6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop

Washington D.C. – June 2016

DPW  6  Summary  of  Par.cipant  Data  

CRM  Cases  2-­‐5  
 

Ed  Tinoco,  
Olaf  Brodersen,  
and  the  DPW  Organizing  Commi;ee  
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Outline:  
• Par.cipant  Data  
• Case  2:  CRM  Nacelle-­‐Pylon  Drag  Increment    
• Case  3:  CRM  WB  Sta.c  Aero-­‐Elas.c  Effect  
• Case  4:  CRM  WB  Grid  Adapta.on    
• Case  5:  CRM  WB  Coupled  Aero-­‐Structural  
Simula.on  
• Separa.on  
• Observa.ons/Issues  
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Par.cipant  Data:  
• 48 Total Data Submittals
• 25 Teams/Organizations
− 12 N. America, 6 Europe, 6 Asia, 1 S. America
− 8 Government, 5 Industry, 7 Academia, 5 Commercial
− 2 for Case 5 only
• Grid Types:
- 17 Common Unstructured (12 teams)
- 15 Custom Unstructured (11 teams)
- 6 Overset (3 Teams)
- 3 Structured Multi-block ( 3 Teams)
- 5 Custom Cartesian (2 Teams)
• Turbulence Models:
− 36 SA (all types), 6 SST, 2 k-kLe, 2 k-e Lam, 1 EARSM, 1 LBM-
VLES, 1 RSM-ω
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

CRM  Cases  2-­‐5  Par.cipants  

Team   ID   SYM   Name   Organiza.on   Code   Grid   Turbulence  Model  

                         
A1   A   Boeing,  BCA  Advanced  Concepts,  Long   Overflow  v2.2k   Overset   SA-­‐RC    
1   Tony  Sclafani  
a   Beach  CA  
A2   Overflow  v2.2k   Overset   SA-­‐RC  w/QCR  on  
B1   B   FUN3D  12.8   Unst-­‐Geolab   k-­‐kL-­‐MEAH2015  w/Limiter  
2   B2   b   Khaled  Abdol-­‐Hamid   NASA  Langley  Research  Center   FUN3D  12.8   Unst-­‐Geolab   k-­‐kL-­‐MEAH2015  no-­‐limiter  
B3   α FUN3D  12.8   Unst-­‐Geolab   SA  no-­‐limiter  
3   C1   C   Brennan  Blumenthal   NASA  Langley  Research  Center   USM3D   Unst-­‐Geolab   SA  
D1   D   Mflow   Unst-­‐custom   SA  
Jiangtao  Chen  
4   D2   d   CARDC   Mflow   Unst-­‐custom   SA  
T1   T   Yuntao  Wang   TRIP   CommonMB   SST-­‐2003  
5   E1   E   Atsushi  Hashimoto   JAXA   FaSTAR   Unst-­‐Geolab   SA-­‐no^2-­‐R  w/QCR2000  
6   F1   F   Krishna  Zore   Ansys   Fluent          
7   G1   G   Benedikt  König   EXA  Powerflow   PowerFLOW   Custom  Cart   LBM-­‐VLES  
H1   H   Edge   Unst-­‐Geolab   SA  
8   Ales  Prachar/Peter  Eliasson   VZLU/FOI  
H2   h   Edge   Unst-­‐Geolab   EARSM  
I1   I   FloEFD Custom  Cart   k-­‐e  Lam-­‐Bremhorst  
9   Anna  Rubekinak   Mentor  Graphics  
I2   β FloEFD Custom  Cart   k-­‐e  Lam-­‐Bremhorst  
J1   J   CFD++   Unst-­‐Boeing   SA  
J2   ϑ CFD++   Unst-­‐Boeing   SST  
10   Brian  Edge   Metacomp  
J3   ϕ CFD++   Unst-­‐Geolab   SA  
J4   Ω CFD++   Unst-­‐custom   Realizable  k-­‐epsilon  
K1   K   Cflow   Unst-­‐Boeing   SA-­‐no^2  
K2   k   Cflow   Unst-­‐Boeing   SA-­‐no^2  w/QCR200  
11   Taku  Nagata   Kawasaki  Heavy  Industries  
K3   γ Cflow   Custom  Cart   SA-­‐no^2  
K4   Γ Cflow   Custom  Cart   SA-­‐no^2  w/QCR200  
L1   L   TAU    Unst-­‐Custom   RSM-­‐ω  
12   Stefan  Keye  /  Vamshi  Togif   DLR  
L2   σ TAU    Unst-­‐Custom   SA-­‐neg  
M1   M   COFFE/KCFD   Unst-­‐custom   SA-­‐neg  
13   Ryan  S.  Glasby   Tennessee,  Pointwise,      NASA  Langley  
M2   m   COFFE/KCFD   Unst-­‐custom   SA-­‐neg  w/QCR2000  
14   N1   N   N.  Balakrishnan   Indian  Insftute  of  Science   HiFun   Unst-­‐custom   SA  
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

CRM  Cases  2-­‐5  Par.cipants  

Team   ID   SYM   Name   Organiza.on   Code   Grid   Turbulence  Model  

                         
O1   O   elsA   Overset   SA  
15   David  Hue   ONERA  
O2   φ elsA   Overset   SA-­‐QCR2000  
P1   P   BCFD   Unst-­‐Boeing   SA-­‐RC  
16   Todd  Michal   Boeing,  St.  Louis  
P2   π GGNS   All  Tets   SA-­‐RC  
Q1   Q   SUMad   Embraer  MB   SA  1stOrder  
17   Gaetan  Kenway   MDOlab,  University  of  Michigan  
Q2   q   SUMad   Unst-­‐custom   SA  
18   R1   R   Andrei  Cimpoeru   CFMS,  Zenotech,  ARA   ZCFD          
19   S1   S   Kelly  Laflin   Textron  Aviafon  (Cessna),  FUN3D  FUN3D   Unst-­‐Geolab   SA-­‐RC  

U1   U   Overflow  2.21  3rd  Order  WENO   Overset   SA-­‐RC  W/QCF2000  

Applied  Research  Lab,        Penn  
20   Jim  Coder  
u   State  
U2   Overflow  2.21  5TH  Order  WENO   Overset   SA-­‐RC  W/QCF2000  
V1   V   CFD++   Unst-­‐Geolab   SST  
V2   ς CFD++   Embraer  MB   SST  
21   Rodrigo  Felix  de  Souza   Embraer  S/A  
V3   Ξ CFD++   Unst-­‐custom-­‐A   SST  
V4   Ψ CFD++   Unst-­‐custom-­‐I   SST  
22   W1   W   Dominic  Chandar   Insftute  of  High  Performance   μSICS          
23   X1   X   Patrick  Hanley   Hanley  Innovafons   Stallion3D          
University  of  Oxford,  
24   Y1   Y   Neil  Ashton  
ESI  Group,  BETA  CAE  Systems   OpenFOAM          
Z1   Z   TAS  limiter  K=1   Unst-­‐Geolab   SA-­‐no^2-­‐R  w/QCR2000  
25   Z2   ζ Yasushi  Ito   JAXA   TAS  limiter  K=5   Unst-­‐Geolab   SA-­‐no^2-­‐R  w/QCR2000  
Z3   Δ TAS  limiter  K=10   Unst-­‐Geolab   SA-­‐no^2-­‐R  w/QCR2000  
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

CRM geometry for DPW6 includes the static aeroelastic twist and
deformation experienced by the model at different angles of attack

~ CL=0.50
Case 3: Lift and Pitching Moment Aero Twist a=2.90, CL=0.535
Wing-Body w/Static Aeroelastics Rigid As-Built a=2.90, CL=0.596
Comparison with "Rigid" Solution NTF R92 a=2.90, CL=0.494
Aero Twist a=2.67, CL=0.50
Test NTF
Test Ames
Aero
Rigid
0.7 Eta=0.283 0.7 Eta=0.502 Eta=0.727 Eta=0.950
-1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2

-1 -1 -1 -1
0.6 0.6
-0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8
CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6

0.5 0.5
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4
CP

CP

CP

CP
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
0.4 0.4

0 0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.3 “as-built”
0.3

0.4 Aeroelastic0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6

0 1 2 0 3 0.2 40.4 0.6
5 0.8 10 0
-0.02 0.2 -0.06
-0.04 0.4 0.6
-0.08 0.8
-0.1 1
-0.12 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Angle-of-Attack X/C CM - PitchingX/C
Moment X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Should  We  Compare  to  Wind  Tunnel?  

Wind  Tunnel   CFD  
Walls   Free  Air  
Support  System  (Sfng)   Free  Air  
Laminar/Turbulent  (Tripped)   “Fully”  Turbulent  (usually)  
Aeroelasfc  Deformafon   Stafc  Measured  Deflecfons  
Measurement  Uncertainty   Numerical  Uncertainty  &  Error  
Correcfons  for  known  effects   No  Correcfons  

• Wind  Tunnel  and  CFD  measure/compute  different  things!  

• Data  are  included  for  reference  only!  
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Outline:  
• Par.cipant  Data  
• Case  2:  CRM  Nacelle-­‐Pylon  Drag  Increment    
• Case  3:  CRM  WB  Sta.c  Aero-­‐Elas.c  Effect  
• Case  4:  CRM  WB  Grid  Adapta.on    
• Case  5:  CRM  WB  Coupled  Aero-­‐Structural  
Simula.on  
• Separa.on  
• Observa.ons/Issues  
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case  2:    Nacelle-­‐Pylon  Drag  Increment  

• Grid  Convergence  Study  
• NASA  Common  Research  Model,  Wing-­‐Body  and  Wing-­‐Body-­‐
Nacelle  Pylon  
• Mach=0.85,  CL=0.500±0.001  
• Chord  Reynolds  Number:    5x106  
• Grid  Resolufon  Level:  
– 1)  Tiny    2)  Coarse    3)  Medium,  
– 4)  Fine    5)  Extra-­‐Fine    6)  Super-­‐Fine  
• Drag  Increment  between  Wing-­‐Body  and  Wing-­‐Body-­‐Nacelle-­‐
Pylon  
   
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Grid Convergence?

Richardson Extrapolation:
• Standard 2nd order least squares fit
• For 2nd order codes, should be linear vs.
Grid_Factor = N-2/3
• Y-intercept estimates theoretical infinite resolution
(continuum) result
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: CD_TOT - Wing-Body

All Solutions by Grid Type and Turbulence Model

Grid Type Turbulence Model

0.032 Unstructured 0.032 SA
Custom Unst SA QCR
Overset SST
G Multiblock G k-e, k-kl
Custom Cart LBM-VLES
G G
0.03 G 0.03 G
G G
G G
I I
CD_TOT

CD_TOT
5 Counts 5 Counts
I I
0.028 0.028

k k K k
ϑ k k K k
ϑ
k k ϑ k K
ϑ ϑ
K J k k ϑ k K
ϑ ϑ
K J
K
ϑK ϑ K d K
ϑK ϑ K d
0.026 Z Z D JZ Z
J d JΔZ d Z
J b T a π 0.026 Z Z D Z
J Z
J d JΣZ d Z
J b T
ζ
ΔDB ζ ζdJT Hζ
b Γ b
H
Δπ Γ
ζ γ HΔ
ζ π ζ
ΔDB ζ ζdJT Hζ
b Γ b
H
Δπ Γ
ζ γ QH
Δ
ζ π
B B a πQP B B π A
D Δ
b B
HΔ
b Δ B D Δ
b Δ
B
b
H Δ
Σ B π
D ϕBbTϕ H ϕ
P a Q
Γ
γ a γ
PQ P ς π A
Ψ U
uq Ψ M Ψ
M D ϕBbTϕ H ϕ
P A Q
Γ
γ A γ
PQ PA π P
ς Ψ A
U
uq Ψ M Ψ
M
ϕϕϕ ΓH
γE Q
ς ΓγE
ς
PA Γ
γςΔ
aQEU P
q E
u P
ς U
q E
u
A
ς
V
ΨU
uq
AΞ E Ξ Ξ Ξ ϕϕϕ ΓH
γE Q
ς ΓγE
PA
ς Γ
γΣ
QEU
ς P
q E
u P
ς U
q E
u
A
ς
V
ΨU
uq
AΞ E Ξ Ξ Ξ
V V A V O V V A V A V O V
N N NO O N O N N NO O N O
N N N N
100M 50M 20M 10M 100M 50M 20M 10M

0.024 0.024
0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05 0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05
GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3) GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: CD_PR - Wing-Body

Pressure Drag
All Solutions by Grid Type and Turbulence Model

Grid Type Turbulence Model

0.025 Unstructured 0.025 SA
Custom Unst SA QCR
Overset SST
S Multiblock S k-e, k-kl
Custom Cart LBM-VLES
β β

β β
0.02 0.02

G G
GG GG
CD_PR

CD_PR
GG GG

S kb I S kb I
kS k Sk K kb k ϑ
H H
KN kS k Sk K kb k ϑ
H H
KN
0.015 DΓKbK
ϑH
B ϑΓ H
b
B
K
ϑ Γ
V
γN
ϑ B
VK
γJ N ϑΓ
d γI B
V
Jς dΨ a ΞΨ
T A Ψ 0.015 DΓKbK
ϑH
B ϑΓ H
b
B
K
ϑ Γ
V
γN
ϑ B
VK
γJ N ϑΓ
d γI B
JV
ς dΨT A Ψ
D D
ΓB
γ
b
N DΓB
b
γN
V
H
P a
ϕγP
JV
N
E a
d
UJ
P
T J
E
Z
P
ς a
d
U P E
Z
ς
Δ
ζ J
P
Ψa
U
u QP
EΔ
Z
ζ Ξ Uu Ξ D D
ΓB
γ
b
N DΓB
b
γN
V
H
P A
ϕγP
JV
N
E A
d
UJ
P
T J
E
Z
P
ς A
d
U P E
Z
ς
Δ
ζ J
P
ΨA
U
u QPΔ
E
Z
ζ Ξ Uuq Ξ Ψ
A Ξ
ϕ ϕE
ς
Z
H
ζTϕ E
Z
ς
ζ
Δ A Z
ς
ζ
Δ u
A Q ζ
Δ u
A Q AΞ
q q ϕ ϕE
ς
Z
H
ζTϕ E
Z
ς
ζ
Δ A Z
ς
ζ
Δ u
A Q ζ
Δ u
A Q AΞ
q
ϕϕ Δ Q QO q O q O O ϕϕ Δ Q QO q O q O O

100M 50M 20M 10M 100M 50M 20M 10M

0.01 0.01
0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05 0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05
GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3) GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: CD_SF - Wing-Body

Skin Friction Drag
All Solutions by Grid Type and Turbulence Model

Grid Type Turbulence Model

0.016 Unstructured 0.016 SA
Custom Unst SA QCR
Overset SST
Multiblock k-e, k-kl
Custom Cart LBM-VLES

0.014 β β 0.014 β β

I I I I
CD_SF

CD_SF
G G
0.012 G 0.012 G
G G
G Δ Z
ζ ΔZ G Δ Z
ζ ΔZ
JZ JZ
ζ Δ ζ Δ
ϕG
ϕϕ ϕHTϕQ ϕQ JQZ
ζdq JO JQZ J JZ
q QK ϕG
ϕϕ ϕHTϕQ ϕQ JQZ
ζdq JO JQZ J JZ
q QK
ϑdA
qK ζ d T Oq ϑdA
qK ζ d T Oq
ζK dO ζK dO
DDB E
b
ςDHE
B
b D
AK
ςPaPϑ T Δ
O
K
ϑ
A
P P ϑ
P
ζK
Δ ϑ
PA
ϑΔ DDB E
b
ςDHE
B
b D
AK
ςPAPϑ T Δ
O
K
ϑ
A
P P ϑ
P
ζK
Δ ϑ
PA
ϑΔ
E
ς U
u
a k U
u
a k kU
u
a P
k Ξ U A
u
a ΞΨ E
ς U
u
A k U
u
A k kU
u P
k Ξ A u ΞΨ
U
b kΓ E Γ b kΓ E Γ
ς Ξ ς Ξ
γV Γ
γN Γ
Γ γkH
B
V
γB
b
H
γ ςB
E ΨΓγ Eς Ψ Ξ Ψ γV Γ
γN Γ
Γ γkH
B
V
γB
b
H
γ ςB
E ΨΓγ Eς Ψ Ξ Ψ
N N V H
b B N N V H
b B
S N V H
Vb S N V Hb
V
S N S N
0.01 S N 0.01 S N
S S

100M 50M 20M 10M 100M 50M 20M 10M

0.008 0.008
0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05 0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05
GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3) GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: CM_TOT - Wing-Body

All Solutions by Grid Type and Turbulence Model

Grid Type Turbulence Model

-0.06 Unstructured -0.06 SA
Custom Unst SA QCR
Overset SST
Multiblock k-e, k-kl
S Custom Cart S LBM-VLES
S S
b b b b
S b S b
-0.08 -0.08
b B b B
V V
B V V
B
b B V B V S b B V B V S
CM_TOT

CM_TOT
b
ς BV
ς ςa ςU ςΔ Uu Δς uI
U b
ς BV
ς ςA ςA ςΔ Au Δς uI
U
B aϑ U u
a
uϑ Δϑ ϑ ϑ a a B Aϑ U u
U
uϑ Δϑ ϑ ϑ U A
γE
Δ E E ϑζ γE
Δ E E ϑζ
Γ γE
γE Γ
Δ
ζ Γ
Z
ζ Γ
A
ζ Γ
γZ A γ
ζ Ξ
Aγ E Ξ
Γ A Ξ Γ γE
γE Γ
Δ
ζ Γ
Z
ζ Γ
A
ζ Γ
γZ A γ
ζ Ξ
Aγ E Ξ
Γ A Ξ
Δ
ζ PA Z I Z Δ
ζ PA Z I Z
ϕ ϕZϕZ ϕ ϕZϕZ
ϕ Ξ ϕ Ξ
PkP kQPk P P N PkP kQPk P P N
ϕϕDD TDQ DQ
N O
dqT NdOq k d QP d
QN kOq Oq ϕϕDD TDQ DQ
N O
dqT NdOq k d QP d
QN kOq Oq
N J J J J K
K J J k N J J J J K
K J J k
-0.1 GGGNG K K K Ψ K T -0.1 GGGNG K K K Ψ K T
Ψ Ψ
G Ψ G Ψ
Ψ Ψ

100M 50M 20M 10M 100M 50M 20M 10M

-0.12 -0.12
0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05 0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05
GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3) GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: CD_TOT - Wing-Body

Solutions by Grid Type and Turbulence Model
Common Unstructured Grids Custom Unstructured Grids
Turbulence Model Turbulence Model
0.032 SA 0.032 SA
SA QCR SA QCR
SST SST
k-e, k-kl k-e, k-kl
LBM-VLES LBM-VLES

0.03 0.03
CD_TOT

CD_TOT
5 Counts 5 Counts
0.028 0.028

k k k
K K
ϑ
Kk k k ϑ K ϑ
ϑK ϑ Kϑ J d
0.026 Z ZD Z
ζ JB Z JSZ J Z
b 0.026 d d
D
ζDΔ
Δ B Δ
b
HζJ ζJ
H
b
S
B
Δ b
H
ζ
B
Δ H
Δ
ζ
B d π Γ
γ π π
ϕ ϕB b PS
ϕ
ϕϕD P
bϕH P Γ
γ Ψπ π Ψ
H
E E
P E P P
E P
E
V E γ Γ
γ Γ
γ Γ
Γ γ Ξ Ψ
Ξ ΞΨ M Ξ M
V V V V NN N
N N N
100M 50M 20M 10M 100M 50M 20M 10M

0.024 0.024
0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05 0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05
GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3) GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: CD_TOT - Wing-Body

Solutions by Grid Type and Turbulence Model
Geolab Unstructured Grids Boeing Unstructured Grids
Turbulence Model Turbulence Model
0.032 SA 0.032 SA
SA QCR SA QCR
SST SST
k-e, k-kl k-e, k-kl
LBM-VLES LBM-VLES

0.03 0.03
CD_TOT

CD_TOT
5 Counts 5 Counts
0.028 0.028

k k
K k K
ϑ
k k
K k ϑ ϑ
K
ϑKϑ K
ϑ J
0.026 Z ζD B
ζDZ Z Z S
Z Z
b 0.026 J J J J J
Δ Δ ζ
Δ ζ
H
b
S
B
Δ b
H
ζ
B
Δ H
Δ
ζ
B
DDB
b b H
B
H b
P P P
E E S
H E E E
V E P PP P
V V V V

100M 50M 20M 10M 100M 50M 20M 10M

0.024 0.024
0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05 0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05
GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3) GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: CD_TOT - Wing-Body

Solutions by Grid Type and Turbulence Model
Overset Grid Multiblock Structured Grid
Turbulence Model Turbulence Model
0.032 SA 0.032 SA
SA QCR SA QCR
SST SST
k-e, k-kl k-e, k-kl
LBM-VLES LBM-VLES

0.03 0.03
CD_TOT

CD_TOT
5 Counts 5 Counts
0.028 0.028

0.026 a 0.026 Q T
a aq a
U A
uq
U ςTQς Qς TQς Qς ς
a U
u
q
A U
u
A
O uq
A
A O O O
100M 50M 20M 10M 100M 50M 20M 10M

0.024 0.024
0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05 0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05
GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3) GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2 & 4: CD_TOT - Wing-Body

Solutions by Grid Type and Turbulence Model
Custom Cartesian Grid Case 4: Solution Adaptive Grid
Turbulence Model Turbulence Model
0.04 SA 0.04
SA
SA QCR SA QCR
SST SST
k-e, k-kl k-e, k-kl
LBM-VLES LBM-VLES
β
10 Counts 10 Counts
0.035 0.035
β

Note: Change in Scale

CD_TOT

CD_TOT
β
G I I
G
0.03 G 0.03
G P
G I I
π
I
Note: Change in Scale β Iβ P
P P
P P π π
γΓ
Γ γΓ
γΓ
γΓ γΓ
γ PPP P P ππ π π π π π π π π π π
0.025 0.025

20M 20M
100M 10M 5M 2M 1M 100M 10M 5M 2M 1M

0.02 0.02
0 2E-05 4E-05 6E-05 8E-05 0.0001 0 2E-05 4E-05 6E-05 8E-05 0.0001
GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3) GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: CD_TOT - Wing-Body-Nacelle-Pylon

All Solutions by Grid Type and Turbulence Model

Grid Type Turbulence Model

0.034 Unstructured 0.034 SA
G Custom Unst G SA QRC
Overset SST
Multiblock k-e, k-kl
G Custom Cart G LBM-VLES
G G
0.032 0.032
G G

I I
CD_TOT

CD_TOT
5 Counts I 5 Counts I
0.03 0.03

k k
k k
K k k ϑ
K k K
K
ϑ
k k
K k k ϑ
K k K
K
ϑ
DK
ϑϑ K ϑ J d T DK
ϑϑ K ϑ J d T
D JJ ϑ J J J d a D JJ ϑ J J J d a
D Z Z Z Z
ζ ΨΓ
ζd Γ B Z
γ B
ζP AΨ D Z Z Z Z
ζd γ B Z
γ B
ζP Aa
B B
Δ ζd B
ζϕ B
Δ Δ
b b
Δ
H b
Δ
HT Ψa Ψ M
q B B
Δ ζd B
ζϕ B
Δ Δ
b ζ aΓ
b
Δ
H b
Δ
HT aa a M
q
0.028 T
bϕb b
T H
P P a P q M 0.028 T
bϕb b
T H P a P q M
ΞE A P AE A
ϕϕ PHP Γa γ ΞU ϕϕ PHP γa Γ AU
ϕϕ H HP
E Γa
q
a γA
E γ
U
Aq
E q
A
U
E U
Ξ
u Ξ u ϕϕ H HP
E γa
q
a ΓA
E Γ
U
Aq
E q
A
U
E A
U
u A u
A
NN O U
u
V uV u
O
V VN A
NN O U
u
Δ uΔ u
O
Δ ΔN
N O N N O N O N N O

100M 50M 20M 10M 100M 50M 20M 10M

0.026 0.026
0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05 0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05
GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3) GRIDFAC
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: CD_TOT - Wing-Body-Nacelle-Pylon minus Wing-Body

Solutions by Grid Type and Turbulence Model

Geolab Unstructured Grids Boeing Unstructured Grids

Turbulence Model Turbulence Model
0.004 SA 0.004 SA
SA QRC SA QRC
SST SST
k-e, k-kl k-e, k-kl
LBM-VLES LBM-VLES
0.0035 0.0035

0.003 0.003
Wind Tunnel Wind Tunnel
DeltaCD

DeltaCD
J J
J J
ϑ
J ϑKk J ϑ
ϑ
0.0025 DDD 0.0025 K
ϑ
k ϑ
DDDBBZ P K k
P
ϕϕB
ϕBB Z BB
Z ζ ϕϕ ϕPP
Z
b
ζH
H
Δ Z
b
ζH
Δ b
ζ bV
Δ b
ζ bE
Δ Δ
b
V
EEE VHEH E
EHH V
0.002 0.002

1 Count 1 count
0.0015 0.0015

100M 50M 20M 10M 100M 50M 20M 10M

0.001 0.001
0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05 0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05
Gridfac
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3) Gridfac
GRIDFAC = 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: CD_TOT - Wing-Body-Nacelle-Pylon minus Wing-Body

Solutions by Grid Type and Turbulence Model

Overset Grids Multiblock Structured Grids

Turbulence Model Turbulence Model
0.004 SA 0.004 SA
SA QRC SA QRC
SST SST
k-e, k-kl k-e, k-kl
LBM-VLES LBM-VLES
0.0035 0.0035

0.003 Wind Tunnel 0.003 Wind Tunnel

DeltaCD

DeltaCD
0.0025 A
a 0.0025 T
A
a T
A
a A
a T
A A
a TTT T T
a O O U
U
u U
u U
u U
u u
0.002 0.002

1 Count 1 count
0.0015 0.0015
100M 50M 20M 10M 100M 50M 20M 10M

0.001 0.001
0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05 0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05
GRIDFAC =
Gridfac 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3) GRIDFAC =
Gridfac 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: CD_TOT - Wing-Body-Nacelle-Pylon minus Wing-Body

Solutions by Grid Type and Turbulence Model

Custom Cartesian Grids

Turbulence Model
0.004 SA
SA QRC
SST
k-e, k-kl
LBM-VLES
0.0035

G
0.003 G
DeltaCD

0.0025 γ Γ
γ I
G Γ
γ γ Γ
Γ
γ Γ
Γ γ
I
0.002 Wind Tunnel
I

1 Count
0.0015 I I I I
100M 50M 20M 10M

0.001
0 5E-06 1E-05 1.5E-05 2E-05 2.5E-05
GRIDFAC =
Gridfac 1/GRIDSIZE(2/3)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
A2
Washington D.C. – June 2016
B1
-1.2 D1
Eta=0.131
E1 Symbols - Test Data
-1 H1 Case 2: Wing-Body Unstructured
Custom Unst
-0.8
J1
K3
Finest Grid - Most Solutions Overset
Multiblock
M1 M=0.85, CL=0.50 Custom Cart
-0.6 N1
-1.2 Q1 Eta=0.131 -1.2
Eta=0.201 -1.2
Eta=0.286
-0.4 Eta=0.131_alpha=2.60_CL=0.4818
Cp

-1 Eta=0.131_alpha=2.86_CL=0.5182 -1 -1

-0.2
-0.8
T1 -0.8 -0.8
V3
0 -0.6 P2 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

0.2
Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0.4
0 0 0

0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.4 X/C 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C

-1.2
Eta=0.397 -1.2
Eta=0.502 -1.2
Eta=0.603

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

cp

cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C, xoc X/C, xoc
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
A2
Washington D.C. – June 2016
B1 Eta=0.727
-1.2 D1
E1 Symbols - Test Data
-1 H1 Case 2: Wing-Body Unstructured
Custom Unst

-0.8
I1 Finest Grid - Most Solutions Overset
Multiblock
J1
K3
M=0.85, CL=0.50 Custom Cart
-0.6 M1
-1.2
Eta=0.727
N1 -1.2
Eta=0.846 -1.2
Eta=0.950
-0.4 Eta=0.727_alpha=2.60_CL=0.4818
-1 -1 -1
Cp

Eta=0.727_alpha=2.86_CL=0.5182
-0.8 -0.2 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 0 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

0.2
Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0.4
0 0 0

0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.4 X/C 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: Wing-Body Pressure Distributions

Grid Convergence History
M=0.85, CL=0.50
P1 Grid Level L1 Common Unstructured Grid
-1.2
Eta=0.131 P1 Grid Level L4
-1.2
Eta=0.502 -1.2
Eta=0.846
P1 Grid Level L7
Test a=2.60, CL=0.4818
-1 Test a=2.86, CL=0.5182 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C

K4 Grid Level L1
Custom Unstructured Grid
-1.2
Eta=0.131 K4 Grid Level L2 -1.2
Eta=0.502 -1.2
Eta=0.846
K4 Grid Level L4
-1
Test a=2.60, CL=0.4818 -1 -1
Test a=2.86, CL=0.5182
-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

CP

CP
Cp

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C, xoc X/C, xoc
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: Wing-Body Pressure Distributions

Grid Convergence History
M=0.85, CL=0.50
G1 Grid Level L1 Custom Cartesian Grid
-1.2
Eta=0.131 G1 Grid Level L3
-1.2
Eta=0.502 -1.2
Eta=0.846
G1 Grid Level L5
Test a=2.60, CL=0.4818
-1 Test a=2.86, CL=0.5182 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C

P1 Grid Level 8
Solution Adaptive Grid
-1.2
Eta=0.131 P1 Grid Level 9 -1.2
Eta=0.502 -1.2
Eta=0.846
P1 Grid Level 11
-1
Test a=2.60, CL=0.4818 -1 -1
Test a=2.86, CL=0.5182
-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

CP

CP
Cp

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C xoc, X/C xoc, X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016
Symbols - Test Data
Case 2: Wing-Body-Nacelle-Pylon Unstructured
Custom Unst
Finest Grid - Most Solutions Overset
Multiblock
M=0.85, CL=0.50 Custom Cart

-1.2 -1.2
Eta=0.201 -1.2
Eta=0.286
Eta=0.131
-1 -1 -1
A2
-0.8 B1 -0.8 -0.8
-1.2 D1
-0.6 Eta=0.131
E1 -0.6 -0.6
-1 H1
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4
J1
Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.8 -0.2 K3 -0.2 -0.2

0
M1 0 0
-0.6 N1
0.2 Q1 0.2 0.2
-0.4 Eta=0.131_alpha=2.60_CL=0.4818 0.4
0.4 0.4
Cp

Eta=0.131_alpha=2.86_CL=0.5182
-0.2 0.6
0 0.2
T1
0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
V3 X/C X/C X/C
0 P2

0.2 -1.2
Eta=0.397 -1.2
Eta=0.502 -1.2
Eta=0.603

-1 -1 -1
0.4
-0.8 -0.8 -0.8
0.6
0 -0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -0.6 -0.6
X/C
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4
Cp

cp

cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C, xoc X/C, xoc
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
A2
Washington D.C. – June 2016
B1 Eta=0.727
-1.2 D1
E1 Symbols - Test Data
-1 H1 Case 2: Wing-Body-Nacelle-Pylon Unstructured
Custom Unst

-0.8
I1 Finest Grid - Most Solutions Overset
Multiblock
J1
K3 M=0.85, CL=0.50 Custom Cart
-0.6 M1
-1.2
Eta=0.727
N1 -1.2
Eta=0.846 -1.2
Eta=0.950
-0.4 Eta=0.727_alpha=2.60_CL=0.4818
Cp

-1 -1 -1
Eta=0.727_alpha=2.86_CL=0.5182
-0.8 -0.2 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 0 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

0.2
Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0.4
0 0 0

0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.4 X/C 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: Wing-Body-Nacelle-Pylon - Nacelle Pressures

Finest Grid
M=0.85, CL=0.50

PS1X PS2X PS3X

-1 -1 -1
Eq
Z q
N ZB
M ZM
B M
-0.5 N M -0.5 E -0.5
E E B
N
ZMq ENq
NBZBME
B Z
M
E
NZ
B
MBEZ N B EZq BZ N
EMB Z EB ZNB
M
E
Z
NEBM EZ M
B NN EZ
B M BN
E
ZB E B
BZM
BN E EZ N
ZM
qNMZ N B E
0 NEM 0 B
M 0 M
BZ E
Cp

Cp

Cp
E
MBqM
Z E NEZM
Eq
N
N
B
Z
Z qB
EE
q
N
M
Z
Z q
ZEB
q
B
N
E
Z
Z
M
M
B
E B E
M
M
Z
Z
q B MB N
ME
Z BMZ B
Z
q
qMB M
B
N M Bq q E
E E E B M
B
0.5 0.5 Z
M
E Z 0.5 M N
Z
M Z q M q B
Z MZ M E
N BN E
M
N
B
B
M
qB
NEM EBN Z
MB
N ZEM
E
NM
Z
ZB M
B B Nq
M
Z M
B NZEB B BM
Z
ZB M
E EBN q
M
E ZB E M B MN
N NZ E B Z E B MZB
EM BZ BM
M
qE N N ZE BN
Z NZ MEBNZ
M EB
M
E B
1 M 1 1
M E
N N
q M
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200
X/C X/C X/C
PS6X PS1X

PS4X PS5X PS6X

-1 -1 -1
E
N
N ZN
M
Z
N qE
PS2X N
M N
q M NE PS4X
-0.5 E M -0.5 Z BM
N -0.5 E N
BZ
N q NENBN
Z E NN Z ME
q EB ZB
N N NEMZNB
N EB Z
M
NN MZq EB
M
ZNB BEBZNB
MNE N
q MBNZ N
B ZN
N Z
N
BN Z
E
BM
ZN
PS3X N
ME
Eq B NB
qM qE ZB
N
ZB M N
0 E 0 ZB
N 0 MNq
NE NM M E
CP

CP
Cp

NB
MB M ZN
B
Zq B N EB
NZ MN
N
EB
q
N
MN
E
ZZ
q q
MNE
BN
E
q
B
Z
Z
N
M B Eq
Z E
q
N
E M NM
NB
Z
E
Z
N
M
qqMB
N MZ B
N
N
Zq NqE MN
Z
B
B
M ME
B
q N N Z N
Z
M E BZ M B
NN E
Nq N q
0.5 MN
N M
Z
N
B
N
q 0.5 q
M
BZ 0.5 qN E
N EN
B
BN q MZ E MB ZN
M
M N
ME NE
M BM Z
M M N
ZME
q M B
ZNB Z E B NqE
M M
qNE N EBNq BM M
NB
Z NE NBqN
EN B
M
NZ EB BNZ
BZ ZB EMNB NBM
Z qN E Z B BNZ E BNMZ
M NBZ NE NM MNZ E
BNN M MN
E
NZN
N B
ZB E
B
1 1 M 1
N Z
E
M E
N
q N
E M
B
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200
X/C X X
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: Wing-Body Wing Section Lift and Moment

Finest Grid
0.8
Mach = 0.85, CL=0.5
Symbols - Test Data

0.6
cls

0.4

Cp's OK, error in calculating

Section Lift section characteristics
0.2
Coefficient
Section Pitching
Moment Coefficient

0
cms.25c

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

-0.2
Span fraction - eta
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 2: Wing-Body Wing and Wing-Body-Nacelle-Pylon

Section Lift and Moment
0.8 Finest Grid Wing-Body
Mach = 0.85, CL=0.5 Black Symbol - Test Data
Solid Lines
Wing-Body-Nacelle-Pylon
Red Symbol - Test Data
0.6 Dashed Lines
cls

0.4

Section Lift Coefficient

0.2
Section Pitching nacelle
Moment
Coefficient
0
cms.25c

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

-0.2
Span fraction - eta
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Observa.ons  from  Case  2  Results:  

• We  are  gewng  be;er!  
• Nacelle-­‐Pylon  drag  increment  predicfon  within  experimental  
variafon.  
• Sca;er  for  k-­‐e  Lam-­‐Bremhorst  and  LBM-­‐VLES  models  cannot  
be  separated  from  grid  type.        
• With  the  excepfon  of  one  set  of  Cartesian  grid  results  very  
li;le  differences  seen  in  wing  or  nacelle  pressure  
distribufons,  or  in  wing  secfon  li^  and  pitching  moment  due  
to  grid  type,  turbulence  model,  or  convergence  level.  
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Outline:  
• Par.cipant  Data  
• Case  2:  CRM  Nacelle-­‐Pylon  Drag  Increment    
• Case  3:  CRM  WB  Sta.c  Aero-­‐Elas.c  Effect  
• Case  4:  CRM  WB  Grid  Adapta.on    
• Case  5:  CRM  WB  Coupled  Aero-­‐Structural  
Simula.on  
• Separa.on  
• Observa.ons/Issues  
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case  3:  CRM  WB  Sta.c  Aero-­‐Elas.c  Effect:  

• NASA  Common  Research  Model,  Wing-­‐Body  
• Mach=0.85:  
– α=2.50°,  2.75  °,  3.00  °,  3.25  °,  3.50  °,  3.75  °,  4.00  °  
• Grid  Resolufon  Level:  
– 3)  Medium,  
• Chord  Reynolds  Number:    5x106  
• Measured  Stafc  Aero-­‐Elasfc  Wing  Deformafon  at  each  angle  
of  a;ack  
   
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Lift and Pitching Moment

Wing-Body w/Static Aeroelastics
All Solutions
Turbulence Model
Turbulence Model φ A2
SA b B2
D D1
SA QRC d D2
0.7 SST 0.7 T T1
k-e, k-kl E E1
EARSM G G1
LBM-VLES Z
B
m H H1 u B
Z
T
ζ
q
Δ
G h H2
ζT
ΔqG
E
K KEb
Z
m b
U
u I I1
φ ζZ
u
0.65 ζ
O
q
B
T
Δ
E
φγ
b
J
k
0.65 β I2 φγUk JEqΔ TOB
K Ψ Ψ
h h Ψ ΨK
ςφ Ψ
m
Z G
φγ
U
u J J1 γ G u
Z
ζ
K
E
q
Δ b
J
k
Γ
N
ς
HI H
Γ φU bNIQ JNT Δζ
qK
E
h
N ϑΓhk
T ϑ J2
B
kγ Γ
dI Ψ d
ϑ
O K kIγ Q dB d
φU O
U
uM K1
JI
b d JZ
G
N
hK H
Z ς ς H ς ς
ϑ hΓ bG T
I N Q
uJKd
CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient
b
Γ
dO
m
N
ΨE J
ζ
q
ϑ D k K2
Ψ qζd
E O
N
D
0.6 T
k
Δ Ξ 0.6 ΞΞ φ k
Δ
H
ϑΞ
G
U
B
φγI
Q
P
D
ςϑuhbΓ M
Q
P
Ξ γ K3
H ϑhU
ς PΞ P D
γ
Q I
G
PB
Γ K4 φ
Γ
ϑ
Md Q
P
K
Ψ
N
mJ
Z
q
E
k
ζγIDHV b Ξ M M1 H Ξ Ψ
Vb PΔEζT γDQ
u
Z
qk Jd
N K
Q
Ξ
GT
P
Δ
Γ QP β N N1 β Ξ Γ P G I
Uu
b
h
ςB δ
ϑ D O O1 ς U
h φϑ D
0.55 Ψ
K
M
O d
JγI HV M β
0.55 φP O2 β β HV B Q Ψ dKI
N
m
Q P q
k
Z Db b uP
Z γO
qNJ
k
Γζ D
T P1 T
Ξ
G E φ
ζ
Γ δ β Ξφ E G
ςBVϑΔubh δ
U β
V Q
q
Q1
Q2
β V h Uφϑ
β ς V
Δ
Ψ
K D
H δ δ V HBββ Ψ D KI
O
M
N
Q
DP JγI
d
q
k
Z b U U1
b V Z uP O
γQ
D dJ
qkN
m
Ξ T φ T
0.5 UE φ
ζ
ςVϑΔubh δ
G Γ β
V 0.5 u
B
U2
B1
β
h
β ςΞ
V UφϑΔE
ζ
Γ G
B
H β b B2 β H BV
b β B3 b
δ ς V2 β
0.45 β 0.45 Ξ V3
β
Ψ
V
V4
V1
β m M2 β
Z Z1
ζ Z2
0.4 0.4 Δ Z3
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 -0.02 -0.04
Test NTF -0.06 -0.08 -0.1 -0.12
Test Ames
Angle-of-Attack CM - Pitching Moment
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Wing-Body Drag w/Static Aeroelastics

All Soutions - Grid Type
Grid Type
Unstructured
Custom Unst
0.7 Overset
Multiblock
Custom Cart TmZ G
Eq K
0.65 b
OmZ U
u
EγK hJ kγ
T q
b
E m
Tq d hU
ZNK JuNk IH
dΓϑ
I
G Γ

0.6 N
EO
m
Z
qb
M
TJkKd
U
u γ k
dN hJΓ Iϑ H O
G
D
N Md
J
b
KH
U γ
uΓϑQ
h
DPϑ
HI G
Q
P
D Q
PM
CL - Lift Coefficient

Em
γq
Z
TkQ
buΓQ
U
h
P
ϑD PIG β
M β
0.55 O
N
m
Q
P
T
EZ JkH
qd
γM K I
D G
H
U
h
K
b
Γ
uϑ
D
β
O
NQ
P
D
mTdJk IG β
γq
M
0.5 b
U
h
H
E
Γ
uZϑ
β

0.45 β
β
0.4

0.35

0.3
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
CD - Drag Coefficient
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Drag minus Idealized Induced Drag

Wing-Body w/Static Aeroelastics
All Solutions
Grid Type
Grid Type A A2

Unstructured D D1
d D2
Custom Unst T T1
0.7 Overset E E1
Multiblock G G1
Custom Cart H H1
T Zq h H2 q Z
TuB
Z
E K G I I1 E
γφKbJq
G
u
0.65 O
EqΨ K JhA
T Uuφ γ β I2AU
E OTZB
Z uφNγ
U ΨG k Γ J hΨ
ΓJ1
k
U
K G
φγN Ψ u
ETqΨNK Jςh A kAςb QIJN EKZ
q
γ dk H OGd IΓ kϑ I H ϑ HJ2ϑ h
Γ I
kQJγBTΨ d
d
Uu K ςGO
J K1 U
NO d
JKN A
h
ς I ς Hς ΓA
K2ϑh IN Jd
Q
u
K
O
CL - Lift Coefficient

ZΨ Γ ϑ D k b D
qZN
φγqT k d H
EΞ E d
T Ψ
0.6 I φk
γ
D Ξ Q
GQ Q
P P γ K3 Hϑ Ξ P PDΞ G I
U
u
h
A
ς Γϑ Q ϑ Ξ K4 A
Ξh U
Γ
ϑςB
NEγqdJK H Ξ D P Γ P Kd
Q
Ψ
ZT kVQ
P M β M1 H VbP
Ξ Z
E D
qγN
Q
u
kJ
Ψ
ΞΓ
U
u
A
h P I G β
N N1 hUA Γ ΞT
P G I
ς ϑ D ς ϑD
0.55 NO ΨdJVH
K I
β O β O1βH VBQ O dKI
Ψ
E q
γ
Q
P
T
φΓZ k D φ O2 b
EZuDq
P
TγkJ
N
Ξ
U
u G Pβ P1 β Ξ
Γφ G
ςA ϑ
h V β
Q Q1V
βhU Aςϑ
V HK
ΨdJ D Q2 V D
HV
B
β βK
NO γqD I V q O
Qq
N JΨ
γkd I
E
ΞφQ
P
Γ ZT k G β U β U1
b Eφu
Z
Ξ
Γ PDT
G
0.5 U
uςA ϑ V βVU
U2 A ϑ
VhH u hVς
β Z β Z1HB
B B1b
β
b B2
0.45 β β β B3
ς V2

β Ξ β V3
Ψ V4
V V1
0.4 m M2
0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 Test NTF
Test Ames
CDp = CD - CL^2/(pi*AR)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Lift and Pitching Moment

Wing-Body w/Static Aeroelastics
Grid Type & Turbulence Model
Geolab and Boeing Turbulence Model
0.7 Unstructured Grids 0.7 0.7 SA
SA QRC
Z SST ζZ
B
Z
E ZZZ B Δ
E K
Z K
b KEb Z k-e, k-kL
ζZ
0.65 Z
B
E J 0.65 J ZZB 0.65
EARSM ΔE J
K k
h h k KE K h k
Z
K
Z
E
B
b
J
k
h H H hk b J EK
B
ZZZ LBM-VLES ΔζZ K Jh
E k H
k
J
h H
ϑ
H h b k JZDZJK J
h k H ϕ B B1
K
Z
J Z K
EΔζJk ϕ D
CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient
0.6 E
Z
k b ϑ D 0.6 E
Z
k 0.6 δ b2
h
B
ϑ H
ϑ P
D P H hP BP D hϕ ϕ HP D P D D1
P P DJK P
K
J
Z
E
k
P
Z
H
b
V
P
D H
Vb PZEZPk Z ζZJK
EΔ
P H D
kVP E E1
h
ϑ D h D hϕ D H H1
0.55 K B
H
V δ 0.55 δ H V B K 0.55 VH
K
J PkJ ζZJkD h
k
Z b b H2
P
E D δ ZZD
E EP
Z
h
ϑ
V
B
δ V δ δ
Vh Z
HB V
hΔ
VHKD
ϕ V J J1
K
J
k
D
H
b δ δ V δδ
b VE
DK
ZPDkJ Jk V ϕ J2
0.5
D
P
Z
E
Z
ϑ δ V 0.5 δ V ZZ 0.5 EP
D
ΔζZϕ V K K1
h
V
B
H H
h BV Vh
H k K2
b b P P1
δ δ V V1
0.45 0.45 0.45 Z Z1
ζ Z2
Δ Z3
δ B3
0.4 0.4 0.4
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 -0.05 -0.1 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 Test
0.04NTF
CDp = CD - CL^2/(pi*AR) Test Ames
Angle-of-Attack CM - Pitching Moment

Custom Unstructured Grids Turbulence Model

SA
0.7 0.7 0.7
SA QRC
m SST
q q k-e, k-kL q
0.65 m
q γ 0.65 γ q 0.65 qΨ γ
Ξ Ψ γ NΨ
EARSM
m γ Ξ
N
Γ G LBM-VLES Nγ Ψ Γ
q N q qΨN
Ξ Γ d G γN Ψd dΓ
d
d N d γΓ d
M γ
d
m
N N G NN Ψd NqΨ
CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient
Γ
d
q Ξγqd
0.6 Ξ
γ 0.6 0.6 γ
Ψ Ψ
M ΞΞ Ξ Ξ Ξ
Γ Ψ G Γ
M
d
N
Ξ
m
q Ψ Ξ qγ Nd
Ψ d
NγqΨ Ξ d D2
γ Ξ
Ψ
Γ GΞ Γ γ K3
0.55 d
M
Ξ
N M 0.55 d Ψ 0.55 d
NΞγqΨ Γ K4
q
m
γ
Ψ
Γ Ξq
G γN Γ M M1
Ξ Ψ m M2
d
q dΨ γd
NΞq
0.5
M
N
γ
m
Ψ
Γ 0.5 Ξ γqN
G 0.5 Γ N N1
q Q2
Ξ V3
Ψ V4
0.45 0.45 0.45 Test NTF
Test Ames

0.4 0.4 0.4

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 -0.05 -0.1 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Angle-of-Attack CM - Pitching Moment CDp = CD - CL^2/(pi*AR)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Lift and Pitching Moment

Wing-Body w/Static Aeroelastics
Grid Type & Turbulence Model
Overset Grids Turbulence Model
SA
0.7 0.7 0.7
SA QRC
u SST
k-e, k-kL
0.65 O U
u
φ
A 0.65 AUφ Ou 0.65
EARSM uφ
U
A
U
u
φ
A Uφ
A u LBM-VLES uφO
U
A
O U
u
A O AU O O u O u O
U
A A A2
CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient
0.6 φ 0.6 φ 0.6 φ O O O1
U
u
A U
A u
U
A φ O2
u O U U1
U
u
A UA u
U
A u U2
0.55 O 0.55 O 0.55 O Test NTF
φu
uφ
φ
A
U
u U
A UA Test Ames
O uO O
0.5 φ
U
u
A 0.5 Aφ
U 0.5 uφ
UA

0.45 0.45 0.45

0.4 0.4 0.4

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 -0.05 -0.1 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
CDp = CD - CL^2/(pi*AR)
Angle-of-Attack CM - Pitching Moment

Structured Multiblock Grids Turbulence Model

SA
0.7 0.7 0.7
SA QRC
SST
T T
k-e, k-kL Tς
0.65 T 0.65 T 0.65
EARSM Tς Q
Q
T ς
Q
Q ς Q T LBM-VLES TςQ
Q ς ς ς ς Q Q
CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient
0.6 T Q 0.6 QT 0.6 ςT
Q
ς ς
Q
T TQ QςT T T1
ς ς Q Q1
0.55 0.55 0.55 ς V2
Q
T TQ Q
Tς Test NTF
ς ς Test Ames

0.5
Q
T 0.5
Q
T 0.5
QT
ς
ς ς

0.45 0.45 0.45

0.4 0.4 0.4

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 -0.05 -0.1 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Angle-of-Attack CM - Pitching Moment CDp = CD - CL^2/(pi*AR)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Lift and Pitching Moment

Wing-Body w/Static Aeroelastics
Grid Type & Turbulence Model
Custom Cartesian Turbulence Model
SA
0.7 0.7 0.7
SA QRC
SST
G G k-e, k-kL G
0.65 0.65 0.65
EARSM
G G LBM-VLES G
I I I
GI
I I G G1
G
I G I I
CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient
0.6 I
G 0.6 I
G 0.6 IG I I1
β I2
I
G β β GI IG β Test NTF
Test Ames
0.55 β 0.55 β 0.55 β
I I I
G β β G G β
I I I
0.5 G β 0.5 β G 0.5 G β
β β β

0.45 β 0.45 β 0.45 β

β β β
0.4 0.4 0.4
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 -0.05 -0.1 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
CDp = CD - CL^2/(pi*AR)
Angle-of-Attack CM - Pitching Moment
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Symbols - Test Data

Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions Unstructured
Custom Unst
All Solutions Overset
Multiblock
M=0.85, AOA=3.0 Custom Cart

-1.2
Eta=0.131 -1.2
Eta=0.201 -1.2
Eta=0.286

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C

-1.2
Eta=0.397 -1.2
Eta=0.502 -1.2
Eta=0.603

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Symbols - Test Data

Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions Unstructured
Custom Unst
All Solutions Overset
Multiblock
M=0.85, AOA=3.0 Custom Cart

-1.2
Eta=0.727 -1.2
Eta=0.846 -1.2
Eta=0.950

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Symbols - Test Data

Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions Unstructured
Custom Unst
All Solutions Overset
Multiblock
M=0.85, AOA=3.25 Custom Cart

-1.2
Eta=0.131 -1.2
Eta=0.201 -1.2
Eta=0.286

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C

-1.2
Eta=0.397 -1.2
Eta=0.502 -1.2
Eta=0.603

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Symbols - Test Data

Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions Unstructured
Custom Unst
All Solutions Overset
Multiblock
M=0.85, AOA=3.25 Custom Cart

-1.2
Eta=0.727 -1.2
Eta=0.846 -1.2
Eta=0.950

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016
Symbols - Test Data
Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions Unstructured
Custom Unst
All Solutions Overset
Multiblock
M=0.85, AOA=3.5 Custom Cart

-1.2
Eta=0.131 -1.2
Eta=0.201 -1.2
Eta=0.286

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C

-1.2
Eta=0.397 -1.2
Eta=0.502 -1.2
Eta=0.603

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Symbols - Test Data

Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions Unstructured
Custom Unst
All Solutions Overset
Multiblock
M=0.85, AOA=3.5 Custom Cart

-1.2
Eta=0.727 -1.2
Eta=0.846 -1.2
Eta=0.950

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016
Symbols - Test Data
Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions Unstructured
Custom Unst
All Solutions Overset
Multiblock
M=0.85, AOA=3.75 Custom Cart

-1.2
Eta=0.131 -1.2
Eta=0.201 -1.2
Eta=0.286

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C

-1.2
Eta=0.397 -1.2
Eta=0.502 -1.2
Eta=0.603

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Symbols - Test Data

Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions Unstructured
Custom Unst
All Solutions Overset
Multiblock
M=0.85, AOA=3.75 Custom Cart

-1.2
Eta=0.727 -1.2
Eta=0.846 -1.2
Eta=0.950

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Symbols - Test Data

Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions Unstructured
Custom Unst
All Solutions Overset
Multiblock
M=0.85, AOA=4.00 Custom Cart

-1.2
Eta=0.131 -1.2
Eta=0.201 -1.2
Eta=0.286

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C

-1.2
Eta=0.397 -1.2
Eta=0.502 -1.2
Eta=0.603

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions Symbols - Test Data

Unstructured
All Solutions Custom Unst
Overset
M=0.85, AOA=4.00 Multiblock
Custom Cart

-1.2
Eta=0.727 -1.2
Eta=0.846 -1.2
Eta=0.950

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Lift and Pitching Moment

Wing-Body w/Static Aeroelastics
Outliers - CL Break at AOA=3.50 or Below
Turbulence Model
Turbulence Model
SA
SA QRC
0.7 SST 0.7
k-e, k-kl
EARSM
LBM-VLES
D D1
0.65 J 0.65 d D2 J
β I2
J J J1 J
d d
ϑ ϑ J2 ϑ d
d
M
d J M M1 J d
CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient
J d ϑ D ϑ DJ
d
0.6 0.6 P P1
Ξ
ϑ ϑ
P
Ξ Ξ
P
D M
P β B3 ΞΞ ΞP
ϑ ϑ
P
P D
M
d
J
P V ΞD Ξ V3
VΞ DJd
V P P
V1
Ξ
ϑ
P
D
β
Test NTF
β Ξ ϑ D
0.55 d
M
J V δ M β
0.55
Test Ames β β V d
P
Ξ δ D PJ
D
ϑ β
V
δ β β βΞ
V ϑ
V
D δ δ ββ V D
d V V
J
M
P
D PDdJ
0.5 Ξ δ
ϑ
β
V 0.5 β
β Ξ V ϑ
V β β V
δ β
0.45 β 0.45 β

β β

0.4 0.4
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 -0.1 -0.12
Angle-of-Attack CM - Pitching Moment
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Lift and Pitching Moment

Wing-Body w/Static Aeroelastics
Outliers - CL Break between AOA=3.50 and 3.75
Turbulence Model
Turbulence Model
SA
SA QRC
0.7 SST 0.7
k-e, k-kl
EARSM
LBM-VLES
G G G
K G1 K
0.65 0.65 I I1
K k K K1 k KG
G N N
K k
N I k K2
k I NK
k I N N1 kI
K NI
G Test NTF G I N NK
CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient
N
0.6 kI
G 0.6 Test Ames kG
I
K
N NK
kI
G kGI

0.55 K 0.55 N KI
kI
N k
G G
K K
kI
N kN I
0.5 G 0.5 G

0.45 0.45

0.4 0.4
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 -0.1 -0.12
Angle-of-Attack CM - Pitching Moment
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Lift and Pitching Moment

Wing-Body w/Static Aeroelastics
Outliers - CL Break between AOA=3.75 and 4.00
Turbulence Model
Turbulence Model
SA
SA QRC
0.7 SST 0.7
k-e, k-kl
EARSM
LBM-VLES
O O1
0.65 O 0.65 ς V2 O
Ψ Ψ Ψ V4
Ψ Ψ
Ψ ς O ς
Test NTF
Test Ames Ψ
ς ς ς ς O Ψ
CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient
O
Ψ O
0.6 0.6
ς ς
Ψ Ψ
ς ς
0.55 Ψ
O 0.55 OΨ
ς ς
Ψ
O OΨ
0.5 ς 0.5 ς

0.45 0.45

0.4 0.4
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 -0.1 -0.12
Angle-of-Attack CM - Pitching Moment
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Lift and Pitching Moment

Wing-Body w/Static Aeroelastics
Solutions minus All Outliers
Turbulence Model Type
Turbulence Model
SA
SA QCR ΔCM=0.044
0.7 SST 0.7
k-e, k-kl
EARSM
B
m
Z
T
q u B
ZT
E Eq
0.65 m
Z
q
b
U
u
φγ 0.65 φγUφ
b Zu
ΔCL=0.043 B
T
E b EqT B
m h Γ h
Z
E
φγ
U
u
b Γ φγ
φU b E Zu
q
T h H A2 H Γh q
T
B
γ Γ φ γ B
U
u
b
h H T T1 H hΓ b φU
Zu
CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient
m
Z
q b
Γ
0.6 E
T
φγ H 0.6 E E1
H γEq
φT
U
u
h
b
B
Γ H H1 hΓU
φB
m
q
Z
E
γ
T
Γ
H
b h H2 Hb EZTqu
γ
U
u
b
h γ K3 h Uφ Γ
B Γ K4 H B
0.55 q
H 0.55 q
φγ
m
T
E
Z b φ O2 b EφuT
Z γ
Γ Γ
U
u
b
h q Q2 h Uφ
B
H U U1 HB
q b b γq
φγ
T
m
E u U2 Γφu T
0.5 Z
Γ
U
u
b 0.5 Z Z1 Uφ EZ
h h
B
H B B1 HB
b b
b B2
m M2
0.45 0.45 Test NTF
Test Ames

0.4 0.4
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 -0.1 -0.12
Angle-of-Attack CM - Pitching Moment
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Drag minus Idealized Induced Drag

Wing-Body w/Static Aeroelastics
Solutions minus All Outliers
Turbulence Model Type
Turbulence Model
SA
SA QCR
0.7 SST
k-e, k-kl A A2
EARSM T T1
Z
TΔζq E E1
E H H1
Z
0.65 ΔEζq
T AU
uφ γ h H2
Z
ζq uφ γ
U h Γ γ K3
E
ΔT A
h H K4
Γ Γ
uγ
U
A
h H φ O2
ζZ
CL - Lift Coefficient

Γ
0.6 φγqT
EΔ
H q Q2
U
uΓ
h
A U U1
EΓ Z
qζT
γΔ H u U2
U
u
A
h B B1
b B2
0.55
E qζZ H
γT
φΓ m M2
uAΔ
U
h Z Z1
H ζ Z2
E γqζT
φΓ Z Δ Z3
0.5 U
uAΔ Test NTF
h
H Test Ames

0.45

0.4
0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
CDp = CD - CL^2/(pi*AR)
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Wing-Body
Section Lift Coefficient
M=0.85
0.8 0.8
Eta=0.201 0.8
Eta=0.286
Eta=0.131 Test
0.75 Turbulence Model 0.75 E E1 0.75
SA H H1
h
CLs - Section Lift Coefficient

CLs - Section Lift Coefficient

H2

CLs -Section Lift Coefficient

0.7 SA QCR 0.7 N N1 0.7
SST P P1 G
Z
E
Z G
Z h
H
0.65 K-e, k-kL 0.65
Z1
0.65 O
E
h
EARSM G G1
G
Z
E H N
O O1 h N
0.6 LBM-VLES 0.6
G
Z
G
Z
E
h
H
0.6 h H
G
Z
O
N
E N
P
E
O H
G
Z
E
h
H h P P
G
Z
N
E
P P
G
Z
E h H
N N
0.55 0.55 0.55
G
Z h
H G
O
Z
E
N
h H O
G
Z
N
E
P
h
E
O
h H N H
G
Z
E H O
0.5 h 0.5 G
Z
N
E
P
h P P P 0.5 N
G
Z
P
E
h
h H
O
G
Z
E
N
H N N N O
G
Z
N
E
P
h
H P H
G
Z
E
N
P
h Premature0.45 H Premature
0.45
H P P P O
N
G
Z
P
E
h 0.45
O
G
Z
E
N
P
h H
O
G
Z
N
E
P
H
P4 flow flow
0.4 h 0.4 0.4
2 2.5 3 3.5
Angle-of-Attack
4.5 5
separation
2 2.5 3 3.5
Angle-of-Attack
4
separation
4.5 5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Angle-of-Attack
4 4.5 5

Eta=0.397 Eta=0.502 Eta=0.603

0.8 Z
E 0.8 0.8
G
h
O
Z H
E
0.75 h
G N 0.75 Z 0.75
Z E
G
h N
Z
E H
Z O
E
G
N
N
P
CLs - Section Lift Coefficient

CLs - Section Lift Coefficient

CLs - Section Lift Coefficient

G
N
H E P
h P P P
O
N
Z N H
0.7 0.7 0.7
E Z
N
O G P Z N
G
H E
G
h h
P
H
H
h h O
N
N E N
G CFD shock
N
Z
h P
E
P Z
N
E P N P Z
0.65
G 0.65
G
h H
P 0.65 Z
G
E h G
P E too far aft
O H O
N H
N
Z
P
E
h
G Z
P
E
G
h N H H h
0.6
H 0.6 0.6
h H
O
N
Z
P N
O
P
Z H O
N H
E
G
h E
G
h Z H
P
G
E H
0.55 H 0.55 H 0.55
h
H
0.5 0.5 0.5

0.45 0.45 0.45 Experimental error

0.4 0.4 0.4
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Angle-of-Attack Angle-of-Attack Angle-of-Attack
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Wing-Body
Section Lift Coefficient
M = 0.85
0.7
Eta=0.727 0.7
Eta=0.846 0.7
Eta=0.950
P
Z N
N Z G
P N N
N
O
Z E O N P
0.65
N G
E
P G
P E Z
G 0.65
N
Z O
Z
P
Z
G
E
0.65

E h h h E
G
Z
P h N
O
G
Z E
P
G
E
G
CLs - Section Lift Coefficient

CLs - Section Lift Coefficient

CLs -Section Lift Coefficient
0.6 N
O
G
P h H H H 0.6
G
N E
P h h 0.6
Z
E H P
Z h H H
N
O H E H
h H
G
P
E h
Z H G
N
O
P
0.55 0.55
Z h
E H
0.55

h
H N
G
O
P
0.5 0.5 Z H
E h 0.5 N N
Z
G
P
O
Z E
Turbulence Model H
h Test Z G
N
G
E
P
P
E
SA E N
O
G
Z h
H
0.45 0.45 E1 0.45
E
P h
SA QCR H H1 G
N
P
Z H
E h H
H
SST h H2
G
N
O h
0.4
k-e, k-kL
0.4
N N1
0.4
P
Z H
E h
P P1 N
G
O
P
0.35 EARSM 0.35 Z Z1 0.35 Z H
E h
LBM-VLES G G1 H
Symbols
h- Test Data
0.3
2 2.5 3
Case 2: Wing-Body
3.5 4 4.5 5 Custom Unst
0.3
2 2.5 3 3.5 4
O
4.5
O1
5
Unstructured
0.3
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Finest Grid - Most Solutions
Angle-of-Attack Angle-of-Attack Angle-of-Attack
Overset
Multiblock
Excessive aft loading in M=0.85, CL=0.50 Custom Cart
CFD contributes to excessive lift and pitching moment outboard
-1.2
Eta=0.727 -1.2
Eta=0.846 -1.2
Eta=0.950

-1
CFD
-1
solutions at CL=0.50 ~ α = 2.5 to 2.75
-1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016
Symbols - Test Data
Case 3: Wing-Body Unstructured
Custom Unst
Section Pitching Moment Coefficient Overset
Multiblock
M = 0.85 Custom Cart
Test
E E1
0 H H1 0
Eta=0.201 0
Eta=0.286
Eta=0.131
Cms - Section Pitching Moment Coefficient

Cms - Section Pitching Moment Coefficient

H2

Cms -Section Pitching Moment Coefficient

h
N N1
-0.02 -0.02 H -0.02
H
G
h P P1 h
E
G
N
P H
E
P
N H
G P P h
E
G
N
P H P P P
h
P
E
N H
G P P Z Z1 G
h
E
P H N
H N N
P
h
P
N
E H N N h
G
E
N H H
-0.04 G
h
N
E H
G
N N
H G G1 -0.04 Z G
h
E h H -0.04 h H
h
E G
h H G
E h
G E
P
N
G h H P P P P
Z E h
G Z E E
P
N
G h H N
H N N
E Z P
E
G
N h H
Z Z E
G
N h
G
E h H
Z Z G
E h
-0.06 Z -0.06 Z -0.06 Z E
G
Z Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
-0.08 Z -0.08 -0.08 Z
Z

-0.1 -0.1 -0.1

-0.12 -0.12
Cp’s OK probable calculation error -0.12
-0.14 -0.14 -0.14

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Angle-of-Attack Angle-of-Attack Angle-of-Attack

0
Eta=0.397 0
Eta=0.502 0
Eta=0.603
Cms - Section Pitching Moment Coefficient

Cms - Section Pitching Moment Coefficient

Cms - Section Pitching Moment Coefficient

-0.02 -0.02 -0.02

-0.04 -0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06 -0.06 H H

H Z
h
h H H Z
h
E
P
N
Z h H Z E
E
P
N
Z H
P P H Z Z Z h E
-0.08 h
E
P P
H P -0.08 Z
h H
Z H h -0.08 Z H
N
Z h
E h Z H h H E N N
N
Z N
h H E
P E
P h P
Z H h
H H
h h P
E N N N N P
E h h
P
Z P
H h E
P P
Z h
E H N E
N N Z H E E P
E N N P
Z E N P
Z
N P P
N N
-0.1 E -0.1 E -0.1 N
h
Z E

-0.12 -0.12 -0.12

-0.14 -0.14 -0.14

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Angle-of-Attack Angle-of-Attack Angle-of-Attack
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016
Symbols - Test Data
Case 3: Wing-Body Unstructured
Custom Unst
Section Pitching Moment Coefficient Overset
Multiblock
M = 0.85 Custom Cart

0
Eta=0.727 0
Eta=0.846 0
Eta=0.950
Cms - Section Pitching Moment Coefficient

Cms - Section Pitching Moment Coefficient

Cms -Section Pitching Moment Coefficient
-0.02 -0.02 -0.02
Z Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
-0.04 -0.04 -0.04
Z h h
Z Z Z h E
H
Z Z h H
E H
E P
N
-0.06 Z -0.06 Z Z -0.06 h H
E P
N
H h H N
P
Z Z h H E N
P
Z Z Z H h H E N
P
E E
P P
N
H h h N
-0.08 h E -0.08 h h H -0.08
H
h N h H H E
h h
H E h H E
h H N
P P h H E E P P
H E E P h H E P N N
-0.1 E P P
N N -0.1 H N
P N -0.1
E P N E P
N
P
N N E P
N
P
N
-0.12 -0.12 -0.12

-0.14 -0.14 -0.14

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Angle-of-Attack Angle-of-Attack Angle-of-Attack
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Lift and Pitching Moment

Wing-Body w/Static Aeroelastics
Solutions minus All Outliers* - Extremes
Turbulence Model Type *G is considered an outlier

Turbulence Model
SA
SA QCR
0.7 k-e, k-kl 0.7
EARSM
LBM-VLES
Z Z
G G
0.65 Z b 0.65 b Z
G h h
Z b H H bG Z
h h
G
h H H h bG
CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient
Z b Z
0.6 G H 0.6 H H1 H G
h h
Z Z1
Z H
b Hb ZG
G b B2
h h H2 h
0.55 H 0.55 G G1 H
Z b b Z G
G Test NTF
h Test Ames h
H H
b b
0.5 Z
G 0.5 Z G
h h
H H
b b

0.45 0.45

0.4 0.4
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 -0.1 -0.12
Angle-of-Attack CM - Pitching Moment
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Turbulence Model
Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions SA
SA QCR
Solutions at Force & Moment Extremes k-kL
EARSM
M=0.85, AOA=3.5 LBM-VLES

-1.2
Eta=0.131 -1.2
Eta=0.201 -1.2
Eta=0.286
H1
-1 Z1 -1 -1
B2
-0.8 H2 -0.8 -0.8
G1
-0.6 a=3.36 -0.6 -0.6
a=3.62
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4
Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C

-1.2
Eta=0.397 -1.2
Eta=0.502 -1.2
Eta=0.603

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Turbulence Model
Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions SA
SA QCR
Solutions at Force & Moment Extremes k-kL
EARSM
M=0.85, AOA=3.5 LBM-VLES

-1.2
Eta=0.727 -1.2
Eta=0.846 -1.2
Eta=0.950
H1
-1 Z1 -1 -1
B2
-0.8 H2 -0.8 -0.8
G1
-0.6 a=3.38 -0.6 -0.6
a=3.62
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4
Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Turbulence Model
Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions SA
SA QCR
Solutions at Force & Moment Extremes k-kL
EARSM
M=0.85, AOA=4.00 LBM-VLES

-1.2
Eta=0.131 -1.2
Eta=0.201 -1.2
Eta=0.286
H1
-1 Z1 -1 -1
B2
-0.8 H2 -0.8 -0.8
G1
-0.6 a=3.86 -0.6 -0.6
a=4.12
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4
Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C

-1.2
Eta=0.397 -1.2
Eta=0.502 -1.2
Eta=0.603

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions Turbulence Model

SA
Solutions at Force & Moment Extremes SA QCR
k-kL
M=0.85, AOA=4.00 EARSM
LBM-VLES

-1.2
Eta=0.727 -1.2
Eta=0.846 -1.2
Eta=0.950

-1 H1 -1 -1
Z1
-0.8
B2 -0.8 -0.8
G1
-0.6
H2 -0.6 -0.6
a=3.86
a=4.12
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4
Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016
Turbulence Model Turbulence Model
CaseDistributions
: Wing-Body Wing Pressue 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue SA Distributions
SA QCR
SA
SA QCR
Solutions at Force & Momentk-kL
lutions at Force & Moment Extremes Extremes k-kL
Section
M=0.85, Lift Coefficient M=0.85, AOA=4.00
AOA=3.5 α = 3.50LBM-VLES
EARSM
α = 4.00 EARSM
LBM-VLES

131 Eta=0.131
Eta=0.201 Eta=0.201
Eta=0.286 Eta=0.286
-1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2
H1 H1
Z1 -1 -1 Z1 -1 -1 -1
B2 B2
H2 -0.8 -0.8
H2 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8
G1 G1
a=3.36 a=3.86
-0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6
a=3.62 a=4.12
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4
Cp

Cp

Cp
Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.6 0.8 1 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C X/C X/C

397 -1.2 -1.2

Eta=0.397
Eta=0.502 -1.2 -1.2
Eta=0.502
Eta=0.603 -1.2
Eta=0.603

-1 -1 -1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
Cp

Cp

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Low experimental lift level due to “bad” pressures
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
0.6 0.8 1 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 3 - Observations
• No clear break-outs with grid type or turbulence model (except for some
outliers)
• In general, the k-e Lam-Bremhorst and LBM-VLES results tend outside the
norm of the other solutions but this could have been due to grid/solution type.
• For all solutions minus outliers
• Tighter forces and moment at α=2.5°
• Significant force and moment spread at α=4.0° ΔCL=0.043, ΔCM=0.044
• Excessive aft-loading on outboard wing sections contributes to too negative
section pitching moments and excessive section lift.
• Steady aeroelastic effects are significant
• Inclusion greatly improved agreement with wind tunnel
• High angles of attack characterized by significant shock induced separation
• How steady is the real flow at these conditions? Need dynamic test data?
• If there is a significant amount of flow unsteadiness at high angles of attack is RANS
adequate or do we need URANS or DES?
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Outline:  
• Par.cipant  Data  
• Case  2:  CRM  Nacelle-­‐Pylon  Drag  Increment    
• Case  3:  CRM  WB  Sta.c  Aero-­‐Elas.c  Effect  
• Case  4:  CRM  WB  Grid  Adapta.on    
• Case  5:  CRM  WB  Coupled  Aero-­‐Structural  
Simula.on  
• Separa.on  
• Observa.ons/Issues  
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case  4:  CRM  WB  Grid  Adapta.on:  

• NASA  Common  Research  Model,  Wing-­‐Body  
• Mach=0.85,  CL=0.500±0.001  
• Chord  Reynolds  Number:    5x106  
• Solufon  Adapted  Grid  
   
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 4: CD_TOT - WB Grid Adaption

All Solutions by Grid Type and Turbulence Model
Grid Type
Mixed Element Turbulence Model
0.032 All Tets 0.032 SA
Custom Cart k-e, k-kl

I I

0.03 0.03
P P
I I
π π
CD_TOT

CD_TOT
5 Counts 5 Counts
0.028 0.028
β β
β I P
β I P
P P P P
P P P P
0.026
PPP
PP
πππ π π π π π ππ 0.026
PPP
PP
πππ π π π π π ππ
πππ π πππ π
50M

0.024 0.024
0 2E-05 4E-05 6E-05 8E-05 0.0001 0 2E-05 4E-05 6E-05 8E-05 0.0001
GRIDFAC GRIDFAC
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case 4: CD_TOT - Wing-Body Grid Adaption

All Solutions by Grid Type and Turbulence Model

0.027 0.027
Fixed Grid Solutions Fixed Grid Solutions
Thin Lines Thin Lines
k k
P P
k ϑ
K P k ϑ
K P
1 Count
Kk
1 Count
Kk
0.0265 0.0265
k T k T
kϑ ϑ kϑ ϑ
k K k K
K K
K Jd K Jd
ϑKϑ P ϑKϑ P
CD_TOT

CD_TOT
ϑ a ϑ A
Jd P Jd P
0.026
J
ZZDJZ Z Z Z
T
π 0.026 ZZDJZ Z Z Z
J

T
π
ζζ ζ ζJd b π A ζζ ζ ζJd b π A
b
ζ ΓHΔ
ζ b Δ
ζ
ζ γH
ΔDΔΔJΔ H
H
ΔπQ πP π ΔDΔΔJΔ H
H
Δ
πQ π P π
πππ πππ
bB bB
dB B a dB B A
DBϕH Bb
b Γ aγ π
P q DBϕH
b
Bb P
γ Γ π q
DBϕ P Q P U M DBϕ PQ AP
U M
ϕb T π ϕb T π
P P
ππ π π π
H Γ P Aq M Mu H γ P Aq M Mu
ϕ T PaQaP ϕ T PAQAΓ P
ϕ ϕ
πππ π π
γ U U
ϕH P
ΓPP U
EEaQ q u ππ ϕHEEA P
γPP U
Q q u
0.0255
P
Q u
EUγEU
q Au
π Grid Type 0.0255
P
Q u
EUΓEU
q u
A
π Turbulence Model
q E
γu A E
AA O ππO Unstructured
q E
Γu A E
AA O ππ
O SA
O O O Custom Unst O O O
SA QRC
N
50M N Overset N
N
SST
NN N N
Multiblock NN N N
k-e, k-kl
Custom Cart LBM-VLES
0.025 0.025
0 2E-05 4E-05 6E-05 8E-05 0.0001 0 2E-05 4E-05 6E-05 8E-05 0.0001
GRIDFAC GRIDFAC
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016
Symbols - Test Data
Case 4: Wing-Body Grid Adaption P1
P2
Unstructured
Custom Unst
Finest Grid Fixed Grid Soluions Shown
M=0.85, CL=0.50 by Thin Lines

-1.2 -1.2
Eta=0.201 -1.2
Eta=0.286
Eta=0.131
-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C

-1.2
Eta=0.397 -1.2
Eta=0.502 -1.2
Eta=0.603

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

cp

cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C, xoc X/C, xoc
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016
Symbols - Test Data
Case 4: Wing-Body Grid Adaption P1
P2
Unstructured
Custom Unst
Finest Grid Fixed Grid Solutions Shown
M=0.85, CL=0.50 by Thin Lines

-1.2 -1.2
Eta=0.846 -1.2
Eta=0.286
Eta=0.727
-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Outline:  
• Par.cipant  Data  
• Case  2:  CRM  Nacelle-­‐Pylon  Drag  Increment    
• Case  3:  CRM  WB  Sta.c  Aero-­‐Elas.c  Effect  
• Case  4:  CRM  WB  Grid  Adapta.on    
• Case  5:  CRM  WB  Coupled  Aero-­‐Structural  
Simula.on  
• Separa.on  
• Observa.ons/Issues  
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Case  5:  CRM  WB  Coupled  Aero-­‐Structural  Simula.on  :  

• NASA  Common  Research  Model,  Wing-­‐Body  
• Mach=0.85,  CL=0.500±0.001  
• Chord  Reynolds  Number:    5x106  
• Fixed  li^  condifon  for  the  CRM  Wing-­‐Body  coupled  with  
computafonal  structural  analysis  
• Medium  Grid  
• Structural  FEM  from  the  CRM  Website  
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Outline:  
• Par.cipant  Data  
• Case  2:  CRM  Nacelle-­‐Pylon  Drag  Increment    
• Case  3:  CRM  WB  Sta.c  Aero-­‐Elas.c  Effect  
• Case  4:  CRM  WB  Grid  Adapta.on    
• Case  5:  CRM  WB  Coupled  Aero-­‐Structural  
Simula.on  
• Separa.on  
• Observa.ons/Issues  
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

General  Observa.ons:  
• Very  successful  workshop.    Thank  You!  
– 48  data  submi;als,  many  with  parametric  variafons  in  grid  type  and/
or  turbulence  model  
• Sfll  more  variafon  than  desired  
– Some  improvement  from  DPW5:    We  are  gewng  be;er  
• Drag  comparisons  to  wind  tunnel  generally  favorable  
– Variafons  similar  between  WT  and  CFD  
– Very  good  on  increment  for  nacelle-­‐pylon  
– Aeroelasfc  effects  essenfal  to  decent  agreement  with  test  data  
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

General  Observa.ons  (Cont’d):  

• Force/Moment  predicfons  be;er  at  α=2.5°  
– Less  separafon  
– Bigger  spread  at  α=4.0°  
• Pressures  consistent  with  Force/Moments  
– Wide  variafon  in  α  for  shock  separafon  for  many  cases
• Large  variafons  in  separafon  predicfon  
- Premature  flow  separafon  is  sfll  an  issue  for  many  solufons  
– SOB  Separafon  
– TE  Separafon  and  Buffet  onset  alpha  
– Is  RANS  good  enough?    Is  flow  steady?  
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016
A2
B1 Eta=0.727
-1.2 D1
Symbols - Test Data
-1
E1
H1 CaseIssues: Excessive Aft Loading
2: Wing-Body Unstructured
Custom Unst

-0.8
I1 Finest Grid - Most Solutions
Wing-Body Overset
Multiblock
J1
K3
M=0.85, CL=0.50
Mach=0.85, CL=0.50
Custom Cart
-0.6 M1
-1.2
Eta=0.727
N1 -1.2
Eta=0.846 -1.2
Eta=0.950
-0.4 Eta=0.727_alpha=2.60_CL=0.4818
-1 -1 -1
Cp

Eta=0.727_alpha=2.86_CL=0.5182
-0.8 -0.2 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 0 -0.6 -0.6

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

0.2
Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0.4
0 0 0
Symbols - Test Data
0.2 0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Case
1 3: Wing-Body
0.8
0.2 0.2 Unstructured
Custom Unst
0.4 X/C Section Pitching Moment Coefficient 0.4 0.4 Overset
Multiblock
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 M = 0.85 0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.6
0 0.2 0.4
Custom0.6
Cart 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C

0
Eta=0.727 0
Eta=0.846 0
Eta=0.950
Cms - Section Pitching Moment Coefficient

Cms - Section Pitching Moment Coefficient

Cms -Section Pitching Moment Coefficient

-0.02
Results
-0.02
in too negative pitching moment
-0.02
Z Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
-0.04 -0.04 -0.04
Z h h
Z Z Z h E
H
Z Z h H
E H
E P
N
-0.06 Z -0.06 Z Z -0.06 h H
E P
N
H h H N
P
Z Z h H E N
P
Z Z Z H h H E N
P
E E
P P
N
H h h N
-0.08 h E -0.08 h h H -0.08
H
h N h H H E
h h
H E h H E
h H N
P P h H E E P P
H E E P h H E P N N
-0.1 E P P
N N -0.1 H N
P N -0.1
E P N E P
N
P
N N E P
N
P
N
-0.12 -0.12 -0.12

-0.14 -0.14 -0.14

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Angle-of-Attack Angle-of-Attack Angle-of-Attack
 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Issues: Premature Flow Separation

Case 3: Lift and Pitching Moment
Wing-Body w/Static Aeroelastics
Case 3: Wing-Body
Outliers - CL Break at AOA=3.50 or Below
Turbulence Model
Mach=0.85, AOA=3.50 Symbols - Test Data
Turbulence Model
Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions Unstructured
Custom Unst
SA
All Solutions
Many solutions showed premature flow separation
SA QRC
Overset
Multiblock
0.7 SST
k-e, k-kl
EARSM
0.7
M=0.85, AOA=3.5 Custom Cart
LBM-VLES
D Eta=0.131
D1 Eta=0.201 Eta=0.286
0.65 J -1.2 0.65 d D2 J -1.2 -1.2
β I2
J J J1 J
d
ϑ -1 ϑ d -1 -1
M J d ϑ J2 d
J d
d M M1
CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient

J d ϑ D ϑ d DJ
0.6 0.6 P P1
Ξ
ϑ ϑ
P
Ξ Ξ
P
D M
P -0.8
β B3 ΞΞϑPϑ PΞ D
P
-0.8 -0.8
M
d
J
P V ΞD Ξ V3
V Ξ D Jd
V PΞP
V1
Ξ
ϑ
P
D
β -0.6
Test NTF
β
ϑ D
-0.6 -0.6

0.55 d
M
J V δ M β
0.55
Test Ames β β V d
P
Ξ δ D -0.4 PJ
D -0.4 -0.4
δ βV βϑΞ
Cp

Cp

Cp
ϑ β
V β
V
D δ δ -0.2 β β PDdJV -0.2 -0.2
d
J
M V V
P
D
0.5 Ξ
ϑ δ β
V 0.5 β
β V ϑΞD
V β 0 β V 0 0

δ 0.2
β 0.2 0.2
0.45 β 0.45
Case 3: Lift and0.4Pitching Moment β 0.4 0.4
β Wing-Body w/Static Aeroelastics β
Solutions minus
0.6
0
All Outliers 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5Grid Type 0 X/C
-0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 -0.1 -0.12 X/C TurbulenceX/C
Model
Angle-of-Attack
Grid Type Case
CM -3: Wing-Body
Pitching Moment Wing Pressue Distributions SA
SA QCR
Unstructured
Solutions at Force & Moment Extremes k-kL

Solutions without premature M=0.85, flow separation

0.7
Custom Unst
Overset -1.2 0.7
Eta=0.397 Eta=0.502 -1.2 -1.2
Eta=0.603
EARSM
Multiblock
Custom Cart
-1
AOA=3.5 -1 -1
LBM-VLES
B
m
Z
T
q u B
ZT
E Eq
0.65 m
Z
q
B
T
E
b
U
u
φγ
b -0.8
-1.2
0.65 Eta=0.131 φγUφ
b
EqT B
Zu
-0.8
-1.2
Eta=0.201 -0.8
-1.2
Eta=0.286
m h Γ h
Z φγ
U
u
b Γ Uφγb Zu
E
q
T h H A2 H Γh
φ q H1
E
T
B
γ Γ -0.6
φ γ B Z1 -0.6 -0.6
U
u
b
h H -1 T T1 H φU
hΓ b -1 -1
Zu
CL - Lift Coefficient

CL - Lift Coefficient

m
Z
q
E b
Γ Eq
0.6 T
φγ H 0.6 E E1
H φγT B2
U
u
h
b
B
Γ -0.4
-0.8 H H1 hUφB H2
Γ -0.4
-0.8 -0.4
-0.8
Cp

Cp

Cp
m
q
Z
E
γ
T
Γ
H
b h H2 Hb EZTqu
γG1
U
u
b
h -0.2
-0.6
γ K3 h Uφ Γ a=3.36 -0.2
-0.6 -0.2
-0.6
B Γ K4 H B
0.55 H 0.55
q
φγ
m
T
E
Z b φ O2 b EφuT
Z γ a=3.62
q
Γ 0 Γ 0 0
U
u
b
h -0.4 q Q2 h Uφ -0.4 -0.4
B B
Cp

Cp

Cp
H U U1 H
q b b γq
φγ
T
m
E 0.2 u U2 Γφu T 0.2 0.2
Z Uφ E
Z
Γ -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
0.5 U
u
b 0.5 Z Z1
h h
B
H 0.4 B B1 HB 0.4 0.4
b 0 b 0 0
b B2
m M2
0.45 0.6
0.2 0 0.45 0.2 0.6
0.2 0 0.6
0.2 0
Test NTF 0.6
0.4 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C
Test Ames X/C X/C
0.4 0.4 0.4

0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 0 0.2 -0.02 0.4 -0.04 0.6
-0.06 -0.08
0.8 -0.1
1 -0.12 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C X/C
Angle-of-Attack CM - Pitching Moment

-1.2
Eta=0.397 -1.2
Eta=0.502 -1.2
Eta=0.603

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Issues: Aft Shock Location

CaseWing
Case 3: Wing-Body 3: Wing-Body
Pressue Distributions
Turbulence Model
SA
SA QCR
Solutions at Force & Moment Extremes
Mach=0.85, k-kL
EARSM
M=0.85, AOA=3.5 LBM-VLES

-1.2
Eta=0.727 -1.2
Eta=0.846 -1.2
Eta=0.950
AOA=3.50 -1
H1
Z1 -1 -1
B2
-0.8 H2 -0.8 -0.8
G1
-0.6 a=3.38 -0.6 -0.6
a=3.62
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4
Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6
0 0.2
Case 3: Wing-Body Wing Pressue Distributions
0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.6
0 0.2
Turbulence Model
0.4 SA 0.6 0.8 1
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Solutions at Force & Moment Extremes

X/C X/C X/C
SA QCR

M=0.85, AOA=4.00 Shock location too k-kL far aft

EARSM
LBM-VLES
for most solutions
Eta=0.727 Eta=0.846 Eta=0.950
AOA=4.00 -1.2

-1 H1
-1.2

-1
-1.2

-1
Z1
-0.8
B2 -0.8 -0.8
G1
H2
We also need better
-0.6 -0.6 -0.6
a=3.86
a=4.12
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

experimental data
Cp

Cp

Cp
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

that shows just how 0 0 0

much the shock is 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4 0.4

moving at these 0.6 0.6 0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

flow conditions X/C X/C X/C

 6th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop
Washington D.C. – June 2016

Further  Study:  
• Include  boundary  layer  transifon  model?  
– Forced/Free  
• Unsteady  RANS?  
– Will  only  help  if  flow  is  unsteady  
• LES/DES?  
– DES  only  helps  for  off-­‐body  separafon  
– LES  (beyond  current  SOA?)