Identification of Best Practices for Predicting Inlet Performance Using FUN3D Part 2: Installed Inlets

A series of studies were performed to assess the impacts of boundary condition type and placement, grid refinement, and modeling parameters such as turbulence model and flux limiter on the predicted inlet performance for installed inlet configurations using the FUN3D flow solver. Two configurations were...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Bozeman, Michael Dwain, Carlson, Jan-renee
Format: Report
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:A series of studies were performed to assess the impacts of boundary condition type and placement, grid refinement, and modeling parameters such as turbulence model and flux limiter on the predicted inlet performance for installed inlet configurations using the FUN3D flow solver. Two configurations were considered for the study; a wall-mounted Boundary Layer Ingestion (BLI) inlet and the C607 propulsion model tested in the 8x6 Supersonic Wind Tunnel at the NASA Glenn Research Center. The results of the studies were to be used to recommend best practices, as well as to assess the accuracy of FUN3D for inlet predictions. The results of BLI inlet stud-ies showed a minimal impact of grid refinement on the predicted inlet performance for a constant mass flow rate through the inlet. For the C607 propulsion model, the results showed that while the FUN3D predictions at the Aerodynamic Inter-face Plane (AIP) qualitatively agree with the experimental data, FUN3D showed a tendency to overpredict the circumferential distortion metric (IDCmax) and un-derpredict both the radial distortion metric (IDRmax) and the pressure recovery at the AIP (PRAIP ), with the differences between FUN3D and the experimental data increasing with increasing grid refinement and Mach number. Additionally, the outflow boundary location studies performed for both geometries showed that the solution at the AIP was not significantly impacted by the outflow boundary location as long as it was not placed at the location of the AIP. The modeling parameter studies did not indicate a path forward for improved predictions for either inlet con-figuration. Finally, comparisons between the mass flow plug and outflow geometry versions of the C607 propulsion model illustrated favorable agreement, which indi-cates that the differences observed are not caused by the outflow boundary model for this problem. This problem poses significant challenges to Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) solvers due to the presence of shocks and flow separation in the inlet.