Application of Exactly Linearized Error Transport Equations to Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop

Derlaga, Joseph M.; Park, Michael A.; Rallabhandi, Sriram K.

doi:10.2514/1.c034841

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results obtained by the corrector and presented in the work of Loseille et al are interesting because they are, in particular, pointing out a large error in the aft‐part of the pressure signature (65< X <80) on the workshop tailored meshes while this error does not appear with adapted meshes. Based on these results, a detailed analysis has been made by NASA after the workshop to understand why the signature was so different between tailored and adapted meshes. They figured out that the engine inlet was emitting a shock wave that was reflected by the wing tip upward and then reflected by the horizontal tail downward.…”

Section: Numerical Results: Applied Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then, this reflected shock wave was interacting with the engine jet creating this complex pattern in the aft‐part pressure signature. This detailed analysis is given in section V in the work of Derlaga et al The analysis of the workshop tailored meshes shown that they were not enough resolved in that region and, thus, this complex physical behavior was not captured in the numerical solution. On the other hand, adaptive methods were able to put enough refinement in that region to accurately capture this reflected shock wave and its interaction with the engine jet.…”

Section: Numerical Results: Applied Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nonlinear corrector for Reynolds‐averaged Navier‐Stokes equations

Frazza

Loseille

Dervieux

et al. 2019

Numerical Methods in Fluids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The scope of this paper is to present a nonlinear error estimation and correction for Navier‐Stokes and Reynolds‐averaged Navier‐Stokes equations. This nonlinear corrector enables better solution or functional output predictions at fixed mesh complexity and can be considered in a mesh adaptation process. After solving the problem at hand, a corrected solution is obtained by solving again the problem with an added source term. This source term is deduced from the evaluation of the residual of the numerical solution interpolated on the h/2 mesh. To avoid the generation of the h/2 mesh (which is prohibitive for realistic applications), the residual at each vertex is computed by local refinement only in the neighborhood of the considered vertex. One of the main feature of this approach is that it automatically takes into account all the properties of the considered numerical method. The numerical examples point out that it successfully improves solution predictions and yields a sharp estimate of the numerical error. Moreover, we demonstrate the superiority of the nonlinear corrector with respect to linear corrector that can be found in the literature.

show abstract

Section: Numerical Results: Applied Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Numerical Results: Applied Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonlinear corrector for Reynolds‐averaged Navier‐Stokes equations

Frazza

Loseille

Dervieux

et al. 2019

Numerical Methods in Fluids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are complex shock and expansion interactions present in the C25F nearfield. Derlaga, Park, and Rallabhandi [67] provide details on how the inlet shock is reflected from the upper wing surface and lower horizontal tail surface to impact the nearfield and propagated ground signatures. This observation appears to be supported by the relatively large discretization error estimates reported in this region by Park and Nemec [26].…”

Section: A C25f Configurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10. The fixed meshes provided by the SBPW-2 committee lacked adequate resolution to capture this interaction on coarser members of a uniformly-refined mesh family [26,67].…”

Section: A C25f Configurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geometry Modeling for Unstructured Mesh Adaptation

Park

Kleb

Jones

et al. 2019

AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The quantification and control of discretization error is critical to obtaining reliable simulation results. Adaptive mesh techniques have the potential to automate discretization error control, but have made limited impact on production analysis workflow. Recent progress has matured a number of independent implementations of flow solvers, error estimation methods, and anisotropic mesh adaptation mechanics. However, the poor integration of initial mesh generation and adaptive mesh mechanics to typical sources of geometry has hindered adoption of adaptive mesh techniques, where these geometries are often created in Mechanical Computer-Aided Design (MCAD) systems. The difficulty of this coupling is compounded by two factors: the inherent complexity of the model (e.g., large range of scales, bodies in proximity, details not required for analysis) and unintended geometry construction artifacts (e.g., translation, uneven parameterization, degeneracy, self-intersection, sliver faces, gaps, large tolerances between topological elements, local high curvature to enforce continuity). Manual preparation of geometry is commonly employed to enable fixed-grid and adaptive-grid workflows by reducing the severity and negative impacts of these construction artifacts, but manual process interaction inhibits workflow automation. Techniques to permit the use of complex geometry models and reduce the impact of geometry construction artifacts on unstructured grid workflows are presented. Two complex MCAD models from the AIAA Sonic Boom and High Lift Prediction Workshop are shown to demonstrate the utility of the current approach.

show abstract

“…Summaries and statistical analysis of the nearfield CFD [2] and atmospheric propagation [3] submission are provided. Detailed methods and submission descriptions are included for participants that used Cart3D [4], DLR-TAU [5], USM3D [6], Wolf [7], and Linearized Error Transport Equations [8].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of Exactly Linearized Error Transport Equations to Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop

Cited by 10 publications

References 36 publications

Nonlinear corrector for Reynolds‐averaged Navier‐Stokes equations

Nonlinear corrector for Reynolds‐averaged Navier‐Stokes equations

Geometry Modeling for Unstructured Mesh Adaptation

Introduction to the Special Section on Second AIAA Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About