Comparison of fixed and adaptive unstructured grid results for drag prediction workshop 6

Todd Michal; Deric Babcock; Dmitry Kamenetskiy; Joshua Krakos; Mortaza Mani; Ryan Glasby; Taylor Erwin; Douglas L. Stefanski

doi:10.2514/1.C034491

Comparison of fixed and adaptive unstructured grid results for drag prediction workshop 6

Todd Michal, Deric Babcock, Dmitry Kamenetskiy, Joshua Krakos, Mortaza Mani, Ryan Glasby, Taylor Erwin, Douglas L. Stefanski

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

13 Scopus citations

Abstract

Fixed and adapted grid solutions on the NASA Common Research Model (CRM) in wing-body (WB) and wing-body-nacelle-pylon (WBNP) configurations are compared for three Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes flow solvers. The flow solvers were run on a sequence of fixed unstructured grids built for the 6th AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop (DPW-6) and compared with solutions generated on solution adaptive grids. The fixed and adaptive mesh generation processes and resulting grids and solutions are presented and discussed. Both approaches achieve asymptotic grid convergence of less than two counts of drag. The fixed grid approach is based on gridding guidelines developed over many years of CFD application experience on similar applications and required an expert user several weeks of effort to develop a grid family conforming to the guidelines. In contrast, the adaptive grid approach is automatic, relying on an estimate of solution discretization error to guide grid construction. The adaptive grids were generated with less than 2 days of user interaction, requiring very few user decisions and almost no expert knowledge.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1420-1432
Number of pages	13
Journal	Journal of Aircraft
Volume	55
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C034491
State	Published - 2018
Externally published	Yes

Funding

The material presented in this paper is a product of internal research and development programs at The Boeing Company and the Kestrel team of the Air Vehicles element of the CREATE™ program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense HPC Modernization Program Office.

Funders	Funder number
U.S. Department of Defense
Construction Industry Research Institute of Malaysia

Access to Document

10.2514/1.C034491

Cite this

@article{ca76d53fee6d4abd8fd52f2f038f7858,

title = "Comparison of fixed and adaptive unstructured grid results for drag prediction workshop 6",

abstract = "Fixed and adapted grid solutions on the NASA Common Research Model (CRM) in wing-body (WB) and wing-body-nacelle-pylon (WBNP) configurations are compared for three Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes flow solvers. The flow solvers were run on a sequence of fixed unstructured grids built for the 6th AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop (DPW-6) and compared with solutions generated on solution adaptive grids. The fixed and adaptive mesh generation processes and resulting grids and solutions are presented and discussed. Both approaches achieve asymptotic grid convergence of less than two counts of drag. The fixed grid approach is based on gridding guidelines developed over many years of CFD application experience on similar applications and required an expert user several weeks of effort to develop a grid family conforming to the guidelines. In contrast, the adaptive grid approach is automatic, relying on an estimate of solution discretization error to guide grid construction. The adaptive grids were generated with less than 2 days of user interaction, requiring very few user decisions and almost no expert knowledge.",

author = "Todd Michal and Deric Babcock and Dmitry Kamenetskiy and Joshua Krakos and Mortaza Mani and Ryan Glasby and Taylor Erwin and Stefanski, {Douglas L.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: Copyright {\textcopyright} 2018 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.",

year = "2018",

doi = "10.2514/1.C034491",

language = "English",

volume = "55",

pages = "1420--1432",

journal = "Journal of Aircraft",

issn = "0021-8669",

publisher = "American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of fixed and adaptive unstructured grid results for drag prediction workshop 6

AU - Michal, Todd

AU - Babcock, Deric

AU - Kamenetskiy, Dmitry

AU - Krakos, Joshua

AU - Mani, Mortaza

AU - Glasby, Ryan

AU - Erwin, Taylor

AU - Stefanski, Douglas L.

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Fixed and adapted grid solutions on the NASA Common Research Model (CRM) in wing-body (WB) and wing-body-nacelle-pylon (WBNP) configurations are compared for three Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes flow solvers. The flow solvers were run on a sequence of fixed unstructured grids built for the 6th AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop (DPW-6) and compared with solutions generated on solution adaptive grids. The fixed and adaptive mesh generation processes and resulting grids and solutions are presented and discussed. Both approaches achieve asymptotic grid convergence of less than two counts of drag. The fixed grid approach is based on gridding guidelines developed over many years of CFD application experience on similar applications and required an expert user several weeks of effort to develop a grid family conforming to the guidelines. In contrast, the adaptive grid approach is automatic, relying on an estimate of solution discretization error to guide grid construction. The adaptive grids were generated with less than 2 days of user interaction, requiring very few user decisions and almost no expert knowledge.

AB - Fixed and adapted grid solutions on the NASA Common Research Model (CRM) in wing-body (WB) and wing-body-nacelle-pylon (WBNP) configurations are compared for three Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes flow solvers. The flow solvers were run on a sequence of fixed unstructured grids built for the 6th AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop (DPW-6) and compared with solutions generated on solution adaptive grids. The fixed and adaptive mesh generation processes and resulting grids and solutions are presented and discussed. Both approaches achieve asymptotic grid convergence of less than two counts of drag. The fixed grid approach is based on gridding guidelines developed over many years of CFD application experience on similar applications and required an expert user several weeks of effort to develop a grid family conforming to the guidelines. In contrast, the adaptive grid approach is automatic, relying on an estimate of solution discretization error to guide grid construction. The adaptive grids were generated with less than 2 days of user interaction, requiring very few user decisions and almost no expert knowledge.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050859891&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2514/1.C034491

DO - 10.2514/1.C034491

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85050859891

SN - 0021-8669

VL - 55

SP - 1420

EP - 1432

JO - Journal of Aircraft

JF - Journal of Aircraft

IS - 4

ER -

Comparison of fixed and adaptive unstructured grid results for drag prediction workshop 6

Abstract

Funding

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this