Analyses for the Second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop Using the EZNSS Code
The paper presents analyses that were performed with the EZNSS flow solver for the second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop. The reference test cases for the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop are based on two wind-tunnel experiments of the Benchmark Supercritical Wing, including a flutter test and force...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | AIAA journal 2018-01, Vol.56 (1), p.387-402 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 402 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 387 |
container_title | AIAA journal |
container_volume | 56 |
creator | Raveh, Daniella E Mor Yossef, Yair Levy, Yuval |
description | The paper presents analyses that were performed with the EZNSS flow solver for the second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop. The reference test cases for the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop are based on two wind-tunnel experiments of the Benchmark Supercritical Wing, including a flutter test and forced excitation tests. Three cases are addressed at different transonic flow conditions: two cases at lower Mach numbers of 0.7 and 0.74 and 3 and 0 deg angles of attack, respectively; and one more physically complex case at Mach 0.85 and a 5 deg angle of attack. The cases are analyzed with the EZNSS code, using several computational setups and turbulence models. The simulations are able to predict relatively accurately the flutter response and the response to prescribed motion at the lower Mach number. The higher-Mach-number case, which involves a strong shock, separated flow behind the shock, and some flow unsteadiness, is more challenging. In the static analysis, different turbulence models yield different upper-surface shock positions, and none of the models are able to capture accurately the pressure recovery behind the shock. However, the unsteady aerodynamic response to prescribed pitch motion is simulated with good correlation to the wind-tunnel data. The paper also presents flutter predictions based on unsteady aerodynamic reduced-order modeling, thus validating and assessing the efficiency of the reduced-order modeling and the flutter prediction methodology. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2514/1.J055960 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2167390862</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2167390862</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a316t-b6bfa40f36108ef99b1a4e6c816e1ceea1dfa5400bbbd00268e806e6d843dae23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLw0AUhQdRsFYX_oMBQXCReu-8OlmW4pOiQi2KmzBJbmxqzdSZdNF_b2sLLgRXhwvf_eAcxk4RekKjusTePWidGthjHdRSJtLq133WAQBMUGlxyI5inK0v0bfYYaNB4-arSJFXPvB2SnxMhW9KPqDgae5iWxf8KVBZF23tG_7iw0ec-gWfxLp5_3m4ensYj_nQl3TMDio3j3Syyy6bXF89D2-T0ePN3XAwSpxE0ya5ySunoJIGwVKVpjk6RaawaAgLIodl5bQCyPO8BBDGkgVDprRKlo6E7LKzrXcR_NeSYpvN_DKsi8RMqBSNMErofyk0fZmCNRvXxZYqgo8xUJUtQv3pwipDyDaTZpjtJl2z51vW1c792v6C3_aXcq0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2167390862</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Analyses for the Second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop Using the EZNSS Code</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Raveh, Daniella E ; Mor Yossef, Yair ; Levy, Yuval</creator><creatorcontrib>Raveh, Daniella E ; Mor Yossef, Yair ; Levy, Yuval</creatorcontrib><description>The paper presents analyses that were performed with the EZNSS flow solver for the second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop. The reference test cases for the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop are based on two wind-tunnel experiments of the Benchmark Supercritical Wing, including a flutter test and forced excitation tests. Three cases are addressed at different transonic flow conditions: two cases at lower Mach numbers of 0.7 and 0.74 and 3 and 0 deg angles of attack, respectively; and one more physically complex case at Mach 0.85 and a 5 deg angle of attack. The cases are analyzed with the EZNSS code, using several computational setups and turbulence models. The simulations are able to predict relatively accurately the flutter response and the response to prescribed motion at the lower Mach number. The higher-Mach-number case, which involves a strong shock, separated flow behind the shock, and some flow unsteadiness, is more challenging. In the static analysis, different turbulence models yield different upper-surface shock positions, and none of the models are able to capture accurately the pressure recovery behind the shock. However, the unsteady aerodynamic response to prescribed pitch motion is simulated with good correlation to the wind-tunnel data. The paper also presents flutter predictions based on unsteady aerodynamic reduced-order modeling, thus validating and assessing the efficiency of the reduced-order modeling and the flutter prediction methodology.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0001-1452</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1533-385X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2514/1.J055960</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics</publisher><subject>Aerodynamics ; Aeroelasticity ; Angle of attack ; Computational fluid dynamics ; Computer simulation ; Flow separation ; Flutter ; Mach number ; Model reduction ; Pressure recovery ; Reduced order models ; Supercritical wings ; Transonic flow ; Turbulence ; Turbulence models ; Vibration ; Wind tunnel testing ; Wind tunnels ; Workshops</subject><ispartof>AIAA journal, 2018-01, Vol.56 (1), p.387-402</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2017 by Raveh, Mor Yossef, and Levy. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. All requests for copying and permission to reprint should be submitted to CCC at ; employ the ISSN (print) or (online) to initiate your request. See also AIAA Rights and Permissions .</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 by Raveh, Mor Yossef, and Levy. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. All requests for copying and permission to reprint should be submitted to CCC at www.copyright.com; employ the ISSN 0001-1452 (print) or 1533-385X (online) to initiate your request. See also AIAA Rights and Permissions www.aiaa.org/randp.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a316t-b6bfa40f36108ef99b1a4e6c816e1ceea1dfa5400bbbd00268e806e6d843dae23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a316t-b6bfa40f36108ef99b1a4e6c816e1ceea1dfa5400bbbd00268e806e6d843dae23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27928,27929</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Raveh, Daniella E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mor Yossef, Yair</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levy, Yuval</creatorcontrib><title>Analyses for the Second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop Using the EZNSS Code</title><title>AIAA journal</title><description>The paper presents analyses that were performed with the EZNSS flow solver for the second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop. The reference test cases for the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop are based on two wind-tunnel experiments of the Benchmark Supercritical Wing, including a flutter test and forced excitation tests. Three cases are addressed at different transonic flow conditions: two cases at lower Mach numbers of 0.7 and 0.74 and 3 and 0 deg angles of attack, respectively; and one more physically complex case at Mach 0.85 and a 5 deg angle of attack. The cases are analyzed with the EZNSS code, using several computational setups and turbulence models. The simulations are able to predict relatively accurately the flutter response and the response to prescribed motion at the lower Mach number. The higher-Mach-number case, which involves a strong shock, separated flow behind the shock, and some flow unsteadiness, is more challenging. In the static analysis, different turbulence models yield different upper-surface shock positions, and none of the models are able to capture accurately the pressure recovery behind the shock. However, the unsteady aerodynamic response to prescribed pitch motion is simulated with good correlation to the wind-tunnel data. The paper also presents flutter predictions based on unsteady aerodynamic reduced-order modeling, thus validating and assessing the efficiency of the reduced-order modeling and the flutter prediction methodology.</description><subject>Aerodynamics</subject><subject>Aeroelasticity</subject><subject>Angle of attack</subject><subject>Computational fluid dynamics</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Flow separation</subject><subject>Flutter</subject><subject>Mach number</subject><subject>Model reduction</subject><subject>Pressure recovery</subject><subject>Reduced order models</subject><subject>Supercritical wings</subject><subject>Transonic flow</subject><subject>Turbulence</subject><subject>Turbulence models</subject><subject>Vibration</subject><subject>Wind tunnel testing</subject><subject>Wind tunnels</subject><subject>Workshops</subject><issn>0001-1452</issn><issn>1533-385X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtLw0AUhQdRsFYX_oMBQXCReu-8OlmW4pOiQi2KmzBJbmxqzdSZdNF_b2sLLgRXhwvf_eAcxk4RekKjusTePWidGthjHdRSJtLq133WAQBMUGlxyI5inK0v0bfYYaNB4-arSJFXPvB2SnxMhW9KPqDgae5iWxf8KVBZF23tG_7iw0ec-gWfxLp5_3m4ensYj_nQl3TMDio3j3Syyy6bXF89D2-T0ePN3XAwSpxE0ya5ySunoJIGwVKVpjk6RaawaAgLIodl5bQCyPO8BBDGkgVDprRKlo6E7LKzrXcR_NeSYpvN_DKsi8RMqBSNMErofyk0fZmCNRvXxZYqgo8xUJUtQv3pwipDyDaTZpjtJl2z51vW1c792v6C3_aXcq0</recordid><startdate>201801</startdate><enddate>201801</enddate><creator>Raveh, Daniella E</creator><creator>Mor Yossef, Yair</creator><creator>Levy, Yuval</creator><general>American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>L7M</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201801</creationdate><title>Analyses for the Second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop Using the EZNSS Code</title><author>Raveh, Daniella E ; Mor Yossef, Yair ; Levy, Yuval</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a316t-b6bfa40f36108ef99b1a4e6c816e1ceea1dfa5400bbbd00268e806e6d843dae23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Aerodynamics</topic><topic>Aeroelasticity</topic><topic>Angle of attack</topic><topic>Computational fluid dynamics</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Flow separation</topic><topic>Flutter</topic><topic>Mach number</topic><topic>Model reduction</topic><topic>Pressure recovery</topic><topic>Reduced order models</topic><topic>Supercritical wings</topic><topic>Transonic flow</topic><topic>Turbulence</topic><topic>Turbulence models</topic><topic>Vibration</topic><topic>Wind tunnel testing</topic><topic>Wind tunnels</topic><topic>Workshops</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Raveh, Daniella E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mor Yossef, Yair</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levy, Yuval</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>AIAA journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Raveh, Daniella E</au><au>Mor Yossef, Yair</au><au>Levy, Yuval</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Analyses for the Second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop Using the EZNSS Code</atitle><jtitle>AIAA journal</jtitle><date>2018-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>56</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>387</spage><epage>402</epage><pages>387-402</pages><issn>0001-1452</issn><eissn>1533-385X</eissn><abstract>The paper presents analyses that were performed with the EZNSS flow solver for the second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop. The reference test cases for the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop are based on two wind-tunnel experiments of the Benchmark Supercritical Wing, including a flutter test and forced excitation tests. Three cases are addressed at different transonic flow conditions: two cases at lower Mach numbers of 0.7 and 0.74 and 3 and 0 deg angles of attack, respectively; and one more physically complex case at Mach 0.85 and a 5 deg angle of attack. The cases are analyzed with the EZNSS code, using several computational setups and turbulence models. The simulations are able to predict relatively accurately the flutter response and the response to prescribed motion at the lower Mach number. The higher-Mach-number case, which involves a strong shock, separated flow behind the shock, and some flow unsteadiness, is more challenging. In the static analysis, different turbulence models yield different upper-surface shock positions, and none of the models are able to capture accurately the pressure recovery behind the shock. However, the unsteady aerodynamic response to prescribed pitch motion is simulated with good correlation to the wind-tunnel data. The paper also presents flutter predictions based on unsteady aerodynamic reduced-order modeling, thus validating and assessing the efficiency of the reduced-order modeling and the flutter prediction methodology.</abstract><cop>Virginia</cop><pub>American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics</pub><doi>10.2514/1.J055960</doi><tpages>16</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0001-1452 |
ispartof | AIAA journal, 2018-01, Vol.56 (1), p.387-402 |
issn | 0001-1452 1533-385X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2167390862 |
source | Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Aerodynamics Aeroelasticity Angle of attack Computational fluid dynamics Computer simulation Flow separation Flutter Mach number Model reduction Pressure recovery Reduced order models Supercritical wings Transonic flow Turbulence Turbulence models Vibration Wind tunnel testing Wind tunnels Workshops |
title | Analyses for the Second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop Using the EZNSS Code |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-16T18%3A29%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Analyses%20for%20the%20Second%20Aeroelastic%20Prediction%20Workshop%20Using%20the%20EZNSS%20Code&rft.jtitle=AIAA%20journal&rft.au=Raveh,%20Daniella%20E&rft.date=2018-01&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=387&rft.epage=402&rft.pages=387-402&rft.issn=0001-1452&rft.eissn=1533-385X&rft_id=info:doi/10.2514/1.J055960&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2167390862%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2167390862&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |