0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

4 visualizzazioni11 pagineConference paper on flutter Analysis of Agard Wing using SU2 software

Mar 03, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

Conference paper on flutter Analysis of Agard Wing using SU2 software

© All Rights Reserved

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

4 visualizzazioni11 pagineConference paper on flutter Analysis of Agard Wing using SU2 software

© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

6 Wing

Vasanth Dhanagopal1, T. Varghese Mathew2 and Sharanappa V. Sajjan3

1,3

Computational and Theoretical Fluid Dynamics Division, CSIR-National Aerospace

Laboratories, Bangalore – 560017, India

2

Student, Dept. of Aerospace Engg., MVJ College of Engineering, Bangalore – 560067, India

ABSTRACT

The flutter characteristics of the AGARD 445.6 standard aeroelastic configuration are studied in

the time domain by using an implicit Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes solver. The unsteady

RANS equations are solved to predict the flow parameters required for the flutter estimation

along with the SA model for the turbulence closure. The CFD solver is coupled with the

governing structural equations of motion. Dual time stepping approach is used to achieve the

complete convergence of the flow in each time step. The response of the wing to the flow

fluctuations are used to determine the critical flutter index at each Mach number. Further the

coupled tool has been used to predict flutter boundary of the wing. The results are obtained in

the form of stable, unstable and neutral oscillations and transonic dip for the wing. The

comparison of the computed results with the available experimental data is good.

NOMENCLATURE

INTRODUCTION

With the requirement for higher speed and maneuverability of aircraft, many high speed

operating aircraft configuration were designed and brought to service. In-order to reduce the

weight and drag in transonic regimes and to operate above the sonic speed, the aircraft wing

section thickness were reduced as it was found out that wave drag produced in the structure

were directly proportional to the square of the thickness resulting in thin airfoil section. Due to

this, the effect of inertial force at this flight regimes were of greater significance and its

interaction with the elastic properties of the airfoil section resulted in emergence of the study

of dynamic aero-elasticity especially flutter estimation. Transonic regime poses a challenge in

predicting the flutter speed due to the flow non-linearity's occurring in this regime and the non-

linear forces and moments being setup with small change in the aerodynamic configuration.

The interaction of the moving shock and the boundary layer further complicates the problem

for applying a linear approach.

Isogai [1] showed the existence of a sharp decrease in the flutter speed of a swept wing in

transonic flight (M ≈ 0.7 − 0.9). This “transonic dip” phenomenon can only be predicted by

including the flow equation with non-linearity in the model.

Frane et al. [2] in his report stated that the in-capabilities of linear code in predicting the

accurate flutter boundary. The report further stated that the use of Euler code predicted

significantly lower flutter code compared to experimental result due to not including the

viscous effect. His work states that in order to accurately predict the flutter index, viscous

effects should be considered such as the boundary layer and the shock-boundary layer

interaction. The computational work carried by Frane using the RANS model showed good

agreement with the experimental results.

Udbhav Sharma [3] His work mainly dealt with altering the flutter index graph by using the

variation provided in the baseline geometry and structural parameters to redesign the airfoil to

fit the required flutter index graph envelope. He too stated that linear models are incapable of

predicting the flutter boundaries as the flow is highly unsteady in the transonic regime.

Jameson [4] described in his report the use of multi-grid in solving fully implicit time stepping

approach for wing and airfoil pitching. Edward et al. [5] used Hytran 2 code to study the

accuracy and stability of various numerical techniques which may be used to transient time

marching equations. His computational work stated out that the nonlinear curve of flutter is the

direct effect of inclusion of angle of attack for NACA64A010 airfoil.

Liu et al. [6] used a multi-block parallel CFD code based on Euler/Navier-stokes equation

strongly coupled with the structural modal equation obtained from the finite element analysis

of the AGARD 445.6 Wing. Even indicial method is also utilized for flutter calculations and the

results obtained are compared to the available experimental results. The methods over

predicted the values of the critical flutter speed compared to the experimental value at

supersonic speeds whereas at subsonic speed the increase and decrease in the amplitudes

above and below the critical flutter speeds were found to be monotonic in nature.

The above works states that Euler and linear model are incapable in capturing the exact flow

phenomenon occurring during Transonic flight regimes and the use of RANS model provides a

accurate tool for predicting the flutter index which is utilized by using the RANS solver provided

in su2 [7]. Francisco Palacios et al. describe the various capabilities of su2. It describes the

various numerical (space and time integration schemes) methods available for solving physical

problem in the domain of CFD in SU2 RANS model.

This paper describes the use of su2 code to predict the flutter boundary of the AGARD 445.6

wing in transonic flight regime using fully coupled RANS model with the structural dynamics

equations of motion.

AEROELASTIC SOLVER

Navier Stokes equations on unstructured moving meshes is coupled with a Computational

Structural Dynamics (CSD) solver for coupled solutions of fluid structure interaction problems to

predict aeroelastic flutter is presented below.

AERODYNAMIC SOLVER

Unsteady Reynolds-Average Navier-stroke equations (Time marching implicit viscous flow) have

been used to determine the flow parameters in the computation domain.

RANS equations:

𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

+ ∇𝐹𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐶𝐶 − ∇. 𝐹𝐹⃗ 𝑣𝑣 − 𝑄𝑄 = 0 .............................. [For t (time) > 0)]

where,

�⃗∩ )

𝜌𝜌(𝑣𝑣⃗ − 𝑢𝑢

𝐶𝐶

𝐹𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 �⃗∩ ) + 𝐼𝐼 ̿ 𝑝𝑝 �

= � 𝜌𝜌 𝑣𝑣⃗ (𝑣𝑣⃗ − 𝑢𝑢 .............................. [Convective Flux]

𝜌𝜌 𝐸𝐸 (𝑣𝑣⃗ − 𝑢𝑢�⃗∩ ) + 𝑝𝑝 𝑣𝑣⃗

.

𝐹𝐹⃗ 𝑣𝑣 = � 𝜏𝜏̿ � ............................... [Viscous Flux]

� 𝑣𝑣⃗ + 𝜇𝜇 ∗ 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑐𝑐𝑝𝑝 ∇𝑇𝑇

𝜏𝜏.

𝑞𝑞𝜌𝜌

𝑄𝑄 = � 𝑞𝑞⃗𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣�⃗ � ............................. [Source Terms]

𝑞𝑞𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌

For a given problem the RANS model is used with Spalart Allmaras (SA) turbulence model for

the turbulence closure.

Following steps are performed by the solver to set the flow for internal calculations for viscous

flow conditions

· The solver uses the free stream temperature and the gas constant to determine the

speed of sound.

· Velocity vectors are determined from the above computed speed of sound and the free

stream Mach number and angle of attack provided by the user.

· Computes the free stream viscosity from the viscosity model specified or it takes the

default values hardcoded in the solver.

· Free stream density is computed using the definition of Reynolds number and the other

parameters computed from above steps.

· The free stream pressure is determined using the perfect gas law.

Spatial integration is performed using the finite volume method while the time integration in

unsteady flow is executed using the implicit and explicit schemes. In this analysis gradients of

the flow variables are calculated using the weighted least square method at all grid nodes

which is then averaged and used to represent the gradient value at the cell faces. An Euler

implicit scheme is implemented for time integration. Bi-conjugate Gradient stabilized method is

used as a linear solver to solve the equation of time integration.

𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

[𝑀𝑀] d2u/dt2 + [𝐶𝐶] + [𝐾𝐾]u = {𝐹𝐹}

𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

Where M, C and K are the mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the structure respectively, u

is the displacement vector and F is the force exerted on the surface node points of the body.

The above structural dynamic equation has been solved by using Newmark’s implicit time

marching scheme [8] to determine the displacement at each nodal point on the wing at each

time step in order to determine its response to external excitation.

(∆t)2

ui+1 = ui + (∆t)u̇ + �[1 − 2β]ai + 2βai+1 �

2

u̇ i + ∆t[(1 − γ)ai + γai+1 ]

ai = M −1 �−∇V(ui )�

The Newmark’s scheme averages the acceleration; the stability of the system is mainly

governed by the choice of the values for β and γ respectively. For stability of the system the

beta values are kept more than 0.5 whereas the γ ≤ 0.5.

· For time step n, the flow parameters in the computational domain are solved using the

implicit RANS solver module to obtain the value of the forces in all the 3 directions.

· The corresponding values of the forces contributes to the load vectors in the standard

governing equation on the R.H.S

· The structural modal equation is solved to obtain the values of displacements.

· The values of displacements are used by the grid movement code using spring analogy

to move the grid to a new position, above procedure is repeated again for non-

dimensional time n+1.

· As the solver exit at Time = total time interval provided by the user the response of the

system can be observed in the post processing tool for neutral oscillation which

indicates the flutter speed at the corresponding Mach number.

The standard aeroelastic configuration AGARD 445.6 wing was tested in the 16–foot Transonic

Dynamics Tunnel (TDT) at the NASA Langley Research Center for its dynamic response has been

used in the present work. The wing has a quarter-chord sweep angle of 45°, a panel aspect ratio

of 1.65, a taper ratio of 0.66, and a NACA 65A004 airfoil section. The root chord of this wing

model was 1.833 feet and the semi-span was 2.5 feet. Flutter data for this model tested in air

are reported by Yates et al. (1963) over a range of Mach number from 0.338 to 1.141. The plan

form of the wing and the surface grid is shown in figure 1.

A three-dimensional body conforming C-H type of grid is generated around the AGARD wing by

using commercial software package GridgenV15.5 in such a way that the grids are clustered

properly near the leading and trailing edges and the tip, where the flow is expected to undergo

rapid changes. The grid is nearly orthogonal at the surface, with the first grid line lying

approximately at 0.001% of the root chord, normal to the wing surface and 267, 65 and 70

points are chosen in the chordwise, normal and spanwise directions respectively. The outer grid

boundary is located at 30 chords away from the wing surface. The surface grid of size 187 × 56

on the AGARD wing is shown in figure 1, while the 3D volume grid is plotted in figure 2 to

illustrate the grid topology. An unstructured grid was used for the interior of the wing for the

structural analysis with 21413 elements. The spacing of 0.0001 is provided towards the surface

perpendicular direction and a spacing of 0.001 is provided near the trailing edge from the

downstream direction.

Figure 2: 3D volume grid around the Wing Figure 3: CFD boundary conditions

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Three types of boundary conditions have been applied for computing surface pressure over the

AGARD 445.6 wing. The wing surface was provided with the wall boundary condition (no slip)

with zero heat flux for applying the numerical JST scheme. The other outer most far-field

domain is provided with far field boundary condition where free stream values of Mach

number, temperature, angle of attack are provided. Symmetry boundary conditions are applied

near the root section of the wing as shown in figure 3.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Before beginning the flutter analysis of the wing, steady viscous flow computations have been

performed over the wing at different transonic Mach numbers using implicit Reynolds-averaged

Navier – Stokes solver developed by Stanford University SU2 code and results are compared

with the earlier available computational results of CFL3D solver as reported in Zona

Technology’s application manual (2003). The computations are carried out for Re = 2 million at

zero angle of attack and Mach numbers 0.5, 0.678, 0.90, 0.95, 0.98 and 1.072. The surface

pressure distribution at 6 different spanwise sections (0.083,0.328,0.53,0.703,0.834,0.96) of the

wing [9] is shown in Figure 4, for Mach numbers 0.678 (left) and 0.95 (right) respectively along

with the Navier-Stokes results as reported in the above manual. The comparison of the surface

pressure coefficient at all the sections is reasonably good. The above exercise is used to validate

the SU2 code for the present problem. It also provides an appropriate initial condition for

subsequent application to transonic flutter analysis of the wing.

Figure 4: Surface pressure distribution at different spanwise stations of the wing at Mach 0.678

(left) and 0.95 (right) and Re = 2.0 million at zero angle of attack (Symbol = CFL3D,

Red line = present computations)

Dynamic flutter analysis of the AGARD 445.6 Wing

The time domain flutter analysis of the deformable AGARD 445.6 wing has been carried out by

using an implicit coupled Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) solver with the Computational

Structural Dynamics (CSD) solver for the range of Mach numbers from 0.499 to 1.141. The

flutter simulation was run at various speeds keeping the Mach number constant by varying the

dynamic pressure. The results are obtained in terms of the displacement with respect to time

from the structural solver for various mach numbers. The time history displacement response

plots for converging, neutral and diverging oscillations are shown in figure 5, for Mach number

0.499.

Figure 5: Time history of damped, neutral and diverging displacement response plots at

Mach number 0.499

Figure 6: Time history of neutral displacement response plots for showing critical flutter point

at different Mach numbers

For a given Mach number at low flutter speed index (Vf), the disturbances set up due to the

interaction between the aerodynamic, elastic and inertial forces are comparatively small and

hence they dampen out with time depending upon the value of damping provided by the flow

leading to the conclusion that the elastic forces set up in the body are comparatively greater

than the aerodynamic forces. As the value of the critical flutter index (Vf) reaches a threshold

value referred as critical flutter index, the system exhibits a self sustaining neutral oscillations

from which it can be concluded that at the critical flutter index, aerodynamic, elastic and

inertial forces are in exact equilibrium with each other thus providing a neutral oscillation

response in the displacement plots shown in figure 5. As the value of flutter index is further

increased above the critical flutter index value, a diverging time response curve is obtained due

the aerodynamic forces and inertial forces being dominating over the elastic forces setup in the

wing. Thus further increase in flutter index the aerodynamic and the inertial forces can cause

the structure to fail. The figure 6 shows the time history response for displacement showing the

critical flutter point for the different Mach number values. It is also observed from this picture

that as the Mach number increases the amplitude of the oscillation increases.

0.5 Experimental

Su2_RANS

0.45

Flutter Index (Vf)

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

Mach number (M)

Figure 7: Comparison of transonic dip curve obtained by present computations with the

experimental data

The transonic dip curve obtained by present simulations using the su2 solver is shown in figure 7

along with the experimental values. The transonic dip is a drop in the flutter speed in the

transonic flow region and is believed to be due to the massive flow separation. The comparison

of CFD results with the experiments is in good agreement at all the Mach numbers below 0.95.

For the present computations the bottom of the dip is close to M=0.95 and the experimental

value is M= 0.954. We can observe that there is a small difference in the prediction of Mach

number at transonic dip. But as we see further increase in Mach number there is a difference in

the flutter index values. This could be attributed to that the grid size used in the present

computations near the Mach number 1.0, may not be enough. However we feel the present

method does give a reasonable prediction for the transonic dip.

CONCLUSIONS

The implicit Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes solver (su2) coupled with the structural dynamics

code has been used to predict the transonic flutter boundary of the AGARD 445.6 wing. The

flutter point has been computed for several Mach numbers by varying the dynamic pressure.

The results are obtained in the form of stable, unstable, neutral oscillations and transonic dip of

the wing. The coupled solver predicts the transonic dip at Mach number 0.95 with the critical

flutter index at 0.3026. The flow is accompanied by the presence of moving shock at the top

and bottom surface which interacts with the boundary layer and greatly alters the pressure

distribution on wing surface, causing changes in the local values of pressure coefficient

resulting in change of lift and moment coefficients with time. The transonic dip data obtained

from su2 solver seems to be in good agreement with the experimental data.

REFERENCES

[1] Isogai, K., “On the Transonic-Dip Mechanism of Flutter of a Sweptback Wing,” AIAA Journal,

Vol. 17, No. 7, pp. 793-795, July 1979.

[2] Frane Majić, Ralph Voss2, Zdravko Virag, “boundary layer method for unsteady transonic

flow", Journal of Mechanical Engineering 58(2012)7-8, 470-481, 2012.

[3] Udbhav Sharma, "Effects of Airfoil Geometry and Mechanical Characteristics on the Onset of

Flutter", School of Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology December 10, 2004.

[4] Jameson, A., “Time Dependent Calculations Using Multigrid, with Applications to Unsteady

Flows Past Airfoils and Wings,” AIAA Paper 91-1596, June 1991.

[5] Edwards, J. W., et al., “Time-Marching Transonic Flutter Solutions Including Angle of Attack

Effects,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 20, No. 11, November 1983, pp. 899-906.

[6] F. Liu, J. Cai, Y. Zhu, H. M. Tsai, and A. S. F. Wong, "Calculation of Wing Flutter by a

Coupled Fluid-Structure Method", Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 334-342,

2001.

[7] Stanford University Unstructured (Su2): “Open-Source Analysis And Design Technology For

Turbulent Flows”, AIAA SciTech, AIAA-0243-2014.

[8] M. West, C. Kane, J.E. Marsden, and M. Ortiz “Variational integrators, the Newmark scheme

and dissipative systems” International Conference on Differential Equations, Berlin, 1999.

[9] Zona Technology, “Applications Manual, ZAERO version 6.5”, Ninth Edition, 2003.

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.