Integration of Engine, Plume, and CFD Analyses in Conceptual Design of Low-Boom Supersonic Aircraft

Li, Wu; Campbell, Richard L.; Geiselhart, Karl; Shields, Elwood; Nayani, Sudheer N.; Shenoy, Rajiv

doi:10.2514/6.2009-1171

“…The details for the automated CFD analysis process can be found in reference [2]. The manual script execution portion of the automated CFD analysis process that is described in reference [2] also has been integrated in ModelCenter; an automated USM3D [7,8] can be run within ModelCenter for either aero analysis or boom analysis (by using SSGRID [4], which is a grid stretching code for high grid resolution up to ten body lengths below the configuration). The process is completely automated and controlled by only a few user input parameters.…”

Section: Mixed-fidelity Low-boom Fuselage Shaping Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mixed-fidelity approach is based on two recent advances in supersonic concept design and analysis capabilities: the inverse design optimization of low-boom supersonic concepts with smoothest fuselage shape modifications [1] and the integration of automated CFD analysis in conceptual design of supersonic aircraft [2]. The first capability allows one to reshape the fuselage smoothly to obtain a configuration with an A e distribution that matches a low-boom target.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixed-Fidelity Approach for Design of Low-Boom Supersonic Aircraft

Li

¹

,

Shields

²

,

Geiselhart

³

2011

Journal of Aircraft

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper documents a mixed-fidelity approach for the design of low-boom supersonic aircraft as a viable approach for designing a practical low-boom supersonic configuration. A low-boom configuration that is based on low-fidelity analysis is used as the baseline. Tail lift is included to help tailor the aft portion of the ground signature. A comparison of low-and high-fidelity analysis results demonstrates the necessity of using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis in a low-boom supersonic configuration design process. The fuselage shape is modified iteratively to obtain a configuration with a CFD equivalent-area distribution that matches a predetermined low-boom target distribution. The mixed-fidelity approach can easily refine the low-fidelity low-boom baseline into a low-boom configuration with the use of CFD equivalent-area analysis. The ground signature of the final configuration is calculated by using a state-of-the-art CFD-based boom analysis method that generates accurate midfield pressure distributions for propagation to the ground with ray tracing. The ground signature that is propagated from a midfield pressure distribution has a shaped ramp front, which is similar to the ground signature that is propagated from the CFD equivalent-area distribution. This result confirms the validity of the low-boom supersonic configuration design by matching a low-boom equivalent-area target, which is easier to accomplish than matching a low-boom midfield pressure target. * NomenclatureA e = equivalent area dp/p = (the calculated pressure -the ambient pressure)/(the ambient pressure)

show abstract

“…13. The above figures are from Li et al, 52 where a more detailed description of SSGRID can be found.…”

Section: Iiif2 Stretching and Shearing Of The Field Gridmentioning

confidence: 99%

Summary of the 2008 NASA Fundamental Aeronautics Program Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop

Park

¹

,

Aftosmis²,

Campbell³

et al. 2013

51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Supersonics Project of the NASA Fundamental Aeronautics Program organized an internal sonic boom workshop to evaluate near-and mid-field sonic boom prediction capability at the Fundamental Aeronautics Annual Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia on October 8, 2008. Workshop participants computed sonic boom signatures for three non-lifting bodies and two lifting configurations. A cone-cylinder, parabolic, and quartic bodies of revolution comprised the non-lifting cases. The lifting configurations were a simple 69-degree delta wing body and a complete low-boom transport configuration designed during the High Speed Research Project in the 1990s with wing, body, tail, nacelle, and boundary layer diverter components. The AIRPLANE, Cart3D, FUN3D, and USM3D flow solvers were employed with the ANET signature propagation tool, output-based adaptation, and a priori adaptation based on freestream Mach number and angle of attack. Results were presented orally at the workshop. This article documents the workshop, results, and provides context on previously available and recently developed methods.

show abstract

“…al. [2,5], which has been implemented in the ModelCenter process. The ModelCenter CFD boom analysis can be set up by specifying a few parameters (such as cruise Mach number, flight altitude, cruise lift coefficient, location of the midfield pressure distribution, etc.).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Mixed-Fidelity Approach for Design of Low-Boom Supersonic Aircraft

Li

¹

,

Shields

²

,

Geiselhart

³

2010

48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper documents a mixed-fidelity approach for the design of low-boom supersonic aircraft as a viable approach for designing a practical low-boom supersonic configuration. A low-boom configuration that is based on low-fidelity analysis is used as the baseline. Tail lift is included to help tailor the aft portion of the ground signature. A comparison of low-and high-fidelity analysis results demonstrates the necessity of using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis in a low-boom supersonic configuration design process. The fuselage shape is modified iteratively to obtain a configuration with a CFD equivalent-area distribution that matches a predetermined low-boom target distribution. The mixed-fidelity approach can easily refine the low-fidelity low-boom baseline into a low-boom configuration with the use of CFD equivalent-area analysis. The ground signature of the final configuration is calculated by using a state-of-the-art CFD-based boom analysis method that generates accurate midfield pressure distributions for propagation to the ground with ray tracing. The ground signature that is propagated from a midfield pressure distribution has a shaped ramp front, which is similar to the ground signature that is propagated from the CFD equivalent-area distribution. This result confirms the validity of the low-boom supersonic configuration design by matching a low-boom equivalent-area target, which is easier to accomplish than matching a low-boom midfield pressure target. * NomenclatureA e = equivalent area dp/p = (the calculated pressure -the ambient pressure)/(the ambient pressure)

show abstract

Integration of Engine, Plume, and CFD Analyses in Conceptual Design of Low-Boom Supersonic Aircraft

Cited by 15 publications

References 16 publications

Mixed-Fidelity Approach for Design of Low-Boom Supersonic Aircraft

Mixed-Fidelity Approach for Design of Low-Boom Supersonic Aircraft

Summary of the 2008 NASA Fundamental Aeronautics Program Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop

A Mixed-Fidelity Approach for Design of Low-Boom Supersonic Aircraft

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About