No abstract

No abstract

As part of the 1 st Geometry and Mesh Generation Workshop, unstructured tetrahedral and unstructured hybrid Computational Fluid Dynamics meshes were generated according to the meshing guidelines supplied by the 3 rd High Lift Prediction Workshop. During this process, it was noted that application of some meshing guidelines became a bottleneck in the process and negatively impacted the quality of the meshes. A study is performed to compare the FUN3D simulation from the baseline medium-resolution workshop unstructured mesh with those on meshes resulting from guideline variations to the baseline. Recommendations on the elimination or reduction of meshing guidelines for high lift aerodynamic cases like the High Lift Common Research Model are based on the resulting data. Nomenclature C L lift coefficient M Mach number R e Reynolds number Symbols α angle of attack O asymptotic algorithm complexity, i.e., big O notation

The Fourth AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) High Lift Prediction Workshop and the Third Geometry and Mesh Generation Workshop were held collaboratively with the common goal of assessing the numerical prediction capability of current-generation computational fluid dynamics technology for swept medium-/high-aspect-ratio wings in high-lift configurations. A key aspect of this joint endeavor was the use of technology focus groups: an innovative new approach for workshops involving close collaboration between participants. These groups, which included both mesh-generation and flow-solver experts, worked to accelerate advancements for their particular methodologies by addressing key questions of importance before the workshop. The high-lift version of the NASA Common Research Model (CRM-HL) configuration was the focus of this workshop. Measured experimental wind-tunnel data were available for comparison. The workshop also included a two-dimensional turbulence model verification exercise based on the CRM-HL wing shape. Altogether, 44 participants submitted a total of 184 datasets of CFD results. This paper provides a high-level summary of the results and conclusions from the workshop. Like at past workshops, fixed-grid Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes methods continued to be inaccurate and inconsistent for predicting high-lift flow physics near maximum lift conditions. However, mesh adaptation definitively brought more consistency. Scale-resolving methods appeared most promising for predicting high-lift flow physics near maximum lift.

No abstract