. Habashi, Pineridge Press Ltd., Swansea, U.K., 1983.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jameson, A., Schmidt, W., and Turkel, R., “Numerical Solutions of the Euler Equations by Finite-Volume Methods Using Runge-Kutta Time-Stepping Schemes,” AIÀA Paper 81-1259, June 1981.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pulliam, T. H., Jespersen, D. C., and Childs, R. E., “An Enhanced Version of an Implicit Code for the Euler Equations,” AIAA Paper 83-0344, Jan. 1981.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lock, R. C., “Test Cases for Numerical Methods in Two-Dimensional Transonic Flows,” AGARD Report No. 575, 1970.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hafez, M. and Lovell, D., “Entropy and Vorticity Corrections for Transonic Flows,” AIAA Paper 83-1926, July 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Flores
    • 1
  • J. Barton
    • 1
  • T. Holst
    • 1
  • T. Pulliam
    • 1
  1. 1.NASA Ames Research CenterMoffett FieldUSA

Personalised recommendations